Back in the days of Christdot there was an article on David Plotz's attempt to read and blog the whole Jewish Bible. His book on the experience is coming out soon and Slate has an essay adapted from the book:

Should you read the Bible? You probably haven't. A century ago, most well-educated Americans knew the Bible deeply. Today, biblical illiteracy is practically universal among nonreligious people. My mother and my brother, professors of literature and the best-read people I've ever met, have not done much more than skim Genesis and Exodus. Even among the faithful, Bible reading is erratic.

I began the Bible as a hopeful, but indifferent, agnostic. I wished for a God, but I didn't really care. I leave the Bible as a hopeless and angry agnostic. I'm brokenhearted about God.

Comments

Search

laika   |2009-03-03 00:19:15 Quote: As I read the book, I realized that the Bible's greatest heroes—or, at least, my greatest heroes—are not those who are most faithful, but those who are most contentious and doubtful: Moses negotiating with God at the burning bush, Gideon demanding divine proof before going to war, Job questioning God's own justice, Abraham demanding that God be merciful to the innocent of Sodom. They challenge God for his capriciousness, and demand justice, order, and morality, even when God refuses to provide them. Reading the Bible has given me a chance to start an argument with God about the most important questions there are, an argument that can last a lifetime. it may well last a lifetime, but it's not much fun.

JRB   |2009-03-03 02:07:51 Yup. Good luck with winning that one too

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 06:22:20 He's taking one of the most potent lessons of the OT heroes and turning it on its head. The vast majority of them are doubtful imperfect and flawed with large underscores given to those problems and yet they still achieve honor "greatness" through the grace of God on their brokenness. Unfortunately, our desire for heroes seems like it has the tendency to obscure weakness and imperfection when these are a fundamental aspect of what makes humanity and what opens us to the infiniteness of God.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 08:26:55 Fine in recognizing the prophets as flawed people... except that he also thinks that God is a hostile tyrant.

PineHall  - Bible Reading   |2009-03-03 10:26:32 Quote: Should you read the Bible? You probably haven't. A century ago, most well-educated Americans knew the Bible deeply. Today, biblical illiteracy is practically universal among nonreligious people. Biblical illiteracy among religious people is epidemic and a majority are effectively biblically illiterate, so it is not surprise that nonreligious people are biblically illiterate.  The Bible is the most popular unread book in America. This bothers me. Though I am not as read as I should be either. I suspect I would be out classed by someone from 100 years ago. To start, how can we better encourage daily Bible reading in our churches?

metallurge  - re: Bible Reading   |2009-03-03 10:32:49 PineHall wrote: To start, how can we better encourage daily Bible reading in our churches? Perhaps we need to look back at some of the things the church has done in the past when the majority of the faithful were illiterate? There is a practical reason for the existence of icons, for example. And there is a reason for the church calendar too.

Jim   |2009-03-03 11:56:11 The best data we have for a biblically literate society comes from Jewish communities, and they had huge problems with icons. However, they do have a strong calendar of ritual reading and recitation of Scripture. The Torah is read throughout the year. The Megilot are read in their entirety at the various feasts and fasts. On a personal level, you are to read the entire Psalter once a month (or if you are real stud, once a week) and the Song of Songs to your wife every Friday evening before you put on the smooth jazz and ride the love train. Granted, certain books (like Daniel) get little or no play, but it does provide a higher degree of sacred literacy than in most Christian traditions.

metallurge  - re:   |2009-03-03 17:48:51 Jim wrote: The best data we have for a biblically literate society comes from Jewish communities, and they had huge problems with icons. Judaism has more properly had a love-hate relationship with icons, wouldn't you say?  :-) Of course, this is one of the major theological differences between Judaism and Christianity. For example, many Jews could not accept the Incarnation because of their iconoclasm. Of course, I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with the remainder of you comments. Christians have probably never been "people of the book" to the same degree Jews were. As an aside, it is interesting to consider that the (Jewish) twelve were doing "other things" with their lives whenever Jesus found them. Probably says something about their theological credentials, no? These guys (unlike Paul, for example) were pretty much not on the theological fast track. It is very interesting to me that Jesus would choose such as these to be His witnesses among the "people of the book."

emperorbma   |2009-03-03 19:13:56 Quote: For example, many Jews could not accept the Incarnation because of their iconoclasm. I have recently thought that Islam may have been influenced by the leftovers of the Judaizers. It is possible that their objections to Christ's divinity may be linked to some of the early Christian heretics. How oddly convenient, perhaps, was the Byzantine iconoclastic controversy during the heyday of the rise of Islam?

laika   |2009-03-03 22:42:32 emperorbma wrote: I have recently thought that Islam may have been influenced by the leftovers of the Judaizers. you'll probably want to be careful where you float that theory.

emperorbma   |2009-03-03 23:05:08 Yeah, I know well that Muslims would not accept such a hypothesis thanks to Shenango's input. Muslims believe the Qu'ran was revealed "as is" to Mohammed and, therefore, actively maintain that he couldn't have had any influences other than Gabriel and God.

laika  - re: Bible Reading   |2009-03-03 12:17:53 PineHall wrote: To start, how can we better encourage daily Bible reading in our churches? make sure that they never read this article ;-) a stone cold reading of the Bible doesn't appear to have done the fellow that wrote the article much good.

emperorbma  - w/o the HS, Scripture is closed   |2009-03-03 23:01:23 As we Lutherans put it, the Bible is a "closed book" without the work of the Holy Spirit.  Without the work of the Holy Spirit, the best conclusion one could hope for is that someone sees the Bible as merely a collection of "good stories" with some moral and some, perhaps, not so moral things. This author has merely proven the point. A blind man will always stumble about even in the brightest day light because he lacks the eyes with which he can see. The eyes that he does have are corrupted not only by Satan but our own fallen human nature, which work against seeing God rightly. Moreover, it is not by our own reason or strength that we come to God, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit which brings us to faith in Christ and sustains us in His Word. Let it be clear that while reason has its place, and a prominent one at that, reason does not have the power to save souls from sin and it will always fall prey to the blinding temptations of "lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life" as the devil tempted Christ with... even using the very Scriptures of God! Only by the power of the Holy Spirit can we, like Christ, say "begone Satan, for it is written "Worship the Lord your God and serve only Him." (Matthew 4, Luke 4)

laika   |2009-03-04 00:10:33 emperorbma wrote: Without the work of the Holy Spirit, the best conclusion one could hope for is that someone sees the Bible as merely a collection of "good stories" with some moral and some, perhaps, not so moral things. This author has merely proven the point. the point being that the Holy Spirit wasn't in David Plotz's corner during his reading of the Bible? are you qualified to make that judgement?

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 08:25:29 Well, let's put it this way: I should think that God would not act to lead someone astray from Himself. ... and I quote: Quote: He made me rational and quizzical. He has given me the tools to think about Him. So I must submit Him to rational and moral inquiry. And He fails that examination. It seemed rather evident to me that he trusts in his own reason more than the work of the Holy Spirit.

laika   |2009-03-04 10:59:12 emperorbma wrote: It seemed rather evident to me that he trusts in his own reason more than the work of the Holy Spirit. so, basically, anyone reading the Bible and not coming immediately to the same understanding as emperorbma is easily identified as not being led by the Holy Spirit? i guess that would explain a great deal of the appeal of the priesthood of all believers. so, would i be correct in inferring based on what you've said that, led by the Holy Spirit, you are free to abandon your God-given reason when you approach the Bible? emperorbma wrote: Well, let's put it this way: I should think that God would not act to lead someone astray from Himself. well, He's recorded as having hardened hearts before, isn't He? but back to David Plotz; he is now thoroughly engaged with God in a way that he wasn't before he read the Bible. would Plotz be the first person in history to wrestle with God?

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 13:48:11 Quote: so, basically, anyone reading the Bible and not coming immediately to the same understanding as emperorbma is easily identified as not being led by the Holy Spirit? Nope, that was not what I was saying at all.  You missed my intended reference: Quote: I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true. (Luther's Small Catechism, The Creed, Third Article) ... and, yes, reason is God-given and good when used properly as we also have the following statement in the First Article of the same chapter referenced above: "I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them;" Quote: so, would i be correct in inferring based on what you've said that, led by the Holy Spirit, you are free to abandon your God-given reason when you approach the Bible? We cannot place absolute faith in reason when even reason itself testifies that it is not absolute. (P.S. The previous three facts constitute the largest part of nearly every one of my discussions about reason...) Quote: well, He's recorded as having hardened hearts before, isn't He? True, but if we follow that logic too far we will end up with Calvinistic election. Rather, God only did so because Pharaoh wanted to be hardened against God. As it is written, "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire." (James 1:13-14) Likewise, when Joseph again met his brothers who had sold him into slavery, he said "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20) How much more of this misunderstood goodness is found in anything else we do not understand from God's acts? Quote: but back to David Plotz; he is now thoroughly engaged with God in a way that he wasn't before he read the Bible. would Plotz be the first person in history to wrestle with God? Israel. This said, even the Patriarch Jacob had faith in God's goodness did he not? Howbeit then that Mr. Plotz maintains a claim of God's abject evilness? The conclusion that God is malevolent is not a result of the work of the Holy Spirit, I should think... misunderstood, maybe, but malevolent by no means!

laika   |2009-03-04 13:51:57 emperorbma wrote: Howbeit then that Mr. Plotz maintains a claim of God's abject evilness? the writers of the OT didn't appear to have any problem whatsoever with recording God as defaulting to violence to solve problems or appearing as a capricious tyrant. they didn't sugarcoat it. Mr. Plotz is coming from a different place in terms of what he expects justice and mercy to look like.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 13:57:11 Quote: Mr. Plotz is coming from a different place in terms of what he expects justice and mercy to look like. This seems to be the root of the problem.  People expect the mercy of God, but they do not expect the chastening rod. The mercy of God is quite unusual by human standards for the simple reason that "God's thoughts are not like man's thoughts" and anything He does has in mind far more than just the happiness of one man right now. When people are killed, most people today are rather upset by it for some good (and some not so good) reasons. Yet, we don't have a clue about the whole picture so why do some of us insist that we do?

laika   |2009-03-04 14:09:06 emperorbma wrote: ...misunderstood, maybe, but malevolent by no means! why, then, are we surprised that Mr. Plotz is scandalized by His recorded behavior if "God's thoughts are not like man's thoughts"?

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 21:23:01 Quote: why, then, are we surprised that Mr. Plotz is scandalized by His recorded behavior if "God's thoughts are not like man's thoughts"? I wasn't surprised, actually... in fact, I wrote the following to state my utter lack of surprise: Quote: As we Lutherans put it, the Bible is a "closed book" without the work of the Holy Spirit.  Without the work of the Holy Spirit, the best conclusion one could hope for is that someone sees the Bible as merely a collection of "good stories" with some moral and some, perhaps, not so moral things. This author has merely proven the point.

Jim  - re:   |2009-03-04 13:34:54 emperorbma wrote: Well, let's put it this way: I should think that God would not act to lead someone astray from Himself. Then you haven't actually been reading your Bible much. From hardening Pharaoh's heart to giving false prophecies, God really doesn't seem to have a problem leading people astray.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 13:51:02 (q.v. my reply to laika)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 06:10:05 reminds me of the discussion with one of our Xeno-friends about the Serbian priest. certainly a dangerous book (though I don't agree with all of those sentiments) any number of heresies and delusions have rooted themselves in the words of scripture.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 08:29:31 Quote: any number of heresies and delusions have rooted themselves in the words of scripture. Conversely, so also is basic Christianity... heresy is merely choosing to ignore part of Christianity to suit one's own whims.

laika   |2009-03-04 10:52:03 emperorbma wrote: Conversely, so also is basic Christianity... heresy is merely choosing to ignore part of Christianity to suit one's own whims. which is exactly what Roman Catholic Christians would say that Luther did.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 13:21:41 True, but if we want to be thorough, Luther said the same thing of the Roman Catholics so the claim is rather useless for discussion. What I meant by my original quip was that an orthodox position takes into account all of Scriptural teaching and does not get deceived by pulling one aspect out of context.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 14:56:39 sorry. have to disagree. basic Christianity is rooted in Christ/God. The bible is not the basis of our faith, but a tool for it's progress and development. Literally speaking any number of heresies can be just as biblically rooted. If you actually engage a lot of their literature it's often not missing much or failing to take into account passage x, y, or z. the way we read anything is the most influential part of what we think it means.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 15:36:39 Quote: But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news! (Romans 10:14-15) On what basis does someone have faith Christ if one had not heard of Him through the Word? The Scripture is the testing stone by which we are to test our doctrines to ensure that they have not wandered from His path.

Jim   |2009-03-04 16:17:40 But obviously, the Bible without a community to help someone interpret it will get you to where Plotz is: nowhere.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 16:37:48 ...and thus I reiterate: "As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (Romans 10:15)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 21:36:59 ok: if it is a testing stone (which I don't entirely accept or reject) then it's still not the thing on which the Christian faith is rooted. ... the rest of the comment lost due to a bungling emperorbma. *thwack*

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 21:30:13 Oh no... Did I edit your post Webby? I didn't mean to do that. I thought I replied.... :(

emperorbma  - [here's where I meant to post that]   |2009-03-04 21:31:15 Quote: ok: if it is a testing stone (which I don't entirely accept or reject) then it's still not the thing on which the Christian faith is rooted. I've already concurred to this, since it is Christ on whom our faith is built. The Scripture merely serves as the inspired testimony of Him and the doctrinal test by which can we see what He (and His Apostles) taught and test ourselves by it.

emperorbma   |2009-03-03 13:42:51 Quote: I'm a Jew. I don't, and can't, believe that Christ died for my sins. And even if he did, I still don't think that would wash away God's crimes in the Old Testament. I suppose if one has a Pelagian view of reality, one will view all acts of Divine Judgment as unjust. He clearly doesn't accept that man is intrinsically sinful, by nature. Interestingly enough, I don't think we're supposed to draw that kind of distinction between Old Testament and New Testament. The New Testament does not, in any way, change the nature of God's actions toward mankind... there is still Divine judgment and still Divine mercy as there was in the days of the Prophets. I just think many haven't learned how to see God's mercy in the light of His justice.

laika   |2009-03-03 14:29:16 emperorbma wrote: The New Testament does not, in any way, change the nature of God's actions toward mankind... there is still Divine judgment and still Divine mercy as there was in the days of the Prophets. I just think many haven't learned how to see God's mercy in the light of His justice. you're absolutely right, of course; the theme of God's penchant for blood and mayhem rolls right on over into the New Testament. as is addressed in the article, however, it's the framework that one brings to the story that makes the difference in what one takes away from the violence-saturated record of God's  interaction with His creation. David Plotz attempts to read the Bible without imposing the usual frameworks offered by Jews and Christians and comes away disappointed.

PineHall  - Reading Between the Lines   |2009-03-04 09:59:55 Quote: David Plotz attempts to read the Bible without imposing the usual frameworks offered by Jews and Christians and comes away disappointed. As Christians we start with Jesus and filter these stories with the knowledge of Him. I think that makes it easier to make sense of the violence in the Old Testament. I think David Plotz as a secular Jew has the expectation of the Christian understanding of God's mercy and grace from America's heritage, but without the sense our utter brokenness and need for a savior. I think he sees us as mostly good people, so the Flood is something he can not understand why God would destroy mostly good people. So he sees injustice in God destroying the world. That is my reading in between his lines. (I could be way off but this is my take on what I think he thinks.)

laika   |2009-03-04 10:48:13 PineHall wrote: As Christians we start with Jesus and filter these stories with the knowledge of Him. I think that makes it easier to make sense of the violence in the Old Testament. agreed. PineHall wrote: I think David Plotz as a secular Jew has the expectation of the Christian understanding of God's mercy and grace from America's heritage, but without the sense our utter brokenness and need for a savior. I think he sees us as mostly good people, so the Flood is something he can not understand why God would destroy mostly good people. a 21st-century reader's ideas of mercy and grace are likely to be different from the context of the writers of the Bible, separated by thousands of years and very different cultures. it would be surprising if they weren't. plus, as you mention above, David Plotz is reading the Bible without the imposition of a Christian filter.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-03 14:50:56 laika wrote: David Plotz attempts to read the Bible without imposing the usual frameworks offered by Jews and Christians and comes away disappointed. I get the impression that David Plotz comes away disappointed because he finds in the Bible a God who does not need the approval of David Plotz.

laika   |2009-03-03 17:51:20 holmegm wrote: I get the impression that David Plotz comes away disappointed because he finds in the Bible a God who does not need the approval of David Plotz. i give him the benefit of a doubt. a modern reader could be forgiven for finding love, mercy and justice as defined (especially) by the Old Testament - where Plotz is focusing - a bit shocking.

steves   |2009-03-03 21:03:56 Wow, what an idiotic way of dismissing Plotz's comments. You may as well claim that Hitler was a great leader who's only dumped on because self-important ivory-tower types don't like people like the Fuhrer who don't listen to their opinions. Maybe you should try actually reading the entire Bible once yourself before you criticize Plotz's effort?

emperorbma   |2009-03-03 22:16:02 You realize that you just invoked Godwin's law don't you? [P.S. We REALLY have to fix the tick mark in links bug...]

steves   |2009-03-03 23:54:10 If the discussion were about income tax schemes and a comparison to Hitler were made, you comment would be valid. But when a commenter tries to dismiss condemnation of genocide (among other horrifically unethical acts) with some moronic jab at the critic himself, mentioning "Godwin's Law" rather misses the point, now doesn't it? Related: http://xkcd.com/261/

JRB   |2009-03-04 04:37:30 The law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." xkcd fails this time.

PerpetualAgnostic   |2009-03-04 15:28:58 Quote: The law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's law was defined in 1990. You have to consider the cultural climate of the 1990s, and not read it literally as if Godwin's law were being penned today. If Godwin were writing down his law today, he almost certainly would have generalized "usenet discussion" to include website forums. It's only your literalist view that prevents you from seeing this, you fascist.

Jim   |2009-03-04 16:32:28 ROFL!

JRB   |2009-03-04 22:30:58 LOL Well done

PerpetualAgnostic   |2009-03-04 13:47:45 Quote: Wow, what an idiotic way of dismissing Plotz's comments. Quote: aybe you should try actually reading the entire Bible once yourself before you criticize Plotz's effort? Whoa!!! If you're in the mood for this kind of abuse, you'll want to talk to Mr. Barnard, Room 12.

PerpetualAgnostic  - Missing link   |2009-03-04 13:48:12 Sorry, meant to include this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 14:58:15 no link needed. this should be prerequisite knowledge for the course.

Jim  - re: re:   |2009-03-04 13:37:19 holmegm wrote: I get the impression that David Plotz comes away disappointed because he finds in the Bible a God who does not need the approval of David Plotz. I don't know, I come away more with a greater understanding of how communal reading the Bible needs to be.

laika  - It Takes a Village to Read the Bible   |2009-03-04 13:59:01 Jim wrote: I don't know, I come away more with a greater understanding of how communal reading the Bible needs to be. uh-oh! i was afraid this conversation was gonna come around to the c-word again!

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 14:00:10 Communal, yes. Contrary to Scripture, no. That's all I'm sayin'. :P

laika   |2009-03-04 14:14:18 emperorbma wrote: Communal, yes. Contrary to Scripture, no. but elsewhere in this thread you imply that you have Special Gnowledge of the Bible and the motivations of the hearts of men through your invocation of the Holy Spirit. why, then, would you need community?

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 15:32:56 The same Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit also directs us to gather in the name of Christ.

Jim   |2009-03-04 16:31:31 But Scripture contradicts itself! A few examples: The order of creation in Gen 1:1-2:4a is fundamentally different from Gen 2:4b-24. 2 Sam 24:1 states that the LORD incited David to perform the census, while 1 Chron 21:1 says it was Satan. Isa 2:4 and Micah 4:3 stipulate that in the last days folks will beat their swords into plowshares, while Joel 3:10 states the opposite. These tensions in the text don't pose problems when you have a communal understanding of Scripture (i.e. all these folks are working things out together). The canon is a conversation about God and with God. However, if you're reading the text in isolation (like Plotz) are you really a part of the conversation?

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 16:40:31 so your saying that if we don't take a breath and seek the insights and inspirations of others (church etc. etc.) we may just get so worked up reading the text that we'll plotz. (snicker snicker.... man, I really have a problem)

Jim   |2009-03-04 16:56:25 This isn't nearly as bad that Aramaic pun you made on my blog this morning. ;-)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-04 17:05:08 i just can't shut it off. (and honestly i really do love horrendous puns)

laika   |2009-03-04 17:19:31 Jim wrote: But Scripture contradicts itself! Bart Erhman has a new book out dealing with the contradictions in the Gospels. there's a fascinating interview with him on NPR's Fresh Air that was on today. Jim wrote: These tensions in the text don't pose problems when you have a communal understanding of Scripture (i.e. all these folks are working things out together). that "working things out" aspect is clearly illustrated in the Ehrman interview.

laika   |2009-03-04 17:27:26 Jim wrote: The canon is a conversation about God and with God. However, if you're reading the text in isolation (like Plotz) are you really a part of the conversation? but you don't need all that if you're coming from a tradition based on one man (Luther) heroically going up against the community. with everyone a priesthood sufficient unto himself, the individual interpretation is just as valid as that of the community.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 21:42:46 Let me ask a question if I may: Is there a reason that you interpret Luther's actions as contrary to the Church when Luther himself specifically intended them as a defense of the Church and strongly maintained the importance of the Christian Church? Priesthood of all believers was never meant in a way which excluded the importance of the Body of Christ.  What it was meant to exclude is precisely what you are accusing Luther of doing which means that Luther is not meaning it in the Ecclesioclastic sense that you seem to interpret him in.

wezlo  - Right idea, wrong target   |2009-03-05 09:06:52 I've got to go with EmperorBMA on this one Laika. What you REALLY want to targeting in this argument is the idea of "Soul Liberty" that came with the Baptists. The priesthood of all believers might have been applied poorly in places, but the term itself actually depicts community. Heck, I'm trying desperately to get the Church I pastor back to this idea so that they'll HAVE a community. "Soul Liberty," on the other hand, is a cruel joke perpetrated on the Christian faith that no one seemed to have gotten the punchline for yet...

laika   |2009-03-05 13:05:27 wezlo wrote: I've got to go with EmperorBMA on this one Laika. What you REALLY want to targeting in this argument is the idea of "Soul Liberty" that came with the Baptists. thanks for the correction, guys. apologies to emperorbma. Wez, considering my Southern Baptist upbringing, you're probably right on the money.

emperorbma   |2009-03-05 14:09:55 Quote: thanks for the correction, guys. apologies to emperorbma. Don't sweat it. I know what you are worrying about is really a genuine problem for some Protestants.

laika   |2009-03-05 16:23:39 emperorbma wrote: Don't sweat it. well, y'all are a very generous and patient bunch. i learn a lot from most everybody here.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 17:28:50 Contradiction is an interpretative misunderstanding. The contextual meanings prevent the facts from actual contradiction. Chronicles vs Kings being the example, it is understood that God allows Satan to tempt David.

Jim  - re:   |2009-03-04 18:05:58 emperorbma wrote: Contradiction is an interpretative misunderstanding. The contextual meanings prevent the facts from actual contradiction. Chronicles vs Kings being the example, it is understood that God allows Satan to tempt David. Your two statements don't follow. There is nothing in the different contexts of the two tellings of the census that mitigates the contradiction. The text is the same word for word except for the different subject: the LORD or Satan.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 19:26:09 From either book, taken individually, what you said is quite feasibly possible. However, as you may have already realized by now, and as I have countless times reiterated, I am working from the entire Scriptural tradition rather than just those two books. It is clear that if God tempts no one, as James attests when he said "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire," (James 1:13-14) that when it says the LORD is doing precisely that it can only be in the context of permitting Satan to tempt David.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-04 15:11:59 emperorbma wrote: ...misunderstood, maybe, but malevolent by no means! laika wrote: why, then, are we surprised that Mr. Plotz is scandalized by His recorded behavior if "God's thoughts are not like man's thoughts"? Who was surprised?

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-04 15:16:29 emperorbma wrote: Communal, yes. Contrary to Scripture, no. laika wrote: but elsewhere in this thread you imply that you have Special Gnowledge of the Bible and the motivations of the hearts of men through your invocation of the Holy Spirit. why, then, would you need community? I'm pretty sure you know he doesn't mean what you are implying. Likewise, scripture testifies to the work of the Holy Spirit. Your argument may lie in that direction, rather than with emperorbma.

laika   |2009-03-04 17:11:45 holmegm wrote: I'm pretty sure you know he doesn't mean what you are implying. it's just that i expect more from empy than the knee-jerk cop-out of pulling the Holy Spirit card on Mr. Plotz when he arrives at a reading that deviates from the Lutheran framework that empy is steeped in :-) heck, don't get me wrong - i'm one of empy's biggest fans! i would argue that it may be the work of the Holy Spirit that has caused Mr. Plotz to enter in to his argument with God to the degree that he has.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 17:35:57 Quote: it's just that i expect more from empy than the knee-jerk cop-out of pulling the Holy Spirit card on Mr. Plotz when he arrives at a reading that deviates from the Lutheran framework that empy is steeped in Admitted, I am working from my framework. I thought I had already admitted when I said it was a "case in point" of what we teach, though. Quote: i would argue that it may be the work of the Holy Spirit that has caused Mr. Plotz to enter in to his argument with God to the degree that he has. If that is the case, why is he sided against God, though?

laika   |2009-03-04 18:01:13 emperorbma wrote: If that is the case, why is he sided against God, though? i'm guessing because he expected to find a picture of God based on 21-century notions of justice, love, mercy, grace, et cetera and instead found a picture of a God that regularly brings carnage to the mix where those attributes are involved, right on up to - for Christians, anyway - the climax of the story, where some of the recorders of those events interpret the grisly horror wreaked on Jesus as the orchestrated actions of a God whose honor had been offended and could be satisfied in no other way than more violence and death. however, Mr. Plotz now seems to be hounded by God, which might be a Good Thing in the end. Quote: They challenge God for his capriciousness, and demand justice, order, and morality, even when God refuses to provide them. Reading the Bible has given me a chance to start an argument with God about the most important questions there are, an argument that can last a lifetime. Mr. Plotz seems to see himself in a position similar to his OT heroes, locked in a grappling with God that might not end soon.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 21:49:48 Quote: i'm guessing because he expected to find a picture of God based on 21-century notions of justice, love, mercy, grace, et cetera and instead found a picture of a God that regularly brings carnage to the mix where those attributes are involved, A complex bundle of attributes are indeed found in the Divine. Anyone who doesn't admit the reality of this complexity is probably deluding themselves. I do have to wonder if the "20th century vision" is not a reaction to and parody of Christian ethics rooted in a common misunderstanding of God. Quote: Mr. Plotz seems to see himself in a position similar to his OT heroes, locked in a grappling with God that might not end soon. Maybe. I am not qualified to judge in this sense. I was only pointing out that God won't actually work to lead someone against Himself.  That doesn't mean someone can't misunderstand God entirely, however... as is very clear from this situation.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-06 06:30:05 laika wrote: i'm guessing because he expected to find a picture of God based on 21-century notions of justice, love, mercy, grace, et cetera and instead found a picture of a God that regularly brings carnage to the mix where those attributes are involved, emperorbma wrote: I do have to wonder if the "20th century vision" is not a reaction to and parody of Christian ethics rooted in a common misunderstanding of God. That's an interesting point. It's largely because of our cultural Christian inheritance that we have a problem with glory-seekers, that we expect (demand?) mercy, and that we don't think that the guy in charge automatically has the right to make the rules.

laika   |2009-03-06 12:17:40 holmegm wrote: That's an interesting point. It's largely because of our cultural Christian inheritance that we have a problem with glory-seekers, that we expect (demand?) mercy, and that we don't think that the guy in charge automatically has the right to make the rules. exactly! and having myself tried to understand God through the filter of cultural Christianity due to my upbringing, i sympathize with Mr. Plotz's disappointment. you seem perfectly comfortable with the "guy in charge" making up the rules as he darn well pleases, regardless of any subsequent consternation on the part of his creation. and someone else here at TheoPhiles recently spoke movingly of the dark, bloody and desperate appeal of Christianity. maybe it's time to move past a seeker-friendly Bible and pop Christianity and let the chips fall where they may.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-06 20:56:18 the thing s that whenever the infinite is approached and sought with finite reason it transcends the boundaries that comprise rational characterization. this means that the infinite will always yield rational paradox. While "dark, bloody, and desperate" isn't entirely wrong, it's also not in the least to the exclusion of awe-inspiring love mercy and grace. God's good like that. If we insist, as has been fashionable for some time, to confine God to our own reason, we can only find a diminished finite and limited shell, which in it's limits and finitude ( i think that's a word) is wholly foreign to the infinite unfathomable God worshiped and proclaimed by the Christian faith.

laika   |2009-03-06 22:16:13 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: If we insist, as has been fashionable for some time, to confine God to our own reason, we can only find a diminished finite and limited shell, which in it's limits and finitude ( i think that's a word) is wholly foreign to the infinite unfathomable God worshiped and proclaimed by the Christian faith. so in the face of the incomprehensible, what would you tell someone like Mr. Plotz, who seems to have come away disturbed from the official attempts to describe the "infinite unfathomable?" i think it could be argued that there is a worship-me-or-else thread that runs throughout the entire Story, so i'm currently entertaining a rethinking of straight-up Hellfire and Brimstone. we seem to have shied away from that to varying degrees.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-06 23:20:38 I'd tell him some of the same things I've needed to learn myself a) the Bible is dangerous because the human mind is dangerous. Neither should be avoided, both ought to be approached with caution and salt. b)Don't assume it's wrong if you disagree, don't assume you've read it as it is. c) expect confusion. ...but ultimately, and I think it's been said on most levels here already, if you don't read the bible prayerfully, i.e. as part of some relationship with God, fledgling or otherwise, you won't get very far. It is that real relationship and encounter with divinity that forms the reference point for understanding any of it. an exploration of hellfire and brimstone is more an exploration of rejecting God than of God rejecting. If you get away from the flawed notion (that is so easy and enticing) that god's some really big old guy, petty and despotic, and consider God, the infinite source and foundation of creation (not simply a mechanic but the very essence of existence itself) the consequences of rejection make practically intuitive sense. what happens when you willfully reject creation/existence? to the extent that you separate yourself from existence you, ipso facto (that phrase always makes me giggle) destruct. Our existence is conditional upon God. He isn't simply bigger than/ better than us. He constitutes anything of worth (for that matter anything truly existent) of us. (I remember reading Origen discuss the tragedy of spiritually uneducated Christians who would say things of God that they would not say of their worst enemy. the "darker" bits can certainly lend themselves toward that, but ultimately it's simply not so.) sorry, ranty beyond reason perhaps.

laika   |2009-03-07 00:16:06 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: sorry, ranty beyond reason perhaps. not at all. you can be pretty thoughtful when you're not busy cooking up bad puns. WFC wrote: If you get away from the flawed notion (that is so easy and enticing) that god's some really big old guy, petty and despotic... maybe then we could blame that notion on those Biblical writers who depict Him as such? maybe all the recorded carnage attributed to Him was a reflection of their own culture and headspace? WFC wrote: b)Don't assume it's wrong if you disagree, don't assume you've read it as it is. Mr. Plotz had a failure of imagination when confronted with Bible? WFC wrote: c) expect confusion. Mr. Plotz's response to the Bible is perfectly understandable? WFC wrote: It is that real relationship and encounter with divinity that forms the reference point for understanding any of it. Mr. Plotz very obviously doesn't have that? WFC wrote: an exploration of hellfire and brimstone is more an exploration of rejecting God than of God rejecting. so it is simply we who reject the OT-style invitation to worship Him in awe and dread, or else? it's not fair or accurate - or it's a failure of interpretive license - to characterize this "or else" invitation of this self-described jealous God as an ultimatum? WFC wrote: (I remember reading Origen discuss the tragedy of spiritually uneducated Christians who would say things of God that they would not say of their worst enemy. the "darker" bits can certainly lend themselves toward that, but ultimately it's simply not so.) mayhap the Bible should be kept from ignorant layfolk and remain the exclusive domain of a highly educated and specialized priestly caste?   ah well, it's a pity interest in this thread has slackened. i wonder if a separate but related post of "Exactly what would you tell David Plotz" would fly?

laika   |2009-03-07 00:45:37 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: ...but ultimately, and I think it's been said on most levels here already, if you don't read the bible prayerfully, i.e. as part of some relationship with God, fledgling or otherwise, you won't get very far. It is that real relationship and encounter with divinity that forms the reference point for understanding any of it. yes, i think this is what some of the others were getting at. and it explains how all people everywhere at all times come away with the exact same interpretation of any given passage ;-)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-07 01:07:47 laika wrote: maybe then we could blame that notion on those Biblical writers who depict Him as such? maybe all the recorded carnage attributed to Him was a reflection of their own culture and headspace? No. We blame the limitations of human intellect that strive for a way to express the inexpressable and explain the incomprehensible and use the only tools they have available, language and image. as for the carnage...not so sure in all honesty. I'm not sure your "?"s are coming off clearly to me. as a warning. should also take this line to make clear this isn't just about Plotz. any of my criticisms here are pretty broad and the only reason I feel comfortable making them is I know I've fallen prey to them, probably more than most. b')-from what I read he doesn't seem to be wrestling with or acknowledging any alternate interpretation beyond the first-reading. at least not in writing. c')yes (though I would still insist wrong) I make no claims that he doesn't have a relationship with God. existence is such a relationship. But his reading doesn't seem to be founded on or engaging with that reference point, if he's aware of it. (the agnosticism is a pretty good indication that he's not so certain he has that relationship either and as such it's harder to reference.) as a side here: one of the fundamental literary structures of the OT is covenantal, which by absolute necessity is based in encounter and relationship. to a 3rd party, not intimately involved with either party, any covenant will be borderline absurd gibberish. It makes little sense outside of that context. One could argue that scripture (especially torah) is not even so much the story of that covenant but its recitation and affirmation. i didn't reject "or else". I just qualified it. It is certainly God or nothingness, and those are simply the only options. because He is all there is. If we are created to exist with him then nothingness is pretty horrifying. The question has to be asked why God gets so furious with what is ultimately our own self-destruction and, it seems the answer has to be a pretty profound and deep love for us and desire for our continuance, growth and union with Him. the fury is in our best interest. spacedog (do you mind if i call you space dog wrote: mayhap the Bible should be kept from ignorant layfolk and remain the exclusive domain of a highly educated and specialized priestly caste? Not at all what I'm trying to say. Far far from it. It shouldn't be approached lightly for sure, but it should be approached. And lets be clear, I'm not claiming I know what I am talking about, nor am I referring to academic education (out of the mouths of babes etc.) It might be better to say "those who don't know any better (on issue x being discussed)" It's simply a plea for people to continuing seeking a closer relationship with Truth. We should all expect to grow out of our flawed understandings (many times over) as we push onward + upward (hopefully). one of the better parts about biblical confusion is that it can highlight our incomplete grasp and push us further. Quote: ah well, it's a pity interest in this thread has slackened. i wonder if a separate but related post of "Exactly what would you tell David Plotz" would fly? I don't see who's stopping you. though some of it may run its course re: Plotz. It's nice though to get some impetus for a real theological discussion. (Thanks Jim) ok...i think i really should sleep (waking up early to bake in the morning)

WebbedFeetOfClay  - missed one   |2009-03-07 06:13:40 laika wrote: yes, i think this is what some of the others were getting at. and it explains how all people everywhere at all times come away with the exact same interpretation of any given passage ;-) no (nor should they for that matter.) any given passage can mean a lot of things (cramming the infinite into sentences etc.) what is most important isn't a certain predictable unformity, but that those reading can get what they need to/are supposed to get from that passage at that time. now of course i wouldn't say all interpretations are correct. but certainly many can be.

laika   |2009-03-07 18:38:08 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: ...do you mind if i call you space dog... not at all. i feel a kinship with the little muttnik. if i had a totem pole, it would consist of Laika and maybe a crow.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-04 15:17:55 steves wrote: Wow, what an idiotic way of dismissing Plotz's comments. You may as well claim that Hitler was a great leader who's only dumped on because self-important ivory-tower types don't like people like the Fuhrer who don't listen to their opinions. Maybe you should try actually reading the entire Bible once yourself before you criticize Plotz's effort? Adjust your meds, please.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-04 15:23:35 emperorbma wrote: True, but if we follow that logic too far we will end up with Calvinistic election. Rather, God only did so because Pharaoh wanted to be hardened against God. God says He will harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever heads back there. And He says why He will do it, which is for His own purposes. Jacob is chosen over Esau in the womb. God planned the actions of Judas beforehand. Whether those examples apply to all men is actually irrelevant to the usual arguments ... if one "can't worship a God who would do that" then one needs to find somebody other than Yahweh ...

Jim   |2009-03-04 18:09:54 Bringing up Judas is a good idea. Plotz thinks that the NT ties up all the lose ends. I really don't think that's the case. Heck, listen to Terry Gross' interview with Bart Ehrman today! The NT problematizes things even more.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 21:26:23 Quote: The NT problematizes things even more. Apart from the relationship with God established through Christ, one could suggest that it literally compounds the problem into a whole new dimension of reality. Apart from a relationship with God, established through Christ, that is....

laika   |2009-03-04 23:56:26 emperorbma wrote: Apart from the relationship with God established through Christ, one could suggest that it literally compounds the problem into a whole new dimension of reality. i think he meant more problematic with regards to seeming contradictions. of course, it's only problematic if you try to force the Bible to do things it may never have intended.

emperorbma   |2009-03-04 23:58:34 Hence my "Apart from the relationship with God established through Christ" being duplicated for emphasis.

laika   |2009-03-05 00:15:45 Jim wrote: Plotz thinks that the NT ties up all the lose ends. that's part of what i'm trying to get at: the presentation of the Story as a whole has been so sanitized and sugarcoated in our time that Plotz is surprised by what he finds when he gets round to actually reading it in detail. one suspects that Mel Gibson may have in some way been addressing this issue of the Warm Fuzzies in his infamous gore-fest of a movie. Jim wrote: Heck, listen to Terry Gross' interview with Bart Ehrman today! The NT problematizes things even more. only problems if one tries to run the Gospels through the grinder of a certain understanding of  what the Bible is. contrary to the title of Ehrman's book, there's nothing hidden or contradictory about the way the Gospels lay it out. it's all there in the open.

laika   |2009-03-04 18:08:44 holmegm wrote: God says He will harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever heads back there. And He says why He will do it, which is for His own purposes. Jacob is chosen over Esau in the womb. God planned the actions of Judas beforehand. right, and that brings up a Jewish framework for reading those unapologetic descriptions of God's behavior: David Plotz wrote: The second response tends to come from Jews, who razz me for missing the chief lesson of the Hebrew Bible, which is that we can't hope to understand the ways of God. If He seems cruel or petty, that's because we can't fathom His plan for us.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-07 10:45:20 holmegm wrote: That's an interesting point. It's largely because of our cultural Christian inheritance that we have a problem with glory-seekers, that we expect (demand?) mercy, and that we don't think that the guy in charge automatically has the right to make the rules. laika wrote: you seem perfectly comfortable with the "guy in charge" making up the rules as he darn well pleases, I responded to this, I thought, but my response has disappeared ... What I meant by "guy in charge making the rules" was in the generic sense - how do we feel about our rulers making the rules? I think at most times and places in history, even if people didn't like what their rulers were doing, they didn't have quite the same existential angst about it that we do. They read the Bible through their cultural framework , and we read it through ours, which may account for the difference, where we feel justified in judging God and finding His actions "unacceptable" to us.

laika   |2009-03-07 14:05:53 holmegm wrote: I think at most times and places in history, even if people didn't like what their rulers were doing, they didn't have quite the same existential angst about it that we do. interesting. maybe this angst is a by-product of democracy? holmegm wrote: They read the Bible through their cultural framework , and we read it through ours, which may account for the difference, where we feel justified in judging God and finding His actions "unacceptable" to us. agreed. as much as we'd like to believe that we think our own thoughts, a culturally inherited framework for the generation of those thoughts is nigh inescapable. so, do you think there's a built-in mechanism in the Bible for the handling of endless cultural colorings? is the Bible free to be interpreted to mean different things to different cultures and individuals and still be "true?"

emperorbma   |2009-03-07 15:36:05 The cultures under which Bible itself was written ranged from something similar to the ideal vision of modern anarchism (i.e. the time of Judges) to the most centralized of monarchies. (i.e. Rome and Babylon) Democracy (actually, representative republics; I think only Switzerland has a true "democracy" per se) may or may not provide a different angle on interpretation, but I'm sort of the stance that God's Word, testified in Scripture, is true in any circumstance. It is probably also true, however, that different cultures provide different sorts of questions when approaching it.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-08 07:06:21 laika wrote: so, do you think there's a built-in mechanism in the Bible for the handling of endless cultural colorings? Perhaps. Maybe this is why truths are communicated in the Bible repetitively and in many different ways - God's direct words, His actions, parables ...

laika   |2009-03-07 17:54:00 emperorbma wrote: ...but I'm sort of the stance that God's Word, testified in Scripture, is true in any circumstance. true in what sense, though, if truth means different things to different people at different times and places? (including the writers and editors of the Bible.) how would a 21st-century reader like Plotz plug in something like Job's statement that God has a hearty chuckle when sudden calamity strikes the innocent and be expected to come out with a result of "God is Love?" was Job better able to handle such an equation because of his worldview? would you agree that truth is multi-faceted, with meaning relative to your angle of view, as webby seems to indicate as quoted below? WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: ...any given passage can mean a lot of things (cramming the infinite into sentences etc.) what is most important isn't a certain predictable unformity, but that those reading can get what they need to/are supposed to get from that passage at that time. now of course i wouldn't say all interpretations are correct. but certainly many can be. is the Bible a living document? is it a progressively revealing work with revelation continuing in to our time?

emperorbma   |2009-03-07 19:27:37 Quote: true in what sense, though, if truth means different things to different people at different times and places? (including the writers and editors of the Bible.) True in an absolute sense. That truth is perceived and interpreted, however, in a limited manner by our quite relative observations of it. Quote: how would a 21st-century reader like Plotz plug in something like Job's statement that God has a hearty chuckle when sudden calamity strikes the innocent and be expected to come out with a result of "God is Love?" was Job better able to handle such an equation because of his worldview? Probably in a manner which is influenced by his own (relative) culture rather than in a manner which is informed by the (absolute) intended meaning of the Spirit. The Word without the Spirit is simply an empty word because the God who inspires it is both Word and Spirit. (In fact, herein is a good defense of the Trinity) Quote: would you agree that truth is multi-faceted, with meaning relative to your angle of view, as webby seems to indicate as quoted below? Indeed multifaceted because of our limited and relative perceptions, but also singular in its absolute and unchanging value. Although our understanding of God changes, God Himself does not. Quote: is the Bible a living document? is it a progressively revealing work with revelation continuing in to our time? Also yes. I thought I already admitted this fact when I said that reading Scripture requires work of the Holy Spirit to be able to understand the teachings of Scripture correctly. The work of the Holy Spirit is the "life of Scripture," just as God's own life-giving breath was the life of Adam. We cannot simply read the Bible with our own understanding and expect it to make sense, but we must always do so prayerfully and with an ear for what the Holy Spirit intends it to mean for us.

laika   |2009-03-07 21:03:33 emperorbma wrote: Also yes. I thought I already admitted this fact when I said that reading Scripture requires work of the Holy Spirit to be able to understand the teachings of Scripture correctly. so you did, but i guess i didn't read you to mean that a progressive revealing was taking place. i've been laboring under the assumption that the meanings of the Bible were fixed and must've projected that on to what you said. emperorbma wrote: Indeed multifaceted because of our limited and relative perceptions, but also singular in its absolute and unchanging value. Although our understanding of God changes, God Himself does not. so, we're all just pilgrims striving to find the unchanging God of our constantly evolving individual understandings. sounds kinda universalist.

emperorbma   |2009-03-07 22:17:19 Quote: so you did, but i guess i didn't read you to mean that a progressive revealing was taking place. i've been laboring under the assumption that the meanings of the Bible were fixed and must've projected that on to what you said. It is both, actually. It is fixed in that the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ is unchanging. Yet, it is also a work in progress because we all must apply this message to ourselves and live with Him in our lives. Quote: so, we're all just pilgrims striving to find the unchanging God of our constantly evolving individual understandings. sounds kinda universalist. Nope, it isn't universalist at all. I never said all were saved or that everyone's path was correct. You took what I said out of context. I also said that it is "singular in its absolute and unchanging value." As I note above, there is a fixed meaning in Scripture in that the doctrine of Salvation is fixed and unchanging.  This is true because Jesus Christ is unchanging and our God sent His Son as the only propitation for our sins and as the sole mediator for man before God. What is not fixed is our understanding of how God's Word applies to us now and how we are to live as God's redeemed children which He has called through the Word. We also must not assume that our understanding of how Christians are to live is the only true understanding of God's Word. This is the "progresssive revealing" bit, as you called it...

laika   |2009-03-07 22:55:41 emperorbma wrote: As I note above, there is a fixed meaning in Scripture in that the doctrine of Salvation is fixed and unchanging. but understood in myriad ways by different people at different times and places. emperorbma wrote: What is not fixed is our understanding of how God's Word applies to us now and how we are to live as God's redeemed children which He has called through the Word. We also must not assume that our understanding of how Christians are to live is the only true understanding of God's Word. which is why we should remain open to same-sex marriage and Joseph Smith, one supposes.

emperorbma   |2009-03-08 01:03:25 Quote: but understood in myriad ways by different people at different times and places. Probably... There is a significant distinction between the false interpretations and the true ones, however. The first distinction is that the true interpretations are rooted firmly in the Scriptural teachings which preceded them. Those which are not true have simply ignored Scripture and invented their own doctrines in its place. The first example are the false prophets of God who extolled Ahab. They did so by ignoring God's own teaching about Himself. Likewise, even Marcion, the who is alleged by some to be "sola scriptura' discarded half of them in order to make his claims! Finally, did not even the Arians, despite claiming to follow God's Word, deny the Scriptures which taught of the Divinity of Christ? The second distinction is that the true ones have taught both the Law of God and the grace of God in a correct manner. The Law is present to make manifest our sinfulness so that we may recognize our need for God's salvation. Even in the Torah, it says that it is God who sanctifies not man's ability to keep the Law perfectly. (e.g. Leviticus 20:8) Likewise, the grace of God is revealed through His promises which are found in both the Old and New Testaments. Again, it is always understood that God is forgiving our manifest transgressions and this, too, is testified strongly throughout the Scriptures. In the New Testament, God reveals the fulfillment of His Law and the new life through the Gospel of His Son Jesus Christ. Finally, we are led, because of God's grace received through faith, to desire to live according to God's Will which is found in the third (rule) use of the Law. The thing is that the Law of God and the promises of His grace are both inextricably tied into the doctrine of Salvation. A failure to understand them properly also leads to false doctrines and undermines one's connection with God through Christ. Those who ignore God's Laws, for example, multiply their transgressions and do not seek His mercy. Those who place their faith in their own ability to keep the Law without God fail to recognize its true significance and thus blind themselves to their need for God's grace. It is clear in this, however, that it is something which God alone teaches through the work of the Holy Spirit and through the Word of God as testified in Scripture. He has established the Church as a witness to this truth and sustains her in Christ through the Word and Sacraments. Quote: which is why we should remain open to same-sex marriage and Joseph Smith, one supposes. I can easily argue against Joseph Smith on the basis that his doctrine undermines the unity of God, thus undermining Christ's work. Furthermore, as far as SSM is concerned, I see Scripture specifically considers same sex sexual acts to be a sinful act and, as a result, to deny the fact of its sinfulness is to defile the Law of God in a manner which leads to the multiplying of transgression and failure to seek His mercy. I didn't say we can simply hand-wave over Scriptural truths, but there is some room for interpretation that Scripture itself affords. For example, are we required by God to have the same days for our Divine festivals? By no means! Likewise, where Scripture is silent a matter is "adiaphora." However, when Scripture makes clear that an act is sinful it is always sinful. These facts are a part of the necessary purpose of Scripture, its doctrine of Salvation.

laika   |2009-03-08 01:37:09 emperorbma wrote: Likewise, even Marcion, the who is alleged by some to be "sola scriptura' discarded half of them in order to make his claims! not to be picky, but at the time there was no NT canon for Marcion to halve, was there? i thought he was the first person on record as having named a canon. heavily into Paul, wasn't he? emperorbma wrote: Finally, did not even the Arians, despite claiming to follow God's Word, deny the Scriptures which taught of the Divinity of Christ? was there a fixed set of Scriptures at their time? emperorbma wrote: I didn't say we can simply hand-wave over Scriptural truths, but there is some room for interpretation that Scripture itself affords. For example, are we required by God to have the same days for our Divine festivals? By no means! Likewise, where Scripture is silent a matter is "adiaphora." OK, now you're starting to sound like emperorbma again! emperorbma wrote: However, when Scripture makes clear that an act is sinful it is always sinful. so, where does that leave me with regard to the pork and shrimp i so enjoy?

emperorbma   |2009-03-08 03:02:09 Quote: not to be picky, but at the time there was no NT canon for Marcion to halve, was there? i thought he was the first person on record as having named a canon. heavily into Paul, wasn't he? The NT is the "half" he kept. (more or less) Quote: was there a fixed set of Scriptures at their time? I think there were a few protocanons at the time which were quite close to the modern one. At any rate, what I'm talking about is rather universal to all known Christian canons after Marcion, the book of John and numerous other references in the epistles. Quote: so, where does that leave me with regard to the pork and shrimp i so enjoy? Perfectly fine. The first thing is that unclean was never actually called sinful nor was it intended to be construed as sin. Rather, the ritual cleanliness was meant to draw people to recognize their holiness is in God only. Christ Himself testifies that the only uncleanliness that is relevant what comes out of our hearts. (Matthew 15, Mark 7) The rites of cleanliness, along with circumcision, served to prepare the Hebrew people to receive Christ and, for us, these are fulfilled in Christ.  Indeed, unclean foods are revealed by God as clean to Peter in Acts 10 and the same Peter later recognizes those who are Gentiles converted by Paul as permitted to eat as they choose.  Therefore, the rites of cleanliness only apply if one's conscience is offended by such foods.

laika   |2009-03-09 00:54:23 emperorbma wrote: Likewise, even Marcion, the who is alleged by some to be "sola scriptura' discarded half of them in order to make his claims! as a sort of side note: Marcion's trouble with the OT reminds me of a deeply devout friend who studies the Bible daily. based on his study, my friend has almost come to a point where he believes that Elohim and Yahweh are not one and the same entity. he is very careful how he words his idea, but i get the impression that he thinks he's made an overlooked "discovery" of a hidden truth.

metallurge  - re:   |2009-03-09 01:04:58 laika wrote: as a sort of side note: Marcion's trouble with the OT reminds me of a deeply devout friend who studies the Bible daily. based on his study, my friend has almost come to a point where he believes that Elohim and Yahweh are not one and the same entity. he is very careful how he words his idea, but i get the impression that he thinks he's made an overlooked "discovery" of a hidden truth. Yeah, "hidden truth" is maybe more right than you know. This is by no means a new idea. Goes right back to the early heretics.

laika   |2009-03-09 01:17:29 metallurge wrote: Goes right back to the early heretics. i don't know if he is aware of that.  "aspects" is what he calls them, but it's seems pretty clear that he just hasn't admitted to himself that he considers them two separate entities. it's almost a good cop/bad cop kind of thing, with J being the enforcer and E being the good cop.

metallurge  - re:   |2009-03-09 01:34:16 metallurge wrote: Goes right back to the early heretics. laika wrote: i don't know if he is aware of that.  "aspects" is what he calls them, but it's seems pretty clear that he just hasn't admitted to himself that he considers them two separate entities. it's almost a good cop/bad cop kind of thing, with J being the enforcer and E being the good cop. Gonna be some meat for everyone in this one...  :-) Check out Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition, Volume 1" (which I happen to know you have a copy of, spacedog :-), starting on page 71, with the section entitled "The Separation of Law and Gospel". Key heretical figures include Cerdo, and Marcion his student. Sound familiar to you? :-)

metallurge   |2009-03-09 02:21:23 Also, check out the keywords dualism and henotheism. His basic thesis is that El (general Semitic/Caananite creator-God) and YHWH are different, eh? Well, I'd like to see what he does with Exodus 6, then. Particularly telling are vv. 2-3: Exodus 6:2-3, NASB with annotations wrote: God [Elohim] spoke further to Moses and said to him, 'I am The LORD [YHWH]; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name, LORD [YHWH], I did not make myself known to them'

Jim   |2009-03-09 09:23:20 Actually, most scholars use Ex 6:2-3 to make the point that YHWH and El(ohim) were originally two separate deities....

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-09 10:31:44 Jim wrote: Actually, most scholars use Ex 6:2-3 to make the point that YHWH and El(ohim) were originally two separate deities.... Um, how? Because the text explicitly says they are the same? How do they get that from the text?

Jim   |2009-03-09 12:02:10 holmegm wrote: Um, how? Because the text explicitly says they are the same? How do they get that from the text? The text admits that there is confusion, that it is possible to see El Shadai and YHWH as two distinct deities. You don't say something like this unless there's a problem. Of course, the fact that we now have the Deir Alla inscription from the other side of the Jordan to help confirm the existence of the Shaddai deities helps, but even before the inscription was discovered, scholars noted the polemic nature of the text.

laika   |2009-03-09 19:24:35 metallurge wrote: His basic thesis is that El (general Semitic/Caananite creator-God) and YHWH are different, eh? that's it, for the most part. the Full Marcion doesn't seem to have ocurred to him yet :-) he could never dump the OT outright because it's chock-full of yummy nuggets of encrypted goodness in his understanding of it. i'll have to show him what Pelikan has to offer regarding Marcion and Cerdo, and perhaps the book that Dr. Q suggested can be found. my buddy's prayerful study of the Bible leads him to some very interesting insights. perhaps it's time for me to insist that he recite the Nicene Creed!

Jim  - re:   |2009-03-09 09:21:19 laika wrote: as a sort of side note: Marcion's trouble with the OT reminds me of a deeply devout friend who studies the Bible daily. based on his study, my friend has almost come to a point where he believes that Elohim and Yahweh are not one and the same entity. he is very careful how he words his idea, but i get the impression that he thinks he's made an overlooked "discovery" of a hidden truth. I love asides! The idea is not new. Tell your friend to read Early History of God by Mark Smith. It really depends when you're talking about the YHWH and Elohim. The standard view these days is that the two gods get morphed into each other way before the writing of most texts (the Blessing of Jacob, Song of the Sea and Song of Moses might be earlier). Additionally, it is unclear if it is a coopting of epithets or a full syncretism. That is to say, are aspects of El(ohim) adopted or just the name? Looking at the attempt to give YHWH the additional name Baal in Hosea, I'm not as sure of a full out syncretism as I used to be.

laika   |2009-03-09 00:44:03 emperorbma wrote: The NT is the "half" he kept. (more or less) ten of Paul's letters and some of the Gospel of Luke. not exactly an entire NT by our standards. and one can almost sympathize with his confusion over how to reconcile Yahweh's behavior as described in th OT with the teachings of Jesus and Paul! emperorbma wrote: Perfectly fine. The first thing is that unclean was never actually called sinful nor was it intended to be construed as sin. Rather, the ritual cleanliness was meant to draw people to recognize their holiness is in God only. good! because i had BBQ pork for lunch. yum... sweet tea, baked beans, turnip greens, corn on the cob and lemon icebox pie!

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."