FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2008, 11:40 AM   #171
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
OK, let me rephrase that. If Christians want to be effective apologists and spread their faith, they should avoid an analogy between the church and a pre-modern bride in an arranged marriage.

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.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 03-20-2008, 02:28 PM   #172
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
.......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.
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.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 03-20-2008, 06:34 PM   #173
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
.......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.
But the customs of ancient people, including the customs of the ancient Bible writers are irrelevant <edit.. brevity>
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
Quote:
In other words, while the bridegroom was working on the bridal chamber, it was the father who "okayed" the final bridal chamber. The bridgroom did not know when the father -would declare the bridal chamber fit and send him to get his bride. This is exactly what Yeshua was referring to in Mark 13:32-37
Quote:
Mark 13 :30-32
Verily I say to you, that this generation may not pass away till all these things may come to pass; 31 the heaven and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 32 'And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers who are in the heaven, not even the Son -- except the Father.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 03-20-2008, 07:05 PM   #174
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

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?
Toto is offline  
Old 03-20-2008, 07:11 PM   #175
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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?
I like the picture in your link :devil1:

arnoldo is offline  
Old 03-20-2008, 07:48 PM   #176
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

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.
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):

Quote:
No, if I want to truly understand the new testament I have to understand not only the language of the text but also the culture that the text was written in. If I find the analogy of the bride used in the new testament offensive so be it. However if I refuse to try to understand the many jewish customs which are discussed in the scripture then I will only have a surface level understanding of what the text is trying to say.
This may be your truth, but it's not necessarily true or correct to anyone else.
sdelsolray is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 12:27 AM   #177
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near Washington D.C.
Posts: 224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
The critics believes that when Jesus said the above He was referring to the then present generation....He was not. In the book of Mark ch. 13:28-30 it reads:


"Now learn the parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and put forth leaves, you know that summer is NEAR: So you in like manner, when you shall SEE THESE THINGS COME TO PASS, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."---Jesus Christ

In the preceding verses of the same chapter the end times and the Anti-Christ are being described. The generation who will not pass away is the generation in which the signs aforementioned will appear in that will not pass away. Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple in an earlier case (which meant the destruction of the city) which came to pass when the Romans destroyed Israel. The Anti-Christ does not destroy Israel. In otherwords Jesus knew that because of Israel's rejection of Him the city would be destroyed by the Romans. And the "Abomination that causes Desolation" cannot trample a city or nation that is not there which means that could not have been the generation. And this agrees with the Prophets who tells us that before this final conflict Israel will have been restored as a nation from a long absence (see Joel and Ezekiel).

1. Israel destroyed by the Romans
2. Israel restored as a Nation
3. The final conflict....Aremegeddon.

The generation (Israel of Jesus's time) of Jesus's time as He hinted at would be destroyed as a nation. The generation who witness the signs (The restoration of Israel, The Anti-Christ, Armegeddon) will not pass away. A generation as I understand is a 120 years. Israel was restored in 1948, nations are trying to seize Israel's land, there is a dispute over Jerusalem, World Goverment is taking place, Europe (the nations who made up the Roman Empire) are unifying. We are that generation. :wave:
Just to add to the original post...http://resources.mcleanbible.org/doc...ermonNotes.pdf
NewKid3 is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 01:30 PM   #178
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

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.
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):

Quote:
No, if I want to truly understand the new testament I have to understand not only the language of the text but also the culture that the text was written in. If I find the analogy of the bride used in the new testament offensive so be it. However if I refuse to try to understand the many jewish customs which are discussed in the scripture then I will only have a surface level understanding of what the text is trying to say.
This may be your truth, but it's not necessarily true or correct to anyone else.
Ok, let me put your suggestion into practice in reference to ancient greek literature.

Quote:
If I want to be an idiot I will only read the greek text while ignoring the ancient greek culture,society, and the significance that writing, reading, in addition to speaking a text outloud to a semi-illliterate society meant. I will ignore that many ancient texts were meant to be read aloud to an audience and that silent-reading only began to be more common at a later time. Since I am closed minded I will probably think the reading parts of the following book: Pharsikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece is a waste of time.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 01:45 PM   #179
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post

...
This may be your truth, but it's not necessarily true or correct to anyone else.
Ok, let me put your suggestion into practice in reference to ancient greek literature.

Quote:
If I want to be an idiot I will only read the greek text while ignoring the ancient greek culture,society, and the significance that writing, reading, in addition to speaking a text outloud to a semi-illliterate society meant. I will ignore that many ancient texts were meant to be read aloud to an audience and that silent-reading only began to be more common at a later time. Since I am closed minded I will probably think the reading parts of the following book: Pharsikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece is a waste of time.
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?
Toto is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 01:54 PM   #180
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
This is getting too far off topic, and is a bizarre non-sequitur on several different levels.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
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):

Quote:
No, if I want to truly understand the new testament I have to understand not only the language of the text but also the culture that the text was written in. If I find the analogy of the bride used in the new testament offensive so be it. However if I refuse to try to understand the many jewish customs which are discussed in the scripture then I will only have a surface level understanding of what the text is trying to say.
This may be your truth, but it's not necessarily true or correct to anyone else.
arnoldo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.