arnoldo

No, if you want to truly understand the new testament you have to understand not only the language of the text but also the culture that the text was written in. If you find the analogy of the bride used in the new testament offensive so be it. However if you refuse to try to understand the many jewish customs which are discussed in the scripture then you will only have a surface level understanding of what the text is trying to say.

Johnny Skeptic

But the customs of ancient people, including the customs of the ancient Bible writers are irrelevant. The main issue is that a God would not have any trouble at all convincing the vast majority of the people in the world that he exists, and he most certainly would not choose to use human proxies to do that since he would know that that would unnecessarily cause doubt and confusion, on many occassions even among his followers. Since all religions that have books are false, their writers have no choice except to claim that God uses human proxies to communciate with people.

The Bible contains 100% disputable prophecies. No rational God would ever make even one disputable prophecy, let alone make 100% disputable prophecies. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

What you propose is the existence of a God who 1) wants to use prophecy to influence people, but had made 100% disputable prophecies, who 2) wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort, who 3) has created a world where no man can ask him for any tangible benefit and be assured that he will receive it, only subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, and who 4) wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it. Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If a Christian discovered a cure for cancer, and was able to make the cure available to everyone in the world who had cancer within one week, would he do so, or would he choose to allow the existing means of distributing cures for diseases to distribute the cure, which would result in needless suffering? Does God consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer?

Under many different circumstances, you would not have been a Christian today, and you would have been just as certain of your worldview as you are now. I do not find a God to be appealing who allows chance and circumstance to determine what people believe. Just like everyone else, your definition of the most probably true worldview is whatever worldview you happen to hold at a given time.

You have obviously missed your calling as a writer of fiction, but the Bible writers didn't.

arnoldo

I suppose the customs are irrelevant if you only want to base your understanding on the text by itself. However in reference to the issue of the verse mentioned in the OP your understanding can be increaased by understanding a basic jewish wedding custom. The following sentence was not in the google book preview in reference to the saying "no man knows the day or hour."


Source: The Seven Festivals of the Messiah by Edward Chumney

Toto

Um, bridegrooms who have to wait 2000 years have squandered their opportunity to consummate the marriage and produce more generations of offspring, which would make the whole marriage rather pointless, no?

But I wonder if there is something to be learned from this. We know that many of the church were women, especially widows. Is there other specific marriage type imagery in the gospels? And what does that mean - is it a casual reference to marriage customs, is it directed at the female believers, is it some reflection of the hieros gamos?

arnoldo

I like the picture in your link :devil1:

sdelsolray

Perhaps you would better understand things if you spoke for yourself, instead of for others.

Here you go, repeat this in front of a mirror (bold test added to reflect changes):

This may be your truth, but it's not necessarily true or correct to anyone else.

NewKid3

Just to add to the original post...http://resources.mcleanbible.org/doc...ermonNotes.pdf

arnoldo

Ok, let me put your suggestion into practice in reference to ancient greek literature.

Toto

This is getting too far off topic, and is a bizarre non-sequitur on several different levels.

arnoldo: I will accept that the gospels need to be read with the current culture in mind, but I don't find that necessarily enhances their value to a modern audience - sometimes it just exposes the flaws.

Do you actually think that the analogy of the bridegroom excuses Jesus' absence?

arnoldo

Nice, thanks for pointing out that Greek Literature is off topic and the "bizarre non-sequitur" in my post. I suppose you found the following post acceptable which I merely responded to.