| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
PS: I wonder how many who have opinions of the Bible have actually read AND studied it for themselves; as opposed to adopting others' opinions about the Bible?
I also wonder how many people who have opinions about what the Bible authoritatively says without the need for any interpretation have read and studied the biblical texts in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? I also wonder if they are willing to discuss their scholarship with other scholars in open fora? It does seem like many fundamentalists adopt the opinions and interpretations of others without realizing they are doing so. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
FYI - the original texts (The Autographs) are NOT available. The best Hebrew and Greek texts are scholarly compilations of over 5800 individual manuscripts (both complete and partial) that has stood the test ot time (Hebrew well over 2600 years and Greek for ~2000 years). These Hebrew and Greek texts are readily available for those who wish to use them.
You raise a good point that most do not go to that much trouble (I have); however it is NOT necessary to do so. One need not HAVE to rely on the Hebrew and Greek texts to understand the basic claims of Christianity. Details that lead to denominational differences (e.g. sprinkling vs. immersion baptism) do indeed benefit from in depth study. But the way to salvation is crystal clear in all translations.
One can NEVER escape the fact that the Bible says that eternbal life is granted on the basis of FAITH/BELIEF - period. In fact the Bible even says that you can not "prove" someone into heaven - it requires personal faith. People either believe the claims or reject the claims. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
One need not HAVE to rely on the Hebrew and Greek texts to understand the basic claims of Christianity. Details that lead to denominational differences (e.g. sprinkling vs. immersion baptism) do indeed benefit from in depth study.
What if the full weight of historical, source, text, redaction, and literary scholarship were applied to less trivial matters than sprinkling vs immersion baptism? What if biblical scholars discussed more substantive issues such as the Christian-Jewish polemic that affected some New Testament authors? Guess what, serious scholars have been doing that for the last hundred years or so.
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
FYI - the original texts (The Autographs) are NOT available.
Thanks, but didn't I already make that point above with respect to the attribution of Matthew's gospel? On the one hand you seem to appeal to the eye-witness authors of the gospels being the basis of their authority, but on the other hand, you claim it all comes down to faith. Indeed many historical eye-witnesses of Jesus did not accept him at least according to the gospel authors. So I guess even the eye-witnesses need to interpret the meaning of what they saw? I think Jesus wanted his listeners to think about what he was saying. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I think Jesus wanted his listeners to think about what he was saying.
Now you HAVE confused me :confused: How do we know what Jesus said apart from the written accounts? One can (and people DO) debate the authenticity of the written accounts. Assuming one accepts the written accounts as authentic/authoritative (if one does not then one does not know what Jesus said!!!!!), then one must act upon what Jesus said.
For those who reject the words/claims of Jesus; dismiss their authenticity, it doesn't matter what His claims were. This is in fact the dominant view today.
PS: The Gospel of Thomas (rejected as inspired by Protestants while accepted by Catholics) does NOT claim a different way to salvation. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
Now you HAVE confused me :confused: How do we know what Jesus said apart from the written accounts? One can (and people DO) debate the authenticity of the written accounts. Assuming one accepts the written accounts as authentic/authoritative (if one does not then one does not know what Jesus said!!!!!), then one must act upon what Jesus said.
For those who reject the words/claims of Jesus; dismiss their authenticity, it doesn't matter what His claims were. This is in fact the dominant view today.
PS: The Gospel of Thomas (rejected as inspired by Protestants while accepted by Catholics) does NOT claim a different way to salvation.
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you. Other than direct personal communication or visions like Saul of Tarsus describes or the visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich that Gibson supposedly relies upon, I agree that we are dependent upon the written texts. However, I don't believe we should approach these texts in a black and white fundamentalist manner.
There you go again, misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Where did you get the idea that the Catholic church accepts the Gospel of Thomas as inspired or canonical??? |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
There you go again, misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Where did you get the idea that the Catholic church accepts the Gospel of Thomas as inspired or canonical???
My bad; I am NOT an expert on the Apocrypha, whereas Catholocism accepts most of the OT Apocrypha, you are correct that they do not accept NT Apocrypha. I incorrectly lumped them together. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
My bad; I am NOT an expert on the Apocrypha, whereas Catholocism accepts most of the OT Apocrypha, you are correct that they do not accept NT Apocrypha. I incorrectly lumped them together.
No biggie. Not an inflammatory issue like the supposed deification of Mary.
Now, do you rely upon the direct word of Jesus as to the identification of OT apocrypha and NT apocrypha, or is this finally a matter of someone's interpretation? |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Now, do you rely upon the direct word of Jesus as to the identification of OT apocrypha and NT apocrypha, or is this finally a matter of someone's interpretation?
I have already stated that everyone MUST rely on scholarly research for access to the writings themselves (the autographs no longer exist); 2000 years of church history and research is a far better determiner of canonicity than my personal opinion.
The bottom always has been and always will be; there is a Bible that exists and that competes (if you will) for man's quest for truth. There are many claims in the world today (the Bible is but one of many); each must decide for themselves IF they will believe it or not. Obviously if one chooses to question the Bible itself and doubt its veracity (which many do) then they defacto reject its claims as well.
I am not denying the existence of other traditions, nor am I denying that people choose to reject the Bible's claims for various and assundry reasons - what I do not understand is why people want to deny what the Bible says. This is a very different from the issue of is the Bible the only source of truth. People are free to reject the Bible's claim to exclusivity - but why deny what the words say. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
The bottom always has been and always will be; there is a Bible that exists and that competes (if you will) for man's quest for truth. There are many claims in the world today (the Bible is but one of many); each must decide for themselves IF they will believe it or not. Obviously if one chooses to question the Bible itself and doubt its veracity (which many do) then they defacto reject its claims as well.
I am not denying the existence of other traditions, nor am I denying that people choose to reject the Bible's claims for various and assundry reasons - what I do not understand is why people want to deny what the Bible says. This is a very different from the issue of is the Bible the only source of truth. People are free to reject the Bible's claim to exclusivity - but why deny what the words say.
The Bible gets its name from the a neuter plural Greek word, biblia, bibliorum meaning "books" not a singular book. When scholars and robes were first debating what was to be in or out of the canon, it was so clearly recognized that there were a lot of differing points of view expressed in these books. Eventually the Greek neuter plural became a Latin feminine singular, biblia, bibliae, as the men in dresses began to make more and more authoritative pronouncements about the singular meaning of The Bible.*
Many would say that the bible is not one singular claim among many but is itself a compilation of many different claims, books, points of view, genres, etc. How else could Jews and Christians claim so many of the same books to be part of their respective bibles?
*I won't say it, laborlitigator, because I am trying hard not to offend here. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I would say that the bible is not one singular claim among many but is itself a compilation of many different claims, books, points of view, genres, etc. How else could Jews and Christians claim so many of the same books to be part of their respective bibles?
True the Bible is a "collective singular" - many individual books comprising a singular whole volume. Because Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of the OT Law (Jesus is clearly claimed to be the fulfilment of the Law) the Hebrew OT Scriptures properly are included in Christian Canon. It is written that Jesus did NOT come to nullify the Law but to fulfil it.
The single most important fact(s) "proving" the authenticity of the NT is the precise fulfilment of OT prophecy. Two undeniable comments: OT writings did indeed predate the NT as demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls for one example. The NT is filled with clear claims for fulfilling OT prophecy. One need only to examine the evidence to see that this is true. One is still left with the personal choice to believe these claims or not.
Christianity is the only religion on the planet that says that man can do nothing to save himself or to merit a place in heaven. Man is helpless but not hopeless. Because man can nothing then someone else (more powerful than man) must do something. God did, He sent His Son as an atonement for us (there we go with that claim stuff). All we have do do (indeed all we can do) is accepth that claim on faith.
But that is the rub - man does NOT want to believe that we are helpless and completely dependent upon someone else. It is the ultimate sin (prideful arrogance) that denies the simple solution that God offers. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
True the Bible is a "collective singular" - many individual books comprising a singular whole volume. Because Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of the OT Law (Jesus is clearly claimed to be the fulfilment of the Law) the Hebrew OT Scriptures properly are included in Christian Canon. It is written that Jesus did NOT come to nullify the Law but to fulfil it.
The single most important fact(s) "proving" the authenticity of the NT is the precise fulfilment of OT prophecy. Two undeniable comments: OT writings did indeed predate the NT as demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls for one example. The NT is filled with clear claims for fulfilling OT prophecy. One need only to examine the evidence to see that this is true. One is still left with the personal choice to believe these claims or not.
Christianity is the only religion on the planet that says that man can do nothing to save himself or to merit a place in heaven. Man is helpless but not hopeless. Because man can nothing then someone else (more powerful than man) must do something. God did, He sent His Son as an atonement for us (there we go with that claim stuff). All we have do do (indeed all we can do) is accepth that claim on faith.
But that is the rub - man does NOT want to believe that we are helpless and completely dependent upon someone else. It is the ultimate sin (prideful arrogance) that denies the simple solution that God offers.
And you don't agree that your profession of faith here involves an awful lot of human interpretation of biblical books? It's just divine truth pure and simple and anyone who doesn't accept it is just wrong and damned? I kinda wonder if that might sound a little arrogant? |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
We are on the same page regarding the origin of the Bible. That the finished product (or finished according to the overwhelming majority of scholars) exists and claims divine inspiration is beyond dispute. Anyone can buy the book in a store, read it, and make a choice regarding its claims - this is indisputable.
The only debate is on its self proclamation of divine inspiration and exclusivity about entrance into heaven. Is the Bible what it claims to be? IF it is (truly what it claims to be), THEN there is no question as to Jesus being the Way to the heaven. On the other hand IF the Bible is not what it claims to be, THEN it is not a reliable source for our eternal destiny and we are left to look elsewhere. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
And you don't agree that your profession of faith here involves an awful lot of human interpretation of biblical books? It's just divine truth pure and simple and anyone who doesn't accept it is just wrong and damned? I kinda wonder if that might sound a little arrogant?
A profession of faith is just that - FAITH. But it is NOT a blind faith. There is evidence to substantiate that what the Bible says is true. It is beyond the scope of an MDX internet forum to examine all of the evidence. But it is there; apologetic studies (examining the evidence) are readily available if one does not know how to begin an analysis of the evidence.
But let me remind all readers of an undeniable historical fact: The Tomb was Empty resurrection Sunday. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (I Cor 15) emphatically states that the Truth of Christianity is dependent upon the Resurrection of Jesus. Unbelievers throughout history have attempted to nullify the resurrection because to do so is to destroy the gospel. There are many competing theories to explain the empty tomb - but the tomb was Empty (to deny that is to illogically deny history).
My point again is this; Christianity is a FAITH based religion (that is not some hidden big secret) - however the Bible itself asks all skeptics to examine the evidence and see if what it says is true.
Rather than accept what it says (duh, its in the bookstore) and examine the evidence to see if it is true or not - many people would rather try to counter the claims themselves.
The Bible, as sold in the bookstores, is attested to by 2000+ years of expert scholarly opinion. Debating whether or not it should be in the bookstores as it currently exists is not only pointless but does not negate the claims the current volume makes. This current volume whose existence is fact; makes claims about man's eternal destiny and even suggests to skeptics to check it out; many have (including myself) and have found the evidence overwhelmingly in favor of its truth.
Faith yes; but a reasonable faith not a blind one. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
We are on the same page regarding the origin of the Bible. That the finished product (or finished according to the overwhelming majority of scholars) exists and claims divine inspiration is beyond dispute. Anyone can buy the book in a store, read it, and make a choice regarding its claims - this is indisputable.
The only debate is on its self proclamation of divine inspiration and exclusivity about entrance into heaven. Is the Bible what it claims to be? IF it is (truly what it claims to be), THEN there is no question as to Jesus being the Way to the heaven. On the other hand IF the Bible is not what it claims to be, THEN it is not a reliable source for our eternal destiny and we are left to look elsewhere.
No, I think we're still worlds apart on issues that you claim are beyond dispute. Frankly, I hope I have a more genuine appreciation for the human origins of the bible and a more open attitude toward the many interpretations of others. Also, I don't see, no doubt because I'm damned in the judgement of some, where the singular Bible makes such an unambiguous, all inclusive claim to divine inspiration that admits of no other honest interpretation than yours. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
The Bible, as sold in the bookstores, is attested to by 2000+ years of expert scholarly opinion. Debating whether or not it should be in the bookstores as it currently exists is not only pointless but does not negate the claims the current volume makes.
How 'bout just acknowledging the wealth of human interpretation involved in all of the different translations and versions of the Bible that are currently sold? BTW, I hope you don't think that was what I was doing, just arguing about whether or not it should be in bookstores in the many forms in which it is. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
Perhaps we are worlds apart and so I am more than likely bowing of of what has been a pleasurable dialog. I will continue to monitor this thread to see if anyone else cares to contribute (it appears we have dominated the floor as of late, or at least P. 8).
I must leave with a little confusion regarding the indisputable fact that there is a book (called the Bible) in the bookstore that claims to have the answer to eternal life. I am puzzled how anyone can deny this? I truly am :confused:
I have admitted that its claims need not be believed and indeed anyone concerned with their eternal destiny ought to at least consider its claims and examine the evidence! Nowhere have I ever stated that this book is the only entity making such a claim, nor have I suggested to anyone seeking truth to ignore other options. In the end it is indeed a personal decision.
If I am right then I inherit eternal life :2: ; if I am wrong I do not see where it has cost me anything to believe in an old book of "myths." :1: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
How 'bout just acknowledging the wealth of human interpretation involved in all of the different translatios and versions of the Bible that are currently sold?
The different versions/translations on the market are remarkably similar and in no way change the message (NASB, NIV, GNB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, Phillips, Darby, Young's Literal, etc). Are you suggesting that the message differs from which "translation" you pick up off the shelf?
PS: I have already discussed the origin issues of canonicity and have long ago limited my discussion to the generally accepted canon? |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
Perhaps we are worlds apart and so I am more than likely bowing of of what has been a pleasurable dialog. I will continue to monitor this thread to see if anyone else cares to contribute (it appears we have dominated the floor as of late, or at leats P. 8).
I must leave with a little confusion regarding the indisputable fact that there is a book (called the Bible) in the bookstore that claims to have the answer to eternal life. I am puzzled how anyone can deny this? I truly am :confused: I have admitted that its claims need not believed and indeed anyone concerned with their eternal destiny ought to at least consider its claims and examine the evidence! Nowhere have I ever stated that this book is the only entity making such a claim, nor have I suggested to anyone seeking truth to ignore other options. In the end it is indeed a personal decision.
If I am right then I inherit eternal life :2: ; if I am wrong I do not see where it has cost me anything to believe in an old book of "myths." :1:
"Keep warm and well fed," as St. James might say! I don't deny the existence of bibles in bookstores, but I do not read them the same way you do.
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." I supposed that could be translated, "Do not interpret, and you will go to heaven." |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
The different versions/translations on the market are remarkably similar and in no way change the message (NASB, NIV, GNB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, Phillips, Darby, Young's Literal, etc). Are you suggesting that the message differs from which "translation" you pick up off the shelf (I have already discussed the origin issues of canonicity and have long ago limited my discussion to the generally accepted canon)?
I'm sure your univocal interpretation of The Message is more or less the same in the various Christian translations you mention.
Actually, I was thinking more of the enormous amount of interpretive work that has gone on over the centuries in translating and interpreting Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Personally, some of the most enlightened biblical interpretation that I have had the good fortune to read has come from Jewish scholars, even some dating to the time of Jesus. It is a shame that Christians sometimes insist on forcing a simplistic Christian apologetic meaning on Jewish scriptures. I think the Christian churches lost a lot in their early polemical separation from Judaism. Some Jews will also admit that they lost a lot too BTW. There's a lot of wisdom out there that goes unnoticed. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I'm sure your univocal interpretation of The Message is more or less the same in the various Christian translations you mention.
You write "I'm sure ... is more or less the same in the various ... translations you mention." Sounds like we have been discussing a particular book (Bible in the bookstore) that you have not read.; my bad I thought you were familiar with the "Christian" Bible. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
You write "I'm sure ... is more or less the same in the various ... translations you mention." Sounds like we have been discussing a particular book (Bible in the bookstore) that you have not read.; my bad I thought you were familiar with the "Christian" Bible.
Now you've lost me completely. What are you talking about? I believe I have at least a passing aquaintance with the Christian scriptures. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
If I am right then I inherit eternal life :2: ; if I am wrong I do not see where it has cost me anything to believe in an old book of "myths." :1:
Pascal's wager, well translated from the French. Truth is more than just a crap shoot, however. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
I must leave with a little confusion regarding the indisputable fact that there is a book (called the Bible) in the bookstore that claims to have the answer to eternal life. I am puzzled how anyone can deny this? I truly am :confused:
Have you ever read Qoheleth? "Who knows if the spirit of a man goes up while that of a dog goes down?"
Seems like that biblical author may have missed your Christian Gospel 101 course. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Just wondering if anybody has seen it and their opinions about the film?
Was it too graphic? Was it Anti-Jew?
Back on topic! There was a great write-up in Today's Houston Chronicle by Leonard Pitts Jr. (Knight Ridder syndication). He says that he did not see any anti-Semitism in the movie and that anybody making that charge would have to go a long way to cinvince him.
He did say that the movie was deliberately exclusionary and defends Gibson's right to make such a movie. He emphasizes that to understand the movie one must have the background of the 4 NT Gospels. The movie assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge. To quoye Leonard Pitts Jr. directly, he ended with "I'll leave it to others to argue whether it makes sense to exclude so many people. I will only say that within its narrow confines, The Passion is a work of shattering immediacy and devastating power. Its point is not that the blood of Jesus is on the Jews but, rather that it is upon us all." |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I agree that some of Gibson's views are extremist and perhaps even scary for some, but don't see how I've waivered in my opinion here. Nor have I expressed it fully (thought I'd spare you my scholarly pomposity).
Clearly, some of the New Testament writers were caught up in a Christian-Jewish polemic. This wasn't anachronistic anti-semitism, nor blameworthy, just an understandable part of the historical context of the writers.
Down through the centuries, some who accept the authority of these biblical texts as absolute have justified mass murder with appeal to some of these sacred infallible texts that are the inspired word of God Himself who allows no human interpretation.
The Catholic church has acknowledged that it has played an unfortunate role in much of this systemic oppression and violence and now recommends that filmakers be careful in their representation of some of these matters. Have they been "pussified"? D'uh, we're talking about men in robes here. Nonetheless, I think the men in robes would still like the Gospel to be proclaimed but without some of the crap and murder.
Some think, apparently, that Gibson's traditionalist catholicism may have been part of his perceived lack of sensitivity to some of the crap and murder since he rejects more recent papal and concilliar teachings that have tried to be a bit more circumspect about all the crap and murder.
Some Jewish people have taken up the role of being the church's conscience about its history of antisemitism just as victims of child abuse have attempted to keep the church honest about the more recent scandals involving pedophile and ephebophile priests. Personally, I applaud these types of efforts to keep the church honest about all the crap and murder and sexual abuse. I don't think the sky is falling, but some of the men in robes have fallen from their heavenly thrones.
I do recall somewhat similar controversies involving Native Americans or Japanese Americans trying to keep the US government honest about treaties they've made and broken or the detention camps set up in WW2. Italian Americans have also protested the way the Mafia is sometimes presented. Who am I to say none of these groups have a right to speak out? One difference I see in some of these kinds of examples is that there are not too many whack jobs claiming that murder of the Japanese is inspired by the absolute authority of uninterpreted sacred scripture.
Come to think of it, though, some Protestant missionaries to the New World may have justified the mass murder of Native Americans on the basis of the fact that they were really demons and not persons. Not sure which infallible biblical scriptures, if any, they may have cited to support this version of the facts.
Some Jewish groups are afraid of the whack jobs using this movie as an appeal to God sponsored hate and violence with the absolute authority of uninterpetable sacred scripture. Who am I to say they don't have legitimate fears?
At least now I see that your agenda in this matter and more power to you. Regardless though, my only issue has been with the "Chicken Littles" out there constantly *****in and moaning.
A Jew hater is gonna kill a Jew with or without the movie. But when you inflame the situation by drawing more attention to it, you defeat the very purpose you are trying to accomplish.
How about this? Perhaps a disclaimer at the end of the movie would help? "Don't try this at home boys and girls, because you might kill someone?"
Then again, the Chicken Littles out there might have a problem with that also. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by FamilyMDX
How come the Germans were not offended by the Schindler's List and they never called Spielberg Anti-German?
First of all, do you know some were not?
Secondly, the history of the event is not far off. The history is clear from WWII veterans of both sides, as well as concentraton camp survivors that are still with us today, as a reminder.
So, it is hardly anything they can deny, like Mr. Gibson, Sr. would deny the holocaust even happened.
Most Germans accept it was wrong, even if they personally were not responsible.
To say they are not offended does not quite hit the target. They have been carrying the guilt for some time but on the whole have made amends where they could.
Schlinder's List also concentrated on the goodness of one man, it did not catalog atrocities. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Have you ever read Qoheleth? "Who knows if the spirit of a man goes up while that of a dog goes down?"
Seems like that biblical author may have missed your Christian Gospel 101 course.
It appears that Ecclesiastes 12:13 and John 14:15 say the same thing (that is if Jesus is God like He claims to be). It seems the Preacher and the Teacher thought just alike. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
It seems the Preacher and the Teacher thought just alike.
Hardly!
But according to the Letter of James (one of the NT books Martin Luther scorned and would have preferred to leave out of his bible translation or at least give it 2nd class status):
"Even the devil can cite scripture to suit his own purposes." |
|
|
| hhwc |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
A profession of faith is just that - FAITH. But it is NOT a blind faith. There is evidence to substantiate that what the Bible says is true. It is beyond the scope of an MDX internet forum to examine all of the evidence. But it is there; apologetic studies (examining the evidence) are readily available if one does not know how to begin an analysis of the evidence.
But let me remind all readers of an undeniable historical fact: The Tomb was Empty resurrection Sunday. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (I Cor 15) emphatically states that the Truth of Christianity is dependent upon the Resurrection of Jesus. Unbelievers throughout history have attempted to nullify the resurrection because to do so is to destroy the gospel. There are many competing theories to explain the empty tomb - but the tomb was Empty (to deny that is to illogically deny history).
My point again is this; Christianity is a FAITH based religion (that is not some hidden big secret) - however the Bible itself asks all skeptics to examine the evidence and see if what it says is true.
Rather than accept what it says (duh, its in the bookstore) and examine the evidence to see if it is true or not - many people would rather try to counter the claims themselves.
The Bible, as sold in the bookstores, is attested to by 2000+ years of expert scholarly opinion. Debating whether or not it should be in the bookstores as it currently exists is not only pointless but does not negate the claims the current volume makes. This current volume whose existence is fact; makes claims about man's eternal destiny and even suggests to skeptics to check it out; many have (including myself) and have found the evidence overwhelmingly in favor of its truth.
Faith yes; but a reasonable faith not a blind one.
Amen to that.
I do have to mention that the Bible validates itself. The OT predicted the coming of the Messiah many years before. The Bible also predicted the re-creation of the state of Israel. And one can keep going.
I know of no other writings that predicted and continues to predict the future. That strengthens my faith.
Like you said. Faith yes, but not blind faith. |
|
|
| perk |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by robrecht
I agree that some of Gibson's views are extremist and perhaps even scary for some, but don't see how I've waivered in my opinion here. Nor have I expressed it fully (thought I'd spare you my scholarly pomposity).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pomposity" Now that's a nice word, but when I bring to bear all the forces of my superior mind, I nevertheless conclude that I could still do better.
:12: |
|
|
| hhwc |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Hardly!
But according to the Letter of James (one of the NT books Martin Luther scorned and would have preferred to leave out of his bible translation or at least give it 2nd class status):
"Even the devil can cite scripture to suit his own purposes."
And the devil will and probably has...
That is what the Holy Spirit is for; to help believers interpret the Bible correctly.
Of course anyone can cite scripture OUT OF CONTEXT to suit any purpose. All one has to do is look at one of the commandments that has been interpreted incorrectly. "Thou shall not kill" should really be "Thou shall not murder". Why? It is clear if you read the rest of the Book.
-----------------------------
As far as Christians being anti-semitic...
Genesis 12:3
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
God was talking to the Jews. I take that seriously and other Christians (if they really are) should too. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by hhwc
... God was talking to the Jews. I take that seriously and other Christians (if they really are) should too.
Yes, indeed, God does talk to the Jews. Good point! |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Hardly!
But according to the Letter of James (one of the NT books Martin Luther scorned and would have preferred to leave out of his bible translation or at least give it 2nd class status):
"Even the devil can cite scripture to suit his own purposes."
I will let others judge for themselves! My comment was clearly a condtional If/Then clause (some seem to NOT understand them). IF Jesus was who He said He was (God), THEN I see similarity between Ecclesiastes 12:13 and John 14:15. So assuming this conditional clause:
Ecclesiastes 12:13 (NASB):
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
John 14:15 (NASB):
If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Based on the stated conditional clause the reader can judge if the conclusions of the Preacher and the commandment of the Teacher are on the same page or a "hardly" |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by perk
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by robrecht
I agree that some of Gibson's views are extremist and perhaps even scary for some, but don't see how I've waivered in my opinion here. Nor have I expressed it fully (thought I'd spare you my scholarly pomposity).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pomposity" Now that's a nice word, but when I bring to bear all the forces of my superior mind, I nevertheless conclude that I could still do better.
:12:
:jester: :jester: :jester: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Yes, indeed, God does talk to the Jews. Good point!
The very New Testament we have been debating PROMISES salvation for the Jews. The Jews were placed first ahead of the gentiles by Christ Himself! God is not through with His Chosen People, but during this "time of the gentiles" the Gospel has been extended to all people. And I am thankful for that. Anyone who is anti-Semitc does NOT understand the Christian scriptures. We are commanded by the head of the church to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem" |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
I will let others judge for themselves! My comment was clearly a condtional If/Then clause (some seem to NOT understand them). IF Jesus was who He said He was (God), THEN I see similarity between Ecclesiastes 12:13 and John 14:15. So assuming the conditions:
Ecclesiastes 12:13 (NASB):
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
John 14:15 (NASB):
If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Based on the stated conditional clause the reader can judge if the Preacher and the Teacher are on the same page or "hardly"
msu79gt82, you completely ignored the verse I cited from Qoheleth that actually related to our earlier discussion in favor of this? My "hardly!" was not meant to dispute the similarity between your two verses or your play on words. Get real! I was merely providing you with an example of how one of your OT authors clearly does not agree with your interpretation of the singular meaning of the whole of the bible forced into your Christian apologetic proof texts. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
... your qoute does NOT appear in the NASB version of Ecclesiastes!
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
msu79gt82, you completely ignored the verse I cited from Qoheleth that actually related to our earlier discussion in favor of this? My "hardly!" was not meant to dispute the similarity between your two verses or your play on words. Get real! I was merely providing you with an example of how one of your OT authors clearly does not agree with your interpretation of the singular meaning of the whole of the bible forced into your Christian apologetic proof texts.
|
|
|
| hhwc |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
The very New Testament we have been debating PROMISES salvation for the Jews. The Jews were placed first ahead of the gentiles by Christ Himself! God is not through with His Chosen People, but during this "time of the gentiles" the Gospel has been extended to all people. And I am thankful for that. Anyone who is anti-Semitc does NOT understand the Christian scriptures. We are commanded by the head of the church to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem"
Total agreement! |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... your qoute does NOT appear in the NASB version of Ecclesiastes!
I was translating the Hebrew text from memory. Don't have chapter and verse handy at the moment. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
Ecclesiastes 9:4
For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
Ecclesiastes 9:4
For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion.
A similar verse from the same author. Try the English word beast. Also possible I conflated a couple of verses in my memory--it's been several years since I've read Qoheleth. |
|
|
| greatscot |
I have very much enjoyed reading the msu79gt82 and robrecht posts here, and have found them to be very informatitve and stimulating.
I was interested to also read the Houston Chronicle article cited by msu79gt82 which states the writer of the article said that he did not see any anti-Semitism in the movie and that anybody making that charge would have to go a long way to convince him.
The Church I belong to has neither endorsed nor said anything against the movie. I did find however, the opinion of someone of my faith who also happens to be an Oscar winning Director who was invited by Gibson to a private showing of The Passion before it was released. Here are some of his thoughts:
An LDS Perspective, By Academy Ward Winner Keith Merrill:
"As a motion picture, The Passion of The Christ is a brilliantly-crafted piece of art. Gibson’s enormous talent as director was evident in Braveheart. In this film he is even better. This film is distinguished by a personal passion that transcends his earlier work in significant ways. Gibson’s deep belief in the Catholic tradition and the passion of Jesus is evident in every frame.
I am grateful to Mel Gibson for his talent and his sacrifice. I am grateful that he created this intense vicarious experience as an emotional supplement in my quest to know the Christ and look upon his face.
The film is accused of being anti-Semitic. Jews and others have condemned the film as “fanning anew the flaming plague of prejudice that has afflicted the Jewish people for 2000 years.” They express fears that the film could actually result in bringing violence to Jews. They are wrong.
The Jewish community and anti-defamation league is fearful that the film emphasizes the role of Jews in the death of Christ. They are right. The Jews are depicted as culprits in the death of Jesus, but their fears ignore historical reality. In the version of the film I saw, the role of the Jews is not unduly “emphasized,” but they are clearly and accurately implicated according to the Biblical history.
Commentator, David Limbaugh said it perfectly. “How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life history, he is vilified.”
Consider seeing the film only if you are sincere in your quest to gain greater insight into the death of Christ. I say “death of Christ” because that is what the film is about.
Consider seeing the film only if you seek a deeper and historically detailed appreciation of the last 12 hours of a life that changed the world.
Consider the film only if you are confident it will engender good thoughts, inspire righteous choices and allow you to retain the Spirit of the Lord. The graphic nature of the images notwithstanding, nothing I saw deprived me of the spirit of the Lord. To the contrary, seeing the Savior through the eyes of his mother touched the deepest part of my soul.
You could argue in fact that the film ultimately misses the whole point of Christianity. The prelude to Christ's death and the death itself is dramatic, but the message of the Gospel is not that Christ died. The ultimate good news is that he defeated death. He rose from the grave. He is alive and in drinking from the bitter cup - which Gibson captures brilliantly - he gave mankind immortality and the possibility of eternal life.
There is only a fleeting impressionistic glimpse of the resurrection in the version of the film I saw. In our conversation following the screening, I asked Mel if he didn't think it would be a good idea to make more of the resurrection. In movie terms, use the reality of the resurrection as the ultimate "pay off and resolution" to the central question of the film. He told me that there was some special affects to be added that would enhance the final scene. I have not seen the final version but based on the handling of the resurrection in the version of the film I saw I do not expect that added effects will be sufficient to make the resurrection what I so desperately wanted it to be."
Just thought I'd share this professional/religious viewpoint. |
|
|
| FamilyMDX |
It is either a holiday that I don't know about or a lot of people taking the day off.
How do you have enough time to read and reply to all these posts?
There is so much detail in these posts, that I need to spend hours reading them.
Take it easy guys. We are talking about a movie not the WWIII. :1: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
| I agree with your references assesment and also agree that the hope of the resurrection was too brief. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by FamilyMDX
Take it easy guys. We are talking about a movie not the WWIII. :1:
Actually we are talking about eternity :cool: Armagedon is a different thread ;) |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
... which is set in the context of the Preacher's lifelong search for answers. This is one of the many questions he asked along his journey. The Preacher records the answer to his search at the end of the book, which I have already qouted.
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
A similar verse from the same author. Try the English word beast. Also possible I conflated a couple of verses in my memory--it's been several years since I've read Qoheleth.
|
|
|
| greatscot |
quote:
Originally posted by FamilyMDX
It is either a holiday that I don't know about or a lot of people taking the day off. . .
Actually it is a holiday, in honor of the first person mentioned in the Bible, King James (a Scot - look it up) :15:
Seriously, I had a late lunch today so I'm trolling the site before I get home tonight. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... which is set in the context of the Preacher's lifelong search for answers. This is one of the many questions he asked along his journey. The Preacher records the answer to his search at the end of the book, which I have already qouted.
Point being that in this Bible of yours that supposedly offers THE Single Christian Answer to Eternal Life and which admits of No Interpretation other than yours, we really find quite a diversity of opinion. While some Jewish scholars claim that belief in the afterlife is a necessary part of the Jewish faith, others believe that this is a mystery about which we can trust God without any need to make definitive claims. If you really believe that God speaks to the Jews, can you trust them to listen? Or are you the only one who has heard him correctly? Put another way, when God speaks to the Jews does he speak Hebrew or the English of King James?
Jesus said there are many rooms in his father's mansion. Yours feels a little cramped. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Jesus said there are many rooms in his father's mansion. Yours feels a little cramped.
John 14: 1-6 (NASB):
Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going. Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Thank you for conceeding my point - Jesus assigns the rooms in heaven. To get a room you must go through Jesus. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
Thank you for conceeding my point - Jesus assigns the rooms in heaven. To get a room you must go through Jesus.
"To you has been given the Mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those on the outside everything is word play in order that they might indeed see buy not understand, and indeed hear but not comprehend lest they repent and be forgiven."
If you insist upon purposefuly misunderstanding, misrepresenting, or ignoring the sincere views of others, why would anyone want to talk to you?
PS: The verse is found somewhere in Mark's parable discourse, somewhere in Chapter 4. Do you believe Jesus purposefully and maliciously used parables or word play to hide his meaning from the Jews of his time? |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by greatscot
I have very much enjoyed reading the msu79gt82 and robrecht posts here, and have found them to be very informatitve and stimulating.
And here I thought you were going to quote that great Scottish move:
"Rob is Right! Rob is Right!" |
|
|
| greatscot |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
And here I thought you were going to quote that great Scottish movie:
"Rob is Right! Rob is Right!"
Och Aye! The Rob you refer to was an outlaw MacGregor, and we MacDonalds will take affinity with anyone against thae English
:22: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
If you insist upon purposefuly misunderstanding, misrepresenting, or ignoring the sincere views of others, why would anyone want to talk to you?
This discussion began as a debate over what the Bible says! I have never abandoned that train of thought; I have repeatedly distinguished between what it says vs. if it is true of not! You seem to have gotten away from that. If you deny that the Bible (as defined by the Christian community; Protestant and Catholic) claims that Jesus is the Way and the ONLY Way to the Father (i.e. heaven) then you are deluded and debate is impossible. What is said vs. is it true are two subjects.
You seem to want to debate how to get heaven or who gets to go to heaven; which is NOT how this conversation started. It is difficult to converse with someone who changes the subject. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
This discussion began as a debate over what the Bible says! I have never abandoned that train of thought; I have repeatedly distinguished between what it says vs. if it is true of not! You seem to have gotten away from that. If you deny that the Bible (as defined by the Christian community; Protestant and Catholic) claims that Jesus is the Way and the ONLY Way to the Father (i.e. heaven) then you are deluded and debate is impossible. What is said vs. is it true are two subjects.
You seem to want to debate how to get heaven or who gets to go to heaven; which is NOT how this conversation started. It is difficult to converse with someone who changes the subject.
I don't think I've changed the subject really, but maybe the truth is just a wee bit bigger than you think? I hope so anyway.
Deluded? Sorry, I just don't see how insults advance your cause. Maybe it is easier for you if you claim everyone who does not accept your view is deluded? |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by greatscot
Och Aye! The Rob you refer to was an outlaw MacGregor, and we MacDonalds will take affinity with anyone against thae English
:22:
Me Oncle twas ev'ry bit a MacDonald! D'you deny it? |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I don't think I've changed the subject really, but maybe the truth is just a wee bit bigger than you think? I hope so anyway.
Deluded? Sorry, I just don't see how insults advance your cause. Maybe it is easier for you if you claim everyone who does not accept your view is deluded?
You must have thin skin if you believe I have insulted you; perhaps denial (as opposed to deluded) is a better word. All one has to do is re-read all of our dialog to see that I WAS ABSOLUTELY DEBATING what the Bible (a book available in the bookstore - how many times have I said this :rolleyes: :confused: ) actually says. I have on more than one occaision caveated my words by phrases such as "truth is independent from what the claims are" - are you really going to deny that's what I wrote? Do I have to quote myself? It appears to me that you deny what the text plainly says?
One more time (FINAL): John 14: 1-6 (NASB):
Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going. Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
I will let others decide if you are denying the claims of the text or if perhaps I do not know how to read. From the text (which you brought up by the way - this is your reference to the "many mansions" of heaven) it says that the way to heaven is through Jesus.
Two questions for everyone interested:
1) Does the text say that the way to the Father is through Jesus?
2) Do you believe that?
See the claims of the Bible are clear; it is easy to understand (for the most part) - it can be very hard to believe; which is why it is called faith. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Maybe it is easier for you if you claim everyone who does not accept your view is deluded?
This is exactly what I meant by changing the rules! I have been very careful to keep this discussion at the acedemic level - in other words the view is NOT my view it is the Bible's view. That is what I have been debating. My concern from the beginning, is what the Bible says! You on the other hand seem to deny the claims of the text (which I confess is perplexing to me - I can see where one could choose to reject the validity of those claims).
For the record Jesus said all should "count the cost" of following Him; read the text to hear the claims, examine the validity of those claims, count the cost and make a decision. Perhaps the process is earier if one chooses to deny the claims themselves; certainly saves a couple of steps. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
:lurk:
What do they say, "If you want to have a heated debate, talk about either religion or politics" |
|
|
| mullysalt |
LL, I knew you and msu just didn't stop posting you guys are just mixing it up in another forum. Good work.
P.S.-How much are they getting for a movie ticket in greater NYC, LL? It's up to $9.25 here in the heartland. I haven't seen "Passion" but "50 First Dates" was cool for all the Hawaii footage but I'd recommend waiting for it on DVD.
P.P.S.-Don't forget to include the Yankees in subjects sure to start controversy. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mullysalt
LL, I knew you and msu just didn't stop posting you guys are just mixing it up in another forum. Good work.
P.S.-How much are they getting for a movie ticket in greater NYC, LL? It's up to $9.25 here in the heartland. I haven't seen "Passion" but "50 First Dates" was cool for all the Hawaii footage but I'd recommend waiting for it on DVD.
P.P.S.-Don't forget to include the Yankees in subjects sure to start controversy.
You're really gonna hate me but my family gets to go to the movie "gratis" since we've got friends at the local cinemaplex. But the usual ticket price (this is suburbs you know) is $8.50 around here. I really don't know how much it is in the city. I'd guess it's around $10.
As for the Yanks, they've got problems with the whole steroids thing. But that's another thread I guess.
:headslap: |
|
|
| zafer |
... so what do guys make out of the fact that James Caviezel was struck by lightning twice during the filming, yet survived. It surely just couldn't have been a random act of nature, could it?
:lurk: |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by zafer
... so what do guys make out of the fact that James Caviezel was struck by lightning twice during the filming, yet survived. | | | |
