Celsus

To stop the thread from being hijacked, I've posted this reply here.

Firstly, you're using a pretty large non sequitur. I said that Christian apologists will try to discount numbers. You did exactly that. Then you asked me if, therefore, the Bible must be a message of timeless truths. Woah. The Bible records what Jewish writers thought were the Truth. I also think there are historical kernels of truth throughout the Bible: I don't doubt that the order of succession of Biblical kings depicted is more or less accurate, or even that some Hebrews might have come from Egypt, for example. The numbers are conflated and contradictory, but the theological themes have been changed to suit the needs of whatever situation the writers and their nation were in at the time. I don't think that fits the idea of a timeless truth.

As for contradictions and factual errors, the only purpose of bringing them up would be to point out (to fundamentalists) that the Bible is not, in fact, inerrant. Since you don't take this position, I doubt I would tell you, "Joshua couldn't stop the Sun, nyah, nyah, nyah!" to try to convince you of any problems with Christianity.

I might, however, ask:

How timeless can a truth be if it requires a new covenant from God? (I'm assuming you're not Jewish, otherwise my question would be, "How timeless can the Torah be if an ever dwindling sect of Judaism are the only adherents?")

or

Is the idea of a chosen people (to the exclusion of all others viz-a-viz Ezra and Nehemiah) part of this "timeless truth"?

or

Why did God need so many books to inform us of "timeless truth"? Couldn't he have been a little more succinct? Couldn't he paraphrase?

or

How come God didn't bother to convey timeless truths to aboriginal people (etc.)?

Amos

OK, so the problem is that your "Christian apologists" who try to discount numbers is because "good Christian apologists" can't deal them while my idea of "good Christian apologists" is that they regard them as metaphors and therefore can deal with them. This now means that we have a different idea of what it is like to be a good Christian apologist.

The bible is inspired and has nothing to do with what Jewish writers thought (inspired writers don't think in the common sense of the word think).

Yes, the succession of Biblical kings depicted is more or less accurate and some Hebrews might have come from Egypt which is all done to connect the myth close to historic reality so as to attract followers and orient them toards the future so prophesies will come true. Judaism is futuristic in that they look forward towards the manifestation of their prophetic destiny and such prophetic messages are always based on renewal events that are archetypal to mankind. Prophets are known in all mythologies to guide and direct people and the only way that this can go wrong is because of the literal interpretations of fundamentalist. To avoid literalism the historic component is close but never accurate. If this is true it is also true that fundamentalist are more or less mesmerized by the prophets to make them prophetic.

The bible is inerrant and if we do not agree with it it might just be that our interpretation is wrong. Joshua did make the sun stop when he became illuminated by the celestial ligth. This does not mean that the sun physically stopped but it is just a shining metaphor that for him "the glory of God was [his]light" (Rev.21:23) and that "the night shall be no more" (Rev.22:4). Yes, I like the allegory which was promised when on the seventh day of Gen.1 (found in Gen.2 where we come full circle) evening did not follow the day.

The New Covenant is that for which circumcision is symbolic which censorship by natural law and therefore freedom from religion.

The dwindling sect of Judaism is because of the success it was as a time bound religion purported to increase the wisdom of the tribe. This is normal and is why Catholicism became its grafted branch to further the cause by leaps and bounds in a much faster pace.

I never read the OT but the chosen people are the many out of which few are called. It is a timeless truth that will never change.

Because the myth was evolving and intensifying as time went on ("we will do greater things" was also true for them). Opposite this the Catholic Church must be infallible because it moves forward in time. Because both are centered around a salvific even that is native to man, Judaism must be prophetic (look towards the first coming of Christ), and Catholicism must be infallible because it leads the civilization away from the past in search for the second coming of Christ. So the coming of Christ is the timeless mesage and all the minor parables and metaphors are just details of this event. They can be either beneficial or harmful and both are elaborated on in the OT and NT.

God (or God by any other name) reveals himself to all(?) people and no civilization has ever existed without timeless truths.

Celsus

Eh? You're probably right. But then most Christian apologists who consider themselves "good" would probably disagree with you.

You base this on theistic assumptions, I choose not to make such assumptions unless proven otherwise.

So the only way prophecy is accurate is if it is made vague enough so that the future can be fit into the prophecy? Nostradamus would be proud.

Inerrancy is the dogmatist's position. Please explain how Revelations is relevant to bronze age myth. It's also funny that you use apocalyptic literature to prove your point about metaphors. I presume apocalyptic literature is your favourite type of Biblical writing, since it conforms to your perception of what the Bible should be.

So why is Paul so concerned to tell people to flee the desires of youth, and that women should be covered in church, and that slaves must obey their masters? Why are Peter and James so unsure about circumcision if Jesus (supposedly) taught them the new covenant himself?

I believe procreation is the fastest area of growth for the Catholic church. It's also practically dead in most of Europe. So perhaps your theology is the way forward?

Well I suppose that should be the first thing you do. Read the OT. Name me a few timeless truths, in say, the book of Leviticus.

Everyone moves forward in time. Is everyone infallible?

What about the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Coptics, etc.? Are they also infallible, since they meet your two requirements: They move forward in time, and better yet, they're waiting for the second coming?

What exactly is the point of Christ returning? Name me a Bible verse that says that "all the minor parables and metaphors are just details of this event." Back your theology up with something other than your loose ramblings.

Would I be right to call you a Gnostic? Or Marcionite?

Amos

</strong>

Probably, and I would leave them with "those who know don't say and those who say don't know." </strong>

Not at all. It is the difference between noetic, lyric, hyletic and telec vision. In this the noetic is gnostic, lyric is poetic, hyletic is obscured, and telec is more like tunnel vision. </strong>

Prophesy is extremely accurate because it describes the details of metamorphosis. The arena in which this takes place is set out by the fundamentalist who follow the literal interpretation. When prophetic messages move away from metamorphosis and more towards the literal interpretation they become less accurate.
</strong>

It is because the entire bible deals with renewal that Revelation can be relevant to every age in history. It is future only to those who have not yet passed that certain stage of awakening and my guess is that it was much more prevalent in the "bronze age" than it is now in the age of modernity--and the value of art is proof of this. </strong>

Paul was gathering a flock to get the Church going. Paul knew exactly what a divine comedy was and the necessary precondition that was needed to obtain one. He was a mythmaker and a good one.

I am not familiar with the Peter and James problem but if salvation is contingent upon a certain precondition it would follow that reality behind the metaphor of circumcision must be maintained. You must understand here that Jesus
showed believers how to get out of purgatory while circumcision must land believers into purgatory. </strong>

It is wrong to measure growth in numbers and just as the heyday of Catholicism ended with the Reformation so did the glory of our civilization. </strong>

But Joel, if I would read the OT I would just tell you "see, I told you so." I read very small parts of it and did read the book of Jonah (which is very nice). </strong>

Only those in heaven are infallible. Infallible means to have fulfilled the Law and to be placed in charge of your own destiny. </strong>

Any religion that professes to be the bride of Christ is infallible because that concept entails the Coronation of Mary as the head of the church.
Notice here that for a Church to be the bride of Christ the coming of Christ is already in the past. This is much the same with the saints in heaven for whom the second coming of christ has already been.
</strong>

The return of Christ is just a metaphor used for the renewal of our mind after which time the body is renewed (the second coming of Christ is just the beginning).

The bible is not written to explain what I tell you here because that would remove the mystery of faith from religion, and, without the unfolding of the mystery of faith all religions would be without purpose and just become like social clubs.
I am Catholic but people have asked me that before.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Baidarka

OK Amos the Bible is inerrant in that it is inspired metaphoric writing with deep poetic meanings. Is this also equally true about modern poetic metaphoric visionaries? How about William Blake, Lord Buckley, Captain Beefheart. How about Gertrude Stein and Shelly? Is the Iliad as Holy as Torah? Are the "begots" also metaphoric? Can you compare Laurie Anderson with Luke? How about Nostradamus should we look past his quackery for meaningful metaphors. How about Madame Blavatsky should we ignore her charlatanism and embrace her as a visionary?
My point is that the Bible exists both in the world of poetry and in the real world. It is in its real world application that we have to worry about how the concrete interpretations effect the lives of the believers and those who have to share this world with them. Believers can be like drunk drivers!
Religions create paradigms, like tinted glasses, coloring the world. Religions can be dogmatic and authoritarian. Religious practitioners often feign the humble pose of the mere spokesperson of the ultimate power.
Art, poetry and metaphor do not become dangerous until they fall into the service of power mad tyrants. Mao was a poet and Hitler a painter.

I appreciate your alternate Youngian interpretations of scripture but I don't know if you share our exasperation with the other brand of Biblical inerrantists who demand a literalist non-metaphoric interpretation of passages dragging us into the consideration of their absurdities.

Marduk

"OK Amos the Bible is inerrant in that it is inspired metaphoric writing with deep poetic meanings. Is this also equally true about modern poetic metaphoric visionaries? How about William Blake, Lord Buckley, Captain Beefheart. How about Gertrude Stein and Shelly? Is the Iliad as Holy as Torah?"

YES. A great book dealing with such things is "The Power of Myth" by J. Campbell (also available on VHS)

Baidarka

I of course agree but I just want to know if Amos has the bible on a special shelf or if he holds other myths in high esteem also.

Amos

If have good reason to agree with you and can clearly see who, how, where, when and why religious leaders make their followers "drink the wine of God's wrath poured full strenght in the cup of his anger" (Rev.14:10), while themselves thinking it is the promise of eternal salvation. This error is outlined in one or more of the seven spirits of the churches. All of these prevailing spirits are wrong, yet they can be a means to an end. Some are just more wicked than others and will prevail until death.

That kind of writing repeated many times in the bible and is projected in much detail. We see here already how Moses was a villain that is made into a hero.

Amos

Rest assured Baidarka that I never read the OT but read Shakespeare from cover to cover (and he is not my favorite author). I am a Catholic who holds that the bible should not be studied because its meaning must come prior to us by nature. In fact, my wish would be that we gather all bibles from North to South right across America and burn them from East to West. But I am not sure if I should have said so.

Celsus

Amos,

I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, but correct me if I'm wrong. Your view of the Bible is much like that of the adulating literary critic. I think that makes sense of what you've posted so far, and that is why consistency is not important for you, rather the layers beneath. I don't think I've ever approached the Bible that way, but it's certainly an interesting approach which I will attempt to do in the future (without the adulation).

However, for you, your poor knowledge of the Bible (e.g. Jesus did not preach about purgatory), seems to make your interpretation incomplete. If you read Paul as a mythmaker, then you're certainly missing the point of most of his polemic. The author of Hebrews would be a better candidate for mythmaking. You seem extremely certain of yourself, yet you have nothing to back it up, except perhaps your gnosis.

However, I have another candidate for you: Ovid's Metamorphoses. I think you'll find everything in there qualifies for your standards: In terms of "describing the details of metamorphosis", I would say it does so much better than OT or NT prophecy. In terms of fulfilling the Law and taking charge of destiny, the characters certainly do, in a metaphorical way, fulfil this. They move forward in time, they seek salvation (though not in a metaphysical sense, since the gods are always near), and the themes change as the world does.

So when you've finished your Bible burning project, perhaps you can become an Ovidian.

Joel

P.S. Does it bother (or interest) you that your infallible church would have tortured both of us horribly and then probably burnt us at the stake if we'd been having this same conversation a few centuries ago?