<!--

As for Jesus, perhaps you should give the Gospels another read... He is constantly quoting scripture. If nothing else, he clearly thought it was authoritative (Jeremy 149:10 - post/paragraph).

Yes, Jesus did quote scripture. But what bothers me is that he was inconsistent with validating it's authority (Matt 5:17 - part about not coming to abolish law) yet in many places he goes against the old school laws and makes up his own version, I mean, who does the guy think he is? But that does beg the question, how much "authority" did Jesus really give to scripture? It's like Jesus is driving around town with Peter and blows through a red light. Peter says, "Jesus Christ! You just blew through that red light!", then Jesus says, "No big deal, no one else is around". Yes, Jesus acknowledges the law, but spends his ministry blowing red lights when no one is around.

Bo, I guess I would need to see an example of where Jesus actually undermines the authority of scripture itself, as opposed to undermining rabbinical interpretations of The Law (Torah), or simply expounding upon the Law, as in the Sermon on the Mount (You have heard it said... but I say to you...).

Where the Torah was vague (i.e. keeping the Sabbath day holy), the Jews, and Pharisees in particular, would expound upon the Law in the form of the Talmud. They would invent ways to try to avoid breaking the law by "building a fence" around the law. Jesus ripped the Pharisees a new one for some of their "fences", as they were ridiculous (such as not healing on the Sabbath, because it was "work"), and their priorities were out of wack (Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath).

However, Jesus participates in this tradition ("Oral Law") in the Sermon on the Mount, but in a radically new way. Instead of a prescription of "do's" and "don'ts" he proposes following the spirit of the law, which in some respects makes it easier to follow the law (such as the Sabbath, purity rituals, oaths, etc.), but in others much more difficult (not lusting after women or getting angry).

Some take this to be a critical look at the Mosaic Law on the part of Jesus. I guess that is possible. But I think it is far more likely - given his statement that he will "fulfill the law" and the indications that he was, in fact, an observant Jew - that he is simply "clarifying" the law in the age-old tradition of the Jews, but with his unique take.

There is no doubt that Jesus was a bit of a rebel. But I don't think we find that this was directed at scripture. Rather, it was more engaged at the dogma of rabbinical tradition and especially hypocrisy.

And it is interesting to note that nowhere does Jesus claim the the scripture (at the time, only the OT) was inerrant, or that it was "the Word(s) of God" (usually referred to as "The Law and the Prophets", or simply "as it is written"). But he does hint in at least one instance that it is inspired (Mark 12:36).

Point of Information: not all versions of Bible encompass 66 books. Which version of Bible are we talking about here? The book count of 66 is a clue, but only to the family of a particular version, not the version itself.

There are different versions of Old Testament as well, and Constantine was at liberty to decide which version he prefered. The Masoretic version was prefered because it was modern enough (compared to Paul's Epistles) to serve as verification of claimed prophecy fulfillments in the New Testament--most of which was written by Paul & Friends.

Another good post to populate the Contradictions section of this board with. There are also NT scripture quotations of scripture that cannot be found anywhere in The Bible--what of those?

(I should explain that when I type "The Bible" with both words capitalized, I am refering to the King James family of Bibles, both Standardized and non).

Bo, I know that some of my christian friends, several actually, use the Jesus runnign the redlight so to say that by doing so he is denouncing the law, therefore deminishing those laws that arnt that moral.

Hi all,

Jeremy articulated well what my thoughts were on the subject. I just want add in a more banal sense. Not sure what it's like in the States, but here, the petite bureaucrats are having a party. Every aspect of our lives are being regulated (for our own good of course) so that what were once decisions based on risk we would make ourselves is now legislated. Sorry...the fact that you are a complete idiot and dive into a body of water in the dark without testing it and crack your head on a rock? Gee.... the land owner must be responsible because he/she did not put up a sign to warn the said idiot.

This is where our law is heading, and as Jeremy pointed out, the Law in Jesus day had drifted so far as to not resemble the original intent of the law giver. You can probably site same in your country. In any case, it just shows that all systems break down over time, unless they are maintained. No more so in the human world. Jesus actually was showing by his teaching the original intent of the law giver rather than a contemporary rendering of it which has been polluted over time by popular interpretation, politics and religious zealotry. Jesus would have divided his wealth into tenths "by eye", in aussie terms "close enough...mate", and given one tenth to the temple. Under or over so many pounds or ton doesn't matter. The intent is there. His religious leaders demanded the exact amount and with it the resultant bureaucracy that attended such reckoning (this is just an example)

Jim

If the bible was taken literally it would be anarchy

sorry i ment *the apocalypse

The Israelites accepted their scriptures as literal for thousands of years and there was no apocalypse, so why now?

Jeremy,

Where do you come upon your knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita? I very easily found a source in which Hindu believers professed a belief (with their own apologetic evidences) in the historicity of that particular book. I don't know if they would defend the rest of the Hindu scriptural canon in the same fashion.

I agree that many Hindus (maybe even most?) feel no need to have their scriptures linked to history in the same way as the Christian and Jewish scriptures. Perhaps when Christianity is as old as Hinduism, many (maybe even most?) Christians will feel the same way as Hindus regarding the necessity of having their scripture linked to history?

JSG

Actually the best evidence is that the Jews finalized their canon somewhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE (200 BC and 200 AD) so they haven't yet had thousands of years to "accept it as literal." Add to that the fact that I'm not sure the majority of Jews have accepted their scriptures as literal for the past hundred years or so...

Where was I going with this?

It is difficult to maintain a position of saying the Israelites finalized their canon close to the time of Jesus in light of the fact that their every move was dictated and governed by the "word of God" as given by the prophets. In all honesty, I could care less about what a specific religious group (in this case the Jewish leaders of the day) set as Canon. For 2000 - 4000 years, the Israelites had accepted the stories passed down about Adam and Eve, Noah, Abram/Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Lot, Moses, etc and taken them as literal. The Law as given to Moses was accepted as literal, as well as the story of how he got it.That indicates a literal reading of their scriptures, regardless of who did or didn't close their "canon".

On top of this, Hassidic jews still maintain that Christ was an imposter, and that the Messiah will come one day to restore the Israelite nation. So to say that their canon is closed is counter-intuitive, as they are still the chosen people of God, and He can still send prophets. Perhaps Messianic jews can accept a closed canon (not sure that's the right word for it as canon is latin), but they also accept Christ was the Messiah, and that He will return to restore the Israelite nation.

As for the last 100 years, you might be very surprised at just how literal the Law and the Prophets are taken in Israel right now.

I'm not sure what you mean here, John. I disagree that the Israelites' 'every move was dictated and governed...' etc. Of course they extremely revered their scriptures. But I think you mean something else?
Again, I'm no sure what you mean. I'm sorry. The above quoted portion led me to think that you disagreed with the consensus regarding when the Jews finalized their canon. But in this quoted portion you seem to tacitly acknowledge that consensus, but then dismiss its importance?

I don't really care about what they set as canon, either. I'm not a believer in the Jewish canon. I am a teacher (and student) of history, however, and do care about being accurate -- the best I can -- about what happened and when. I'm also one who is simply interested in the great mosaic of beliefs in our crazy world.

I think you might be flattening out the great disagreements that have always existed in Judaism. I think a good argument can be made that there was more diversity in Jewish belief prior to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem than after! Even in Jesus' time we had the Sadducees who disagreed about what constituted the Scriptures with the Pharisees who disagreed with the Essenes. They all had different canons and wildly different interpretations. Did they take it all literally? I'm not so sure...They definitely took it all seriously. But the voluminous library of midrash and talmudic interpretations that has come down through the ages often shows to me a bold adventurousness in interpretation. Paul doesn't even interpret the Old Testament literally! Neither does the writer of the Gospel of Matthew.

I know this is something of a tangent. But I know that many believers (and non-believers) think of the Bible as a whole, something given in complete form as a miracle. But it's not. There was a complex process of transmission and canonization that is joined with an even more complex process of interpretation.
Nope, I wouldn't be. Still doesn't change my point that a literal interpretation is not the primary way that Jews understand their scriptures. A recent survey (2006) showed that about 31% of Israeli Jews defined themselves as Haredim, or religious, or religiously-traditional. Another 24% or so described themselves as non-traditionally religious, and about 45% described themselves as secular.

I would also agree -- if this helps -- that the mere 7% who define themselves as Haredim in Israel have political power that is greater than their numbers would otherwise seem to suggest.

@JustSomeGuy
From my interaction with Hindus, and (admittedly scant) some research. My sister also lived in India for 6 months, so picked up some second-hand knowledge from her. I spent some time in the Middle East (Dubai, Kuwait City, and Afghanistan), where there are many Indian workers, and was able to pick a few of their brains. I also had a Hindu sociology teacher who I was able to have some in-depth conversations with.



Like most Westerners, I have difficulty comprehending many Eastern concepts. So I certainly wouldn't be willing to die on the hill of my Hindu religious knowledge.

Nevertheless, my understanding is that the Bhagavad Gita falls into the song/poetry genre, not of history ilk. It definitely is revered as scripture by Hindus, no questions there. And some would probably even claim it to be infallible with respect to spiritual truths. But I have never come across anyone stating that it was historically true. That isn't to say that they don't exist, but I do think they are in the minority.

I think I found where we agree. I had a good friend who I worked with at a bookstore when I was younger. He left the bookstore to take a job at a magazine distributor. Knowing my interests he brought me an English-language Hindu periodical. There was a great article about the difficulties of defining heresy in Hindu thought. It's so inclusive that the idea of heresy is difficult!

I think I agree with your general response here. Thanks for taking the time. I wonder at what point in their history it became mere song and poetry, or if it was always regarded as such by the majority? Perhaps the presence of some 'fundamentalist' Hindus who regard it as historical are a reaction to Christians and their 'historical' religion?

JustSomeGuy said:
Bingo. I think this sums it up nicely.

I think there is some confusion over the term "literal". What do we mean by the word "literal"?

A literal reading does not mean that you take every word to mean exactly what it says. A literal reading incorporates genre, intent, context, etc. - whenever possible. In other words: if a text has the hallmarks of a metaphor, then a literal reading will read it as a metaphor.

The flip side of this is being literalistic, where everything is interpreted based on what is portrayed explicitly, nothing (or at least very little) implicitly. Here, stories such as Jesus' parables can be read as metaphors only because He explicitly identifies them as such.

There is also a continuum on how seriously you take the Bible. You can read the Bible (or sections of it) as a myth (and many do), and still take it seriously. Or, you can read it as (intended) history but not take it seriously. And everything in-between.

Debates will continue to rage as to what sections of the Bible are meant to be read as fact or fiction, but as JustSomeGuy ably points out, it was definitely intended to be taken seriously.

@JustSomeGuy
Very true. It really is a very pluralistic religion. You can tell them that Jesus, Allah, or Zeus is God and they wouldn't necessarily disagree. Most likely, they would just include them alongside their pantheon.
This I do not know, but it is a great question.
Perhaps. It may also be a reaction to fundamentalist Muslims and their historical religion. The relationship between Islam and Hinuism is much more strained than that of Christianity and Hinduism, in my experience.

But it seems to me that there are fundamentalists in every religion. Being able to make things very black-and-white can be very appealing. A fundamentalist approach offers certainty, where otherwise there is ambiguity. I have found that whether you are Jew or Gentile, Protestant or Catholic, theist or not, there are those who will tend toward seeing in black-and-white and those who see nothing but shades of gray.

Yes, true! I remember eating at a Hare Krishna buffet in southern California once with my then-vegetarian mom and seeing a painting of the various avatars of Vishnu and there was Jesus! Yep! They had no problem with Jesus! But they certainly had a different understanding of him!
Good point! There is the conflict of many years (many!) in the Kashmir and Pakistan between Hindus and Muslims. If only there were another Emperor Akbar of the Mughals to smooth some things out, eh?
True and true and true. I guess I'm less a black-and-white guy and more of a gray guy, but I don;t even stick there all the time, either! Ah, such is life! You live, you learn! Maybe my eyes are going bad and the things that used to seem so damn black just seem more gray now!

What about you, Jeremy? Do you identify more with the gray or the black-and-white?

These 2 paragraphs are both part of one portion of my response
I don't neccessarily disagree that some group of Israelite leaders got together and said they would take certain collections of writings and set them in stone as "canon". What I was trying to say (albeit in a roundabout way) is that these "leaders" had no more right to set the scriptures that should be accepted as "God inspired" than I do. Anytime a group of people get together and say "this is the way it is", there has been compromise, personal agenda, etc that clouds the accuracy of such a "canon".

As well, the Israelites that came before these religious "elite" lived according to ALL the scriptures that had been "inspired". They didn't get to pick and choose (of course, there were the "pharisees" of the day that would have a particular "bent"), but had to live according to that law.

All true, and simply reinforces my point about personal agendas and compromise. As for literally, it's kind of irrelevant (but academically important) what the leaders of different sects claimed. The people lived a very strict lifestyle to conform to the multitude of laws contained in the second law of Moses (the lesser law). The leaders were not responsible for that, the people's faith and fear were.
The processes of canonization (both Jewish and Catholic) were anything but complex. Complicated in execution maybe, but simple in essence. I mean, they voted! How complex is that? If they were all talking to and hearing from the same God, then there shouldn't have been a need for a vote.

I am aware you are more concerned with the historicity rather than the spiritual validity, but for religious people they are one and the same thing.
Please don't take offense, but I'm quite certain a 100 different studies could produce 100 different results. However, accepting those numbers as absolutes doesn't address the issue of how literal the scriptures are taken. It simply shows that 45 % of the people have realised what T'ealc did: they worshipped a false god.

Out of the 55% that were religious, 60%~ accept the scriptures as literal.Accurate or not, it doesn't really change the ratio of orthodox jews to progressive jews.

@JustSomeGuy
My glasses are definitely tinted gray. But you know, even in grayscale there is black at one end and white at the other...

I ran across this and I know that my saying, I agree with what this man says, will knock your socks off, But I do! Linda _

---

Belief in the biblical account of creation as literal is simply uninformed. Sorry to be so brash. It shows a lack of awareness or appreciation for Hebrew literary elements, a lack of awareness or appreciation for cosmological evidence that clearly shows that what is currently alive on the planet has not been here that long and was proceeded by numerous other creatures who are no longer around and that there have been several such phases in life on the planet. The bible makes no such claim that the genesis account is intended to be taken literally and the huge number of linguistic signifiers (things most fundamentalists have no awareness of as they learn Hebrew only to justify what they think they already know) in that section of text that demonstrate it should be taken metaphorically is overwhelming. Christianity's battle with science has a 1500 year history of stupidity and denial. People who want to think that knowing and believing in God somehow makes them smarter than those who do the hard and scholarly work to study the facts is arrogant. It turns the gospel into a joke by people who refuse to be educated. It is disrespectful to the biblical text to misrepresent it in such an uneducated manner. It is disrespectful to the creation and the scientific realities created by God. It sets well intended but uninformed believers at unnecessary odds with the culture and picks a fight that cannot be won. It is a betrayal of honesty and a call to believers to hide their head in the sand as they firmly hold to an interpretation they are not even qualified to have an opinion on or know what they are talking about. Like quack doctors who know little about the science of internal medicine, these theologians put a wall between their followers and reality in do great harm to the spiritual well being of God's people. I put up with this crap for decades and have gotten to the point that I find little room in my heart to tolerate the nonsense. Bob Greaves

Amen to Bob! Well stated. And amen to you for seeing the truth and logic in his statement.

I only wish I knew how he sees our spiritual world. Karl, where have you been and what in the world are you so angry about? I like that " Amen" Bo.

I wasn't sure where I should put this, but this topic seems to feel right, so here goes.

I would like to hear what you think about the light God created in verse 3 of Gen. I see it as His creating the host of heaven and separating them from the earth. The earth was dark and void. This light, God created for us! When we receive this light, we no longer live in darkness.

2 Corinthians 4; 6, For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7, But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.