OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

My point was that each one was intended to be a complete picture, not to be included in a collection of different pictures and that there is value in examining the different approaches.

Why do you assume that they intended to provide a complete picture? Papias (2nd century Christian) asserted that Mark wrote down the teachings he received from Peter after the apostle's death. So there is no evidence he was trying to give a "complete" picture. Matthew was specifically writing to a Jewish audience, hence not a complete picture, but one that indicated how he fulfilled messianic prophesies. Perhaps Luke comes the closest in claiming a complete picture, but even he tempered his book by saying "so that you may know the certainity of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). John admits that he does not give a complete picture (John 21:25), plus there is a tradition (I forget where it comes from) that John actually wrote his Gospel in response to the first three in order to include key aspects of Jesus absent from the others.

My other point is that most readers of the Bible superimpose their own theology and value system over what they read and synthesize what were originally very different points of view.

I do not deny that many people try to read the Bible into their own worldview rather than allow the Bible to create their worldview; however, as long as the different points of view are not contradictory, then how can it be argued that they would not harmonize into one grand, true narrative?

It's not like Mark set down tor write the "incomplete" gospel and left a footnote: "by the way, you really need to read Matthew, Luke, and John as well."

Of course not, Mark wrote his gospel first, so how could he reference the others. :tongue2:

 

[CookyPuss]

Why do you assume that they intended to provide a complete picture? Papias (2nd century Christian) asserted that Mark wrote down the teachings he received from Peter after the apostle's death. So there is no evidence he was trying to give a "complete" picture. Matthew was specifically writing to a Jewish audience, hence not a complete picture, but one that indicated how he fulfilled messianic prophesies. Perhaps Luke comes the closest in claiming a complete picture, but even he tempered his book by saying "so that you may know the certainity of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). John admits that he does not give a complete picture (John 21:25), plus there is a tradition (I forget where it comes from) that John actually wrote his Gospel in response to the first three in order to include key aspects of Jesus absent from the others.

I would agree with the majority of Biblical scholars that the gospels were originally used as catechisms (basic teachings for new converts). So, I would agree that they were not intended to be the complete and only authority concerning Jesus. As basic teachings, I would think that the were inteded to cover all of the essential aspects and in that respect they would be expected to give a complete view of the significance of who Jesus was. I would agree that none of the writers intended to include an accounting of all of Jesus' words and deeds (as John 21:25 states).

I do not deny that many people try to read the Bible into their own worldview rather than allow the Bible to create their worldview; however, as long as the different points of view are not contradictory, then how can it be argued that they would not harmonize into one grand, true narrative?

I'm not arguing that they cannot be harmonized, I'm just saying that wasn't the original intention. I would agree that they all provide important aspects for determining the truth. My point is that most people already have this hamonious view/grand narrative derived from watching Jesus of Nazareth or some other film or outline of Jesus life from Sunday school.

Of course not, Mark wrote his gospel first, so how could he reference the others. :tongue2:

Cute. I actually thought about that when I was making the example, but I thought it'd be funny to state it that way since Matthew and Luke incorporated nearly all of Mark into their writings.

Just so you guys know, I usually post to present a point of view that is not being voiced rather than to argue that a particular point of view (especially mine) is correct.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i think that it has somehow been lost on you that the Gospels were canonized for a reason. the reason is, that when each is taken in conjunction with the other Gospels, they accurately portray a more complete picture of Christ.

 

[lvbuckeye]

were they even prophecies? i've read some religious scholars that say that what people think of as OT prophecies were actually written as social commentaries for the people of their own times. even if they were prophecies some of them have problems. for instance:

virgin birth: i've heard that "virgin" as it was used in the original Hebrew was actually a word for young woman, and didn't actually have the meaning of a virgin.

i admit i don't read ancient Hebrew or Greek, but the word for damsel doesn't look anything like the word for virgin in this text: link for comparison

every instance of 'virgin' in the Bible

pierced hands and feet: this comes from psalm 22:16, but also is probably a mistranslation if you look at some version of the bible they contain a footnote that says the translation in Hebrew is often "like a lion they are at my hands and feet" not "they pierced my hands and feet"

you are correct that in some translations 'like a lion' appears in the commentary. what does a lion do when it attacks? its teeth and claws pierce its prey's flesh. at any rate, that translation is dependent on the pronunciation and not the spelling. the same phrase 'they pierced' appears exactly the same in Psalms 22:16 and in John 19:37. link

born in bethlehem: i think it's interesting that in mark it's never mentioned that he was born here, but instead implies that he was from nazareth. seems like later christians might have wanted more details on jesus's birth, and that's where the later gospels came in to fill in the gaps.

straw man alert. Jesus WAS from Nazareth. Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem for the census. therefore, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but was from Nazareth.

given gall and vinegar: mark 15:23 "And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it."

matthew 27:34 "they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it."

so matthew is right and mark is wrong?

do this: take a bottle of wine and open it. pour a glass, then recork it. come back in a month and pour yourself another glass. what happened? the wine turned to vinegar when it became thoroughly oxidized. they are the same thing.

the term is the same in both passages:
Matthew
Mark

similar problems might exist for other prohpecies but those are the ones that i remembered.

come back at me with more.

 

[Taosman]

If I may interject something at this point.
It is easily argued that there is no one "Truth" or religion.
And there is no logical support for such.
The numbers say there are many roads.
Carry on!

Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents

(Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.)

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

If I may interject something at this point.
It is easily argued that there is no one "Truth" or religion.
And there is no logical support for such.
The numbers say there are many roads.
Carry on!

Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents

(Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.)

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Just because you believe something doesn't mean its true. Just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it true. For instance if Jesus's claims our true then the other's can't be because he makes an exclusive claim to be the only way to Father.

 

[Taosman]

So, t-buckeyescott, does this mean you believe that your religion is "the one true religion" and all others are false?

 

[lvbuckeye]

why does it matter what he believes?

 

[jwinslow]

So, t-buckeyescott, does this mean you believe that your religion is "the one true religion" and all others are false?

I find "all paths are true" to be intellectually dishonest. Either believe in one of them or disbelieve them all. I don't believe there is a third option.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

I find "all paths are true" to be intellectually dishonest. Either believe in one of them or disbelieve them all. I don't believe there is a third option.

It's called pluralism.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i call it a copout.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I find "all paths are true" to be intellectually dishonest. Either believe in one of them or disbelieve them all. I don't believe there is a third option.

We are in total agreement here. There are only three possibilities in such disagreements: 1) I'm right, you're wrong; 2) you're right, I'm wrong; 3) or we are both wrong. There is no we are both right.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

then what so frightening about saying "I don't know"?

 

[BayBuck]

then what so frightening about saying "I don't know"?

Nothing at all, and of course nobody knows for sure when it comes to religious truths, but that's not the same as saying they're all right. Knowing and believing are two different things.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

Point taken, it's the "I don't know" portion that I was trying to get across.
I don't think I could say that ALL paths are correct. Just, I'm willing to accept more than one idea.
Frankly, some pathes are nuttier than squirrel turds.
(no offense to squirrel turd enthusiasts)