Wow...
How I Understand the Bible
You are correct that I do not know every single line of scripture and understand every single thing I read. When I say that I "understand" scripture, I mean that I know what lens to use when reading scripture.
But you have no guarantee that your reading of scripture is right. Predestination, for example, is in minority among even Protestants, yet you assert that the rest of the world is wrong and that you are right on this matter. Yet, at the same time, you have not gone through the Bible enough to show that it is consistent and not simply a set of bad proof-texts.
More importantly, simply because you know how to read scripture does not mean that you understand what scripture means. I know how to read Latin. It’s not hard; I can pronounce all of the words. Yet, without a right disposition, I cannot understand it. Similarly, I can understand the words of scripture, but without a right disposition I may be lying to myself.
a) The Old Testament is to be seen through the lens of Christ.
The Old Testament is to be seen through the lens of both history and Christ. It also must be understood through textual, linguistic, and literary analysis (literary, here, does not mean that it is fictional but that we need to treat Psalms like poems and Apocalypses as Apocalypses. We need to read these books as the human authors would have intended them, not as golden which fell from the sky or whatever the Mormons believe). This is the only way that we may understand what the prophets meant when they said what they did. Further, simply because something may point to Christ we cannot assert that that was the soul intention of the prophesy or even that it would necessarily be reasonable to assert that it is a fulfillment of said prophesy. For example:
- “Zeal for your house will consume me,” - a reference to Christ cleaning out the Temple is a quote from Psalm 69. However, that Psalm also has an admission that the Psalmist is a sinner - something which fails Christian doctrine. Obviously, the entire Psalm is not a prophesy in a holistic sense; even if parts are prophetic.
- “A virgin shall conceive,” - the Hebrew says, “young woman,” only the Greek says, “virgin.” (And, by the way, the Greek Old Testament is the same collection which includes the Deuterocanon so it is not something which you have already suggested as unreliable.). Obviously the former is a good deal less impressive than the latter. Yet both go on to say that Christ would have to, “Learn bad from good.” Once again, not obvious with Christian doctrine.
- The servant song (Isaiah 50, etc.) does not mention Messiah at all. This, while not indicative that it is not about the Messiah, can cast doubt.
- Psalm 110 - quoted in the book of Hebrews to demonstrate the divine inspiration of Christ and by Christ as a reference to himself - was commonly understood to be referencing Abraham and this alternate interpretation works.
None of this would be possible to understand (and thus it is impossible to understand the words of Christ himself) without an analysis which is willing to put down the lens of Christ. You must see the books as the authors did, then as Christians did in order to understand what they meant.
I am quite sure that you believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament...that all promises made by God are "yes" in Christ. (yes, I know what I just quoted)
Sort of. I view this sentence as theologically sloppy. All promises by God are yes in the Trinity as measured through time. “I will send another Advocate” was a promise by God (Christ) which was a yes in the Spirit. Further, some promises are yet to be realized and so are, “not yet,” and are not fulfilled; for example, death has not been put under Christ’s feat, for it is the, “last enemy to be destroyed.” This is something which will only be accomplished in the eschaton.
b) The New Testament is to be read as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
I do not think I need to put in the necessary proof-texts for these ideas.
The purpose of the New Testament is not as a demonstration of fulfillment. It is a tremendous exhortation to believe and repent. Yes, Christ does fulfill the Old Covenant, but that is not the end. The Bible is not a circular book, nor is it complete in and of itself. Each of the books was written, “so that we might believe,” and that we, “Go out to all the world, preaching the good news and [baptizing people] in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Further, the fullness of truth (not fullness of revealed truth - we have that) has yet to come.
Therefore there are two truths which are decidedly and necessarily absent from the Bible: the motion of the Spirit in the individual’s soul and the, “Day and the Hour.”
There is also the issue that there was one time when many did not believe the Old Testament. They said that the God from the Old Testament (the Demiurge) and the God from the New Testament (Christ) were more or less at war. Their Bible had some striking reductions (it was partially because of them that the Church put together the canon).
Why Do I Believe the Bible is ALWAYS What it Claims to Be (Whether Prophecy, Simple Teachings, History, Geographical, Etc?)
BECAUSE JESUS BELIEVED IT!!!
Well, now, that’s up for debate, isn’t it? You still haven’t addressed the issues I presented which directly contradict that statement from within the canon of the Bible itself.
For that matter, how do you know what the Bible claims to be? I don’t seem to see anywhere in the book of Genesis which says that it is the literal truth. I don’t see anywhere that says that these things cannot be taken allegorically or in some sort of metaphorical sense.
I am going to go from least-proof to most-proof in terms of the verses I use here. So, the evidence will mount up due to the texts I use, as well as due to the power of the texts.
So you know: I don’t generally like proof-texts. I find that they are often dishonest and take texts out of context. This is why I normally shy away from them myself. No judgment on you, but there are more solid ways to make arguments.
A) Matthew 12:39-41 [Jonah actually happened that way]
Why was John the Baptist a prophet? Because he went, “before the Lord to prepare his way, to give the people a knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.” (Luke 1:76-77) I see no reference to being literally or historically true. Prophesy can take the form of analogy quite readily and we don’t know that the author of Jonah did not intend that his readers believe this (and this goes for both the human and divine authorship). There is also no evidence that Christ is not speaking about prophesy in the same way. “Sign of Jonah,” may have been much like quoting Aesop in that case, a demonstration of a literal truth isn’t necessary if your audience understands the allegorical nature.
B) The first chapter of John [God made the world - this references the beginning]
This only says that the world was created by the Father through Christ. “God created everything.” Well, that fact is not in dispute here, nor has it been. I see no particular reference to the actual process surrounding the creation of the world. As such, this argument is mute.
C) The Genealogy of Jesus in Luke & Matthew.
Yet, you’ll notice that certain people are omitted from the geneology, most notably Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin - someone whose name rests in infamy. If, then, such a one is omitted, then we can safely say that many others, if not dozens, or even over one hundred, were omitted. Further, if such a technique is present in Matthew, why would it not be appropriate in Luke as well? Thus, we find that the genealogies do not prove that there was a historical timeline and similarly this argument does not prove your case. Further, it has never been contested here that God did not create an Adam and an Eve and that there was a historic fall. It has simply been said that this is something which happened literally in the way the Bible describes.
D) Matthew 24:37-39 - Again, Jesus speaks of the flood as a historic event.
See earlier argument re: allegory as a matter of prophesy. Yet, even still, simply because the flood was not on the same scale as it was in the book of Genesis, it does not follow that the flood, in fact did not happen. In fact, the word used in the book of Genesis which is commonly translated, “world,” can also be translated, “land,” or, “nation.” So, perhaps, in this case, it is a literal truth, simply not as extensive as is stated or as understood to the modern mind.
Now, as for possible arguments to disarm the above, and their refutations (I like that word). The letters below are not correlating to the above, I just don't want to use numbers again.
a) Jesus was speaking metaphorically
Demonstrated as a possibility above.
b) Jesus believed that these events were historical, b/c He was alive during the First Century, and t/f just didn't know any better.
In the favor of intellectual honesty: Christ’s knowledge while here on earth was limited. Though I too find this interpretation to be far from plausible. Christ knew the scriptures a little too well for this interpretation.
c) God, in the Old Testament, and in Jesus, is speaking in terms that man can understand: So, God lies to men so that we can better understand something…
The law gave instruction which man misinterpreted. I’m sure you’ll agree with this. If, then, man has acted thus, what is to say that they were given a document, told how to read the document through an outside tradition and, over time, the understanding was corrupt? How do you know that first century Jews took those books which you call literal as literal? You don’t. In fact, Josephus, a first century JEW AND PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE said that there are only three types of book in the Bible: Law, prophesy, and wisdom literature. As such, we must assume that the books we call histories were understood by Christ (and Paul’s) contemporaries as prophesy, not as history.
…Nowhere, NOWHERE, in scripture are we told to interpret scripture as anything other than what it presents itself to be (whether geographical, historical, or in matters of faith, etc)…
No, scripture is meant to be taken as it is meant to be taken (see above). The book of Revelation, for example, is not prophesying that a giant dragon will literally fly out of the sea. Therefore, each scripture must be interpreted through the intent of the author - both the human pen and the divine inspiration.
Why Do I Go by Scriptures Alone?
a) Scripture is God breathed. All other truths are secondary.
I actually prefer the term “God breathed.” The intent is to say that it is inspired but there is poetry to the former. Yet, simply because it is inspired does not mean that it is all that is inspired. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no quote in scripture which says that the words of the Apostles which were not written down are not God-breathed as well.
There is no quote in the entire Bible which says that we should only rely on scripture. There are a couple of quotes which say that it is good to rely on scripture, but there are also quotes which say that sometimes it’s good to have someone who can explain the scriptures to you (say, for example, Phillip and the Eunuch). To that effect I find your statements significantly less than compelling.
As to your comments regarding Christ’s statement regarding tradition, I again refer you to the beginning of Matt. 23. There is an oral tradition (seat of Moses), the Pharisees are right in it, listen to them. With this in your context, no other verse can wholly condemn tradition. You can simply say that a tradition is not consistent with the Gospel message.
As to your reference to the Catholic Church, I would tread very carefully on those grounds. You yourself are a Calvinist and a Knoxist…
Now, you then go on to argue that a person who follows scripture and tradition has two masters. Yet, Mozart had a musical corpus to draw from - Haydn, J.C. Bach, Händel - yet he still took counterpoint lessons. Would you consider this to his detriment or his benefit? From the music he studied from the Rococo era he made mediocre music (listen to his early works) and with the lessons he improved dramatically. To take it a step further, I find that often I will hit a road block on a particular Bible passage or in understanding a particular bit of philosophy. At this point I turn to teachers that I might get through the troubles.
Scripture and Tradition, in our sense, are two complementary aspects of the same thing - the Doctrine of the Church. We firmly believe that the Church actually is the pillar and foundation of Truth and, as such, we listen to those who have taught before us. For if the Church has said something, and it is the pillar and foundation of truth, then it must be worth listening to. Don’t you think?
However, if it is found that the tradition is not in line with the Bible, it must be disposed of.
You have yet to show that any of my traditions are not consistent with the Bible.
You say that your faith is based upon faith alone. How can this be? If you faith is based upon faith alone, and not upon the truth of the Bible, and not upon the historical accuracy of Jesus, how can you refute the teachings of the Mormons?
I firmly believe that all matters involving divine are intrinsically matters of faith. They are beyond the realm of pure argumentation because I cannot prove that the creator is Christ. I have done my best, but I cannot prove that there is not a fourth person in the trinity on any ontological sense (ontological argument = without evidence and from reason alone). As such, all I can appeal to is my own religious tradition which may or may not be believed by another. I cannot force that. Thus, as the most I can have is faith, then I love God more for having the faith.
Further, while I believe neither Muslim, nor Mormon, nor Jehovah’s Witness, nor even Protestantism; most people, even logical people, do not place their religion on a matter of logic (and if they did, I’d wonder about their devotion). Rather, it lies deeper. This is why we do not convince in ministry, we invite conversion. No matter how good I am at showing logical inconsistencies, I cannot logically show that an individual needs to be a Catholic, or even a simpler version of Christianity (why I would do that is beyond me, but still). I can simply provide the truth and, like the case of the man on Christ’s right and left, they can either follow it to salvation or make demands and deny and fall.
This is also why people hardened their hearts. They could not manage to face the fact that some of their most basic tenets of religion were wrong.
You’ll note that most of what I’ve been saying has remained fairly consistent. There is a lot more, even to the Bible, than that. And if I convince you of anything, I hope it is that you need to dwell in your faith, and your doubt, so that you can come out stronger.
[Mormon beliefs are based on feelings and they know it by faith. Would you say that their beliefs contradict the Bible?] SO DO YOURS! If you do not believe that the Bible is provably accurate historically, geographically, etc, then what do you have? You have some very nice and pretty teachings on how we should live. Beautiful! But where is the POWER!? Where is the STRENGTH!? Where is the absolute CONVICTION to hold to truth?
You’ve already asked this question. And there is more truth and more beauty in the way I see things than there is in yours. You may have dogma, but I have wisdom and mystery. You may have conviction and simplicity, but I have eternal profundity. Given the choice, I prefer the latter.
I am firmly convinced that it is better to have greater truths with more pressing questions. For if Christ is truth and you seek truth, then you will grow closer to Him. Yes, this will create some profound difficulties, but without questions there will be no mystery. And mystery is inspiration to find Truth.
Today, I went to Church and heard a sermon. John was there. I also had Burger King today. Now, I went to Burger King BEFORE I went to church; there were more people than just John, and my pastor's name is not John. I left out some events, and put them out of chronological order.
The fact that he put David as the seventh son, when he may have been the eighth son, is not a huge deal to me. As far as the Chronicler is concerned, David is the seventh son, b/c one of the other sons is for some reason disqualified. Why? I don't know. And, I don't care.
Now you’re arguing that it is somehow out of chronological order. Yet, if I were to say, “First you went to Chruch, then you met John, and third you went to Burger King,” I would be wrong. That order would be wrong. Jeff, look at this situation. The book of Chronicles very specifically says that David has six brothers and that David was the seventh. It would be exactly the same as I described above.
In addition, you have also just added a quote to the Bible. Instead of having a pure Biblical text you have now added your own interpretation, something which you have already stated is something which is not God-breathed.
Jeff, we’re going around in circles here. I know that I have provided you the exact same quote several times regarding Saints and you have not spoken to it at all. You have simply ignored it or dismissed it without refuting it. Do you at least believe that the word worship isn’t something which was only for God? Do you see my point when I suggest that perhaps asking those in heaven to pray for us is not entirely different from asking someone on earth to pray for us? I have difficulty seeing if you even understood that that is what I meant.
We’re still arguing what the Bible means without even agreeing on what the Bible is. We need to agree on a canon and we haven’t. Our discussion would be much different if we could even agree to that, but we haven’t.
Once again, we are going around in circles. You cite something about tradition being wrong and I show another interpretation of that verse. I’ve countered each with the addition of Matthew 23. Argumentation, in any systematic sense of the word, means that you need to start refuting me in this.
I sincerely hope that we can come to a point where we are closer in our beliefs. I do not know if this will come, but I hope that it does. Until it does, well, maybe St. Jude might be our friend…
In the love of God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
-- Christopher Ignatius
John Paul, pray for us!
-----Original Message-----
From: steelersd4ever@yahoo.com
To: jontrebor@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 13 May 2007 1:42 PM
Subject: Bible Discussion
Chris,
First, on this particular e-mail, I will be answering several questions. And, rather than using only my own words, I will be giving proper justice to my beliefs by using the Word of God.
How I Understand the Bible
You are correct that I do not know every single line of scripture and understand every single thing I read. Of course not! When I say that I "understand" scripture, I mean that I know what lens to use when reading scripture.
a) The Old Testament is to be seen through the lens of Christ. I am quite sure that you believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament...that all promises made by God are "yes" in Christ. (yes, I know what I just quoted)
b) The New Testament is to be read as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
I do not think I need to put in the necessary proof-texts for these ideas.
Why Do I Believe the Bible is ALWAYS What it Claims to Be (Whether Prophecy, Simple Teachings, History, Geographical, Etc?)
BECAUSE JESUS BELIEVED IT!!! If I'm going to fall down on the side of something, it's always best to fall on Jesus' side. Wouldn't you agree?
I am going to go from least-proof to most-proof in terms of the verses I use here. So, the evidence will mount up due to the texts I use, as well as due to the power of the texts.
A) Matthew 12:39-41 - Here, Jesus uses what happened to Jonah to illustrate that miraculous signs are not necessary. The signs already exist and are self-evident. There is not A SINGLE HINT that Jesus is using allegory to prove His point, or that Jesus is simply using symbolic images. He definitely seems to truly believe in Jonah, and to believe that the men of Nineveh were brought to faith by the preaching of Jonah, given power of course by the Spirit of God.
B) The first chapter of John. Yes, not directly the words of Jesus, but compelling none-the-less. Is John simply referring to the Old Testament for the heck of it? How could you say that? John seems to completely believe that the Old Testament account of creation is true and real. I'll get to your objection in a moment, sir.
C) The Genealogy of Jesus in Luke & Matthew. Again, not directly the words of Jesus (I'm getting back to those in a moment), but also quite compelling. Are the gospels lying? If all of these men did not truly exist, what other explanation is there? I know of one of your possible arguments, and I'll be getting rid of that momentarily.
D) Matthew 24:37-39 - Again, Jesus speaks of the flood as a historic event. Jesus says that at the end it will be like it was during the time of Noah. He DOES NOT say it will be like the Bible says it was, or it will be like you believe it was, or it will be like those silly stories that prove a nice point but aren't true say it was.
Now, as for possible arguments to disarm the above, and their refutations (I like that word). The letters below are not correlating to the above, I just don't want to use numbers again.
a) Jesus was speaking metaphorically: The context does not allow this interpretation.
b) Jesus believed that these events were historical, b/c He was alive during the First Century, and t/f just didn't know any better: WHAT!? This argument that I have heard boggles my mind. To believe this is to believe that Jesus Christ does not have as much knowledge of scripture as He actually has. Jesus knows the scriptures better than any man who ever lived, because HE WROTE THEM! (kinda, you get the point).
c) God, in the Old Testament, and in Jesus, is speaking in terms that man can understand: So, God lies to men so that we can better understand something? That seems rather silly. Nowhere, NOWHERE, in scripture are we told to interpret scripture as anything other than what it presents itself to be (whether geographical, historical, or in matters of faith, etc). To say that there is some secret way to interpret scripture is to say that God lied, or that God left out a very important fact...which, is a lie by omission. If this is your view of God, then how can you believe He's fully good?
Why Do I Go by Scriptures Alone?
a) Simple, because the Bible tells me to. Where? 2 Timothy 3:16. In your Bible the word is interpreted as "inspired" (I might be wrong, you might have a version with the more correct interpretation). But, based upon your knowledge of Greek, I believe you would agree that the NIV translation in this verse is more appropriate. "All scripture is God-breathed...". Nowhere else in scripture is anything given such dramatic and powerful authority...except for the beginning of creation itself. That should stun us all as Christians.
b) Based upon the above, all other forms of truth are SECONDARY to the Bible itself. This means that authority is derived from the Bible, and the Word of God, insofar as the teachings are concurrent with the Bible and its teachings.
c) Tradition MUST ALSO be secondary to scripture. Man cannot have two masters...faith can't either. Inevitably, if faith has two masters (tradition & scripture), one of them will eventually become subservient when disputes come up. Besides the history of the Catholic Church, we know this is true from Jesus' own words. Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:8; Mark 7:9.
Yes, before the scriptures were written, and before most people could read, all we had was oral tradition. However, if it is found that the tradition is not in line with the Bible, it must be disposed of. THE END!
Matters of Faith
You say that your faith is based upon faith alone. How can this be? If you faith is based upon faith alone, and not upon the truth of the Bible, and not upon the historical accuracy of Jesus, how can you refute the teachings of the Mormons? They FEEL that it is right; they BELIEVE in what they preach; and they KNOW it to be true, because they have FAITH.
Would you say that their beliefs contradict the Bible?
SO DO YOURS! If you do not believe that the Bible is provably accurate historically, geographically, etc, then what do you have? You have some very nice and pretty teachings on how we should live. Beautiful! But where is the POWER!? Where is the STRENGTH!? Where is the absolute CONVICTION to hold to truth?
Matters of Historical Accuracy
As you previously wrote, the authors of the Old Testament did not write history as we would expect today. History was written with a purpose in mind...with a definitive teaching to be given WITH the history (but, not instead of, the history). They often put in events out of actual chronological order.
Today, I went to Church and heard a sermon. John was there. I also had Burger King today.
Now, I went to Burger King BEFORE I went to church; there were more people than just John, and my pastor's name is not John. I left out some events, and put them out of chronological order. But, it all happened. And it's all true. I did go to church; I heard one of the best sermons my pastor has ever given (WOW!), and a man named John goes to my church (and I know he was there b/c I greeted him).
The fact that the Chronicler left out a son does not matter to me. The fact that he put David as the seventh son, when he may have been the eighth son, is not a huge deal to me. As far as the Chronicler is concerned, David is the seventh son, b/c one of the other sons is for some reason disqualified. Why? I don't know. And, I don't care.
Anyway, I hope that you are enjoying your new house. I know it's a lot of work! If you ever need help with demolition, or with build-up (though that's not NEARLY as fun!), let me know. I'd be happy to help out. And, no need for a Bible discussion...just help.
God Bless You,
Jeff
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.