Does Religion Belong In Politics?

[Brian Swartz]

Per the request of multiple posters in the Trump Presidency thread, I'm going to put my responses to the ongoing religious conversation that has been ongoing for a while here. I'm not sure the thread title is the best, but it was the one that was suggested.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

If you acknowledge (and you do) that the writers were trying to put the best spin on the story of Jesus that they could, then you have to realize that some of it just isn't true in the sense a history of World War II is true. Some of it is exaggerated or turned for a specific reason. One can know that and also deeply know that Jesus died, rose, and will come again.

I do not acknowledge the first part, or say that the Gospels are a purposely biased account. To believe in the Bible is to believe that God protected the canon from such things IMO. Saying things are presented in a way that the people of the time would have understood is not at all the same thing as saying that core doctrines were not presented accurately. If the latter happened, then I don't we can at all know anything about Jesus, much less trust in him for salvation.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

I know it to be true because I feel it deep in my soul.

This is well put. I think it also may well signify the end of useful discussion between us on this issue. The whole idea that you can have all the faith you want, but you still can't jump off a skyscraper and fly away no matter how much you believe you can is my general response to this. I've deeply felt a great many things to be true over the course of my life that just aren't so. Polling has shown I'm not alone - many are deeply convinced of things that are provably false. My perspective is the theology is no different than any other realm of seeking knowledge in that logic and reason matter. There are certainly many spiritual things that are beyond those, but if something conflicts with what we know to be true then there is a problem somewhere to be addressed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll play ... but based on the thread title.

The presence of religion for the voter is impossible to avoid, as it (in theory) is connected to your core beliefs. Those should likewise reflect in your politics/voting.

They don't have to be linked to each other directly, you (the royal "you") are the link between them.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Two questions to both of you.

(1) In John 14 Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" for salvation. How do you interpret this in (your) "proper context"?

Is Jesus "the only" way or is there room for the aborigines, Africans, Chinese etc. who have not had the opportunity to be saved (or have not had many/proper/sufficient opportunities to learn about Jesus)?

(2) What are your thoughts on Purgatory in addition to Heaven & Hell?

I'll tackle #2 first - my belief is that it is a wrong-headed concept. The most succinct reason is simply that we are told regularly, esp. in Hebrews where it is a major focus, that Jesus died once and that this was sufficient to cover all sins. This means there's nothing left to purge. The structure of the verses on purifying fire seems clearly to be metaphorical and referring to a testing of faith in this present life. I can't comment intelligently on the praying for the dead idea but the consistent teaching of the Bible is that the holiness of Christ on our behalf is sufficient to enter heaven, and that we can add or subtract nothing to it.

On #1 … yeah. I seriously considered not answering your well-framed questions. This is, in my opinion, the most vital and at the same time incredibly dangerous topic that exists to talk about. Naturally, my opinion is most decidedly different from the one already proffered. I believe Jesus is the only Way. This is not just based on John 14 but also similar teachings throughout the NT. In terms of people being left out of heaven, it is in fact much more restrictive even than that.

Originally Posted by Matthew 7:13-14 (ESV)

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

When considering this, the distinction is often described as being between religious and non-religious people. That's not the point though - a person who has decided against religion isn't going to enter either gate. Both gates claim to be the way to heaven, and only one of them is. Few even find the narrow gate, much less enter it.

Originally Posted by Matthew 7:21-13(ESV)

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

The people described here are committed to religion, but not to Christ. The picture is that of elders and deacons, public church leaders, in many case pastors I'm sure, effective practitioners of religious ministry.

I look at this kind of thing and I must describe it as being horrifyingly restrictive, at least on the surface. I believe very much in following Jesus' example of interpreting Scripture with Scripture - no one proof text suffices for any doctrine. This is a consistent theme with his teaching throughout the gospels. Many are called, but few are chosen say multiple parables. The bar for discipleship is constantly set incredibly high - deny yourself, take up your cross, nobody is worthy who does not hate their family members for the sake of the kingdom, it's harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom, etc.

I don't see any room for understanding the Gospel in any other way other than that is an exclusive group which the majority by far are not included in. This is still more people than deserve it, since none do, but I can't conclude anything other than that a lot of people expecting to go to heaven in our society won't actually be going there.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't see any room for understanding the Gospel in any other way other than that is an exclusive group which the majority by far are not included in. This is still more people than deserve it, since none do, but I can't conclude anything other than that a lot of people expecting to go to heaven in our society won't actually be going there.

Purgatory is a comforting aspect to me. Not the praying for, indulgences etc. Its more the thought that the innocent (e.g. my go-to example is the aborigine who haven't had the opportunity(ies) to be saved) go straight to Hell.

But then the traditional concept of Hell with Dante's fire & brimstone has been softened some where some now say its a state of nothingness vs fire & brimstone. This more recent belief is more palatable for me.

Another issue are babies, children under age of accountability get a 'free pass'. Is this congruent to your beliefs on 'the only way'? If not, then there are exceptions to the rule?

[spleen1015]

Considering some of what Republicans believe is driven by religion....

[CrimsonFox]

Religion no...spirituality yes. Morals yes. Kindness yes.

I know I live in a fantasy world

[molson]

Why would God create billions of people just for them to be cast away to eternal damnation? Is it kind of like when you're done playing old school Roller Coaster tycoon and you start dropping people into lakes to their death? Or when you launch unnecessary nukes at the end of a CIV game?

I also used to struggle with the idea that one could have just a great 'ole time at the heaven ice cream shop, or the heaven pool hall, knowing that billions of people, including many of your loved ones, are all fucked. Maybe even including your husband or wife of 50 years. It's like a billion 9/11s, but you're supposed to shrug and go about your beautiful heaven day and not care because, you got yours. And that also sheds a weird light to me on relationships on Earth. Like a Christian pastor and Jewish Rabbi could be respectful and even buddies, even though the Christian pastor "knows" that his buddy is completely fucked. But hey, he can just enjoy coffee with him for now and that's cool. If Mother Theresa sincerely believed such things, what kind of absolute monster would she have to have been to NOT baptize people or whatever she felt she had to do at the end to save people.

There are people committed to humans on earth who would probably choose at least eternal nothingness over a heaven that cast aside their loving wife because she missed church too many times, or judged the bake sale competition unfairly or something - even if those misdeeds were all because of say, her anxieties or other brain quirks that she had no choice in developing.

At some long ago point I believed in the Christian version of God, but thought he was kind of a dick and that our loyalty should be to each other first. Because the moral values and ways of interacting with society and universe have advanced so much in the last few thousand years - the last time we got any "official" guidance on the subject. At our best, we believe everyone has value, that our flaws do not define us, that we should do good deeds to all regardless of whether they deserve it. Which, I think, makes humans objectively better than the Christian god, at least according to the set of values we have developed over the millennium. And when you consider the circumstances we face on earth - illness, death, sadness, no guarantees about what happens next, etc - the positive way we can go about our lives, the way we care about others - it's pretty inspiring and incredible. Even typing that now, I still believe it - IF there is a conscious, roughly personified kind of independent thinking god - we should be loyal to each other first because we are all in this together and we've made great strides already.

I find some value in any religion but, being born in 1978 (through no choice of my own), the value system that that I've developed in this time and place in human civilization is just incomparable with certain flavors of Christianity. So I've kind of gradually developed my belief system which is all my own. I believe it's valid, but I also believe that someone else's personal belief system is just as valid, because it was created by them, and they are a spiritual being also. Both systems can be true and valid, even if they seem contradict through the rules of our limited human understanding of the universe.

I think the extent of religion in politics is up to us on a year-to-year basis in how we vote, subject to the Establishment clause. Which I read pretty narrowly. If we want a Christian inspired government, or a government led by Christians, that's our choice.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Another issue are babies, children under age of accountability get a 'free pass'. Is this congruent to your beliefs on 'the only way'?

I can't be nearly as dogmatic about this, but I do believe there is some sort of age of accountability at work. Not just because I'd like there to be - Jesus said of children that such is the kingdom of God, and there are indications in the OT as well that children, including pagan ones, are inherently regarded as innocent. Until what age? No idea on that, couldn't do more than idly speculate.

[QuikSand]

A centerpiece issue for many voters is whether a candidate shares their values. I'd suggest that for certain races, that's the central matter.

What a candidate says regarding religion, or has decided to say about religion, is a meaningful part of that, for better or for worse. The ways that religious teachings affect policy priorities and positions is definitely material.

I think it's fair game.

[Izulde]

Yep, it's fair game, given that one's religious/spiritual viewpoint (or lack thereof) frequently informs their world view and shapes their political beliefs and stances.

Admittedly, attention should also be paid to their actions and where those conflict with professed beliefs (a certain current White House occupant being a prime example)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To believe in the Bible is to believe that God protected the canon from such things IMO. Saying things are presented in a way that the people of the time would have understood is not at all the same thing as saying that core doctrines were not presented accurately. If the latter happened, then I don't we can at all know anything about Jesus, much less trust in him for salvation.

You are saying some of the biggest Christian denominations don't believe "in the Bible" then. Those that don't read the Bible literally acknowledge somethings are puffed up. What Pilate said or how he acted is in no way a core doctrine of the faith.

I mean do you also doubt Socrates exists or that we can know anything about him? Because the only thing we know about him is from a purposely biased account.

Any narrative that long ago we have to take on some measure of faith due to biased histories and narratives. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you can't trust history. Or learn something from it.

if something conflicts with what we know to be true then there is a problem somewhere to be addressed.

I mean I feel you are backing my POV here. We know the Gospels don't conform with who Pilate was. We also know that the Gospels got some stuff wrong... for instance Quirinus (the census guy) took office after Herrod the Great died. And there is no record of a census being done aside from the Gospels and none that would have required people to return to their ancestral homes. So why can't we acknowledge some of it was wrong or puffed up?

---

For Hell thing, I've stated I'm a universalist. I don't think God made billions of people who God supposedly loves and who God wants to see 'saved' only to damn or annihilate them. I think all will be raised at the end of the age to live with God when the New Heavens and the New Earth sweep away the old. This is, btw, a rapidly growing viewpoint in Mainline Protestantism.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But then the traditional concept of Hell with Dante's fire & brimstone has been softened some where some now say its a state of nothingness vs fire & brimstone. This more recent belief is more palatable for me.

Dante's is not traditional. He came up with in the 1400s. The nothingness was far more around in the early years of the Church. And there was a very large strain of universalism. Origen of Alexandria was a big name in the early Church and seems to be a unversalist.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Those that don't read the Bible literally acknowledge somethings are puffed up. What Pilate said or how he acted is in no way a core doctrine of the faith.

Definitely agreed on Pilate. I don't read all of the Bible literally either - nobody does. What I've said is that if we don't have an accurate record of what Jesus did and said, then we don't have anything. This is because the rest of the NT constantly depends on and refers to those things as cornerstones. My simple question back to you is this:

How can we have the mind of Christ and follow his example if we don't know what he actually did and said? Let's adopt your POV on this. Say the Gospel writers twisted things, purposely or otherwhise. As I mentioned before, how do we know Jesus doesn't want us to go on a jihad or live a totally secluded life, or anything in between? Maybe love wasn't particularly important to him and he couldn't have cared less whether we denied ourselves or treated our neighbors well. The only even arguably reliable source of his teachings is the Gospels, and if those aren't reliable then there's no good reason to believe one thing or another.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Any narrative that long ago we have to take on some measure of faith due to biased histories and narratives. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you can't trust history. Or learn something from it.

I just don't understand this at all. If something is biased, that inherently means we can't trust it, particularly since there's no way we can know all the ways in which it was biased from this long of a time removed.

One final point of yours which I forgot to respond to was the whole church-as-authority thing. One reason that doesn't fly IMO is, which church? By that logic, maybe the Pharisees were right to reject Jesus as Messiah in which case the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant sects are all totally wrong. Some of them think differently on what the canon actually is, and they differ considerably on the most basic of matters such as what the way of salvation is and what it means to be a believer. Do we just roll a die and select which one we accept?

Meanwhile Jesus, again to the extent we decide to believe what the Bible says about him, says we must have greater righteousness than the Pharisees and Sadducees to enter the kingdom and exoriates them for elevating their tradition above the commandment of God. But wait - they were the gatekeepers, they were the chosen people of God, they were the ones entrusted with safeguarding his truth? So don't they have the authority based on that tradition? Jesus said no.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

How can we have the mind of Christ and follow his example if we don't know what he actually did and said? Let's adopt your POV on this. Say the Gospel writers twisted things, purposely or otherwhise. As I mentioned before, how do we know Jesus doesn't want us to go on a jihad or live a totally secluded life, or anything in between? Maybe love wasn't particularly important to him and he couldn't have cared less whether we denied ourselves or treated our neighbors well. The only even arguably reliable source of his teachings is the Gospels, and if those aren't reliable then there's no good reason to believe one thing or another.
:
:
I just don't understand this at all. If something is biased, that inherently means we can't trust it, particularly since there's no way we can know all the ways in which it was biased from this long of a time removed.

Your example of "twisted things, purposely or otherwise" and using jihad is an extreme example (well maybe not if we believe Jesus was truly a zealot).

However, there are "core" Christian beliefs (or at least core to some denominations) that may have been misinterpreted or mistranslated. An example from the Universalism belief re: eternal Hell (thanks Issidiqui)

400 Bad Request

Christian Universalists point towards the mistranslations of the Greek word αιών (Lit. aion), as giving rise to the idea of Eternal Hell, and the idea that some people will not be saved.[15][26][27]

This Greek word is the origin of the modern English word aeon, which refers to a period of time or an epoch.

The 19th century theologian Marvin Vincent wrote about the word aion, and the supposed connotations of "eternal" or "temporal":

Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. [...] Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting."[28]

Dr. Ken Vincent writes that "When it (aion) was translated into Latin Vulgate, "aion" became "aeternam" which means "eternal".[15]

Possibility of translation errors have always been a major sticking point with me. Unless you are a scholar/linguist/theologian and able to read the earliest versions of the Bible, I think one has to logically concede the current Catholic, King James etc. versions may well contain "translation errors, misinterpretations, out-of-context etc. passages from the original". The example above of Aion, if true, shows how one mistranslated word can change a significant belief of some Christian denominations.

On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is take Bible literally and 8 (I think) is Universalism ...

1-2 range is Southern Baptist
3-4 range is Brian ??
7-8 range is Issidiqui ??

I'm probably more in the middle 5-6

[Edward64]

BTW - good, educational & courteous discussion here

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

How can we have the mind of Christ and follow his example if we don't know what he actually did and said? Let's adopt your POV on this. Say the Gospel writers twisted things, purposely or otherwhise. As I mentioned before, how do we know Jesus doesn't want us to go on a jihad or live a totally secluded life, or anything in between? Maybe love wasn't particularly important to him and he couldn't have cared less whether we denied ourselves or treated our neighbors well. The only even arguably reliable source of his teachings is the Gospels, and if those aren't reliable then there's no good reason to believe one thing or another.

We read the entirety of Scripture and look for the major themes. We look at what the Gospel writers wrote, we look at the letters of Paul, we look even at Hebrew Scriptures to see what is going on. And we make decisions on the basis of reading Scripture as a whole. One of my favorite 'fads' (so to speak) going on right now is readers Bibles that take out verses and chapters - so that Scripture can be read as it originally was (chapters were added around 1000, I think, and verses in 1400) - because people get too attached to individual verses and use them as clubs.

Like most documents written in the era, they are reliable to a point. How much do you lack trust in history prior to, say, 1400? Do you question Julius Caesar was killed by other Senators in Rome? Those accounts are most definitely biased.

I just don't understand this at all. If something is biased, that inherently means we can't trust it, particularly since there's no way we can know all the ways in which it was biased from this long of a time removed.

I mentioned Socrates. I'm pretty sure Plato was biased towards his old teacher... so... do we not trust anything about Socrates?

One final point of yours which I forgot to respond to was the whole church-as-authority thing. One reason that doesn't fly IMO is, which church? By that logic, maybe the Pharisees were right to reject Jesus as Messiah in which case the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant sects are all totally wrong. Some of them think differently on what the canon actually is, and they differ considerably on the most basic of matters such as what the way of salvation is and what it means to be a believer. Do we just roll a die and select which one we accept?

What Church do you belong to? That determines which tradition you acribe to. Of course, no one says Jesus gives authority to the Pharisees. But it appears He does give authority to the 12 Apostles (from Gospel, Acts, and what happens after).

There is a theory that Jesus himself was probably a Pharisee (some say he was an Essene) and that his debates with them were 'in the family'. They are more examples of them because he hung out with them more, whereas you'd think he'd really dislike the Sadducees even more (and Caiphas and Annais were Sadducees). We tend to denigrate the Pharisees without realize that they were the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism (basically what all modern Judaism flows from). The Sadducees and Pharisees were in conflict at the time. Sadducees recognized the Written Torah (and they liked Greek Philosophy) and were the priestly elite. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were of the common people, and to the Written Torah, they also added the Oral Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and belief in the resurrection of the dead.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Possibility of translation errors have always been a major sticking point with me. Unless you are a scholar/linguist/theologian and able to read the earliest versions of the Bible, I think one has to logically concede the current Catholic, King James etc. versions may well contain "translation errors, misinterpretations, out-of-context etc. passages from the original". The example above of Aion, if true, shows how one mistranslated word can change a significant belief of some Christian denominations.

On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is take Bible literally and 8 (I think) is Universalism ...

1-2 range is Southern Baptist
3-4 range is Brian ??
7-8 range is Issidiqui ??

I'm probably more in the middle 5-6

This is true. We know that translation errors have existed. Early Christian depictions of Moses for example have him with literal horns. Because when the Hebrew scriptures were translated by Saint Jerome into Latin, there was a massive mistranslation. After seeing God on the mount, Moses radiated light. The Hebrew word for that is 'keren'. Keren can also be translated into grew horns. Guess what Saint Jerome used.

One can even see it Michelangelo's Moses... which as horns.

Anyways, I wouldn't divide it into literally and universal. I think one can make the case for universal through Biblical text. Usually the dichotomy is literally and historical criticism. The Episcopal Church has said for years "We take the Bible too seriously to take it literally". I've always liked that.

And 10 in the historical criticism is well beyond me. It is an atheistic/historical view of Scripture. I am like Karl Barth - I start from the position that God exists (Heck this tracks how I became a Christian - I didn't read the Bible and believe - I believed THEN I read the Bible).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

What Church do you belong to? That determines which tradition you acribe to.

But they teach conflicting things vis a vis that tradition. Ergo, they can't all be true. Many of those differences don't matter much, but some of them matter a great deal. So what you end up with is a situation where you are entrusting the most important beliefs that you are ever going to form to the changing whims of the particular group you belong to, while another group down the street or around the block claims something totally different, and you have no basis whatsoever for evaluating the accuracy of their claim. That's just 100% the feet firmly planted in mid-air thing.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

it appears He does give authority to the 12 Apostles (from Gospel, Acts, and what happens after).

Authority in a great many things yes, but not authority above and beyond Scripture. Else a number of Jesus statements don't make sense, all the warnings on false teachings don't make sense (a church can't teach falsely if they are themselves the authority), Paul confronting Peter in Galatians because he was clearly wrong doesn't make sense ... the only thing which makes sense of all these and similar texts is if there actually is an objective standard somewhere, say one that was written down so everyone can know what it says and not take the word of established leaders for it, by which claims of truth can be evaluated.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

How much do you lack trust in history prior to, say, 1400? Do you question Julius Caesar was killed by other Senators in Rome? Those accounts are most definitely biased.

I think it probably happened but absolutely I doubt it. The rather massive difference here is that nobody depends on those writings for the fate of their eternal soul, nobody says they are divinely inspired, as far as I know none of the writers claimed they were literally declaring the word of God, etc. Based on what we know of the limits of human knowledge, memory, how easy it is for us to be wrong about even basic things in our own lives, how could one not doubt such things? More likely to be true than not may well suffice for a general theory of history, but when one is being asked to place their full being in belief of supernatural, fantastical events that's a completely different thing.

In that case, having something that claims to be an accurate account of such things, recorded by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, is literally the best thing one could possibly have in terms of evidence from the ancient world. It's of absolutely paramount importance whether the Bible is, or is not, such an account.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

we make decisions on the basis of reading Scripture as a whole

I agree this is the correct approach, but I think having confidence in this while believing that the authors were purposefully biasing what they wrote - which in this case means they flat-out lied in a number of instances where they specifically said that weren't doing that - is plainly a case of saying 2+2=5.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

But they teach conflicting things vis a vis that tradition. Ergo, they can't all be true.

Welcome to the entire history of Christianity. This also applies to how they read Scripture - which has always been subject to interpretation. So, there is conflicting things vis a vis interpretation of Scripture. There are conflicting things vis a vis translation of Scripture (Isaiah 7:14 and the word "almah" most famously)

Authority in a great many things yes, but not authority above and beyond Scripture. Else a number of Jesus statements don't make sense, all the warnings on false teachings don't make sense (a church can't teach falsely if they are themselves the authority), Paul confronting Peter in Galatians because he was clearly wrong doesn't make sense ... the only thing which makes sense of all these and similar texts is if there actually is an objective standard somewhere, say one that was written down so everyone can know what it says and not take the word of established leaders for it, by which claims of truth can be evaluated.

Paul gains his view on the Gentiles through a vision he receives (well through regaining his sight). He speaks of the Holy Spirit deciding that no further burdens should be placed on Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem (the story at Galatia is related to the same - should Christians be circumcised).

The Council of Jerusalem declared itself to be above Scripture as Scripture mandates circumcision (and Jesus himself was circumcised).

I think it probably happened but absolutely I doubt it. The rather massive difference here is that nobody depends on those writings for the fate of their eternal soul, nobody says they are divinely inspired, as far as I know none of the writers claimed they were literally declaring the word of God, etc. Based on what we know of the limits of human knowledge, memory, how easy it is for us to be wrong about even basic things in our own lives, how could one not doubt such things? More likely to be true than not may well suffice for a general theory of history, but when one is being asked to place their full being in belief of supernatural, fantastical events that's a completely different thing.

There is no reason to make an idol of the Bible (Bibolatry). The book is not to be worshiped, rather the Living God is to be. The Bible is simply that which points us in the direction of that Living God. Acknowledging that sinful humans wrote about their encounters with God, and probably embellished and got a few things wrong, to help us know God does not diminish the Living God.

I would argue if your faith is based on the infalliblity of Scripture (a theory of Scripure that has only really existed for the last 200 years), it is a weak faith, not to mention wrong headed (re: translation issues, obvious mistakes, etc).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Welcome to the entire history of Christianity. This also applies to how they read Scripture - which has always been subject to interpretation.

Sure, but the point is that holding all viewpoints to be equally valid means that we can't know anything, or else committing cognitive dissonance to convince oneself that contradictory viewpoints are true. Combine that with it flying directly in the face of the biblical elements already mentioned and I find it to be an approach without foundation.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

The Council of Jerusalem declared itself to be above Scripture as Scripture mandates circumcision (and Jesus himself was circumcised).

I don't think this is an accurate description of those issues at all. Even if it were however, it wouldn't pass your test (which I agree with) of taking Scripture as a whole, in which Scripture is constantly referred to as factual and authoritative.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Acknowledging that sinful humans wrote about their encounters with God, and probably embellished and got a few things wrong, to help us know God does not diminish the Living God.

It's clearly not helping us know God if it leads to picking and choosing what parts we believe and what parts we don't. That's not helping us know God - that's us using it to justify belief in the kind of God we want. And it's also nothing like the way that Jesus used the Scripture, which means that to adopt such an approach, I would have to decide not to try to imitate Christ as we are enjoined to do - in which case what's the point?

It's one thing to say they were wrong about certain historical facts and argue that we accept the overarching themes as being true in light of the way history was written. It's quite another to take a specific passage and use the parts supporting our argument as evidence (Jesus questioned by Pilate about being a King) while rejecting the one that don't support it (Pilate's statements to the crowd).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Possibility of translation errors have always been a major sticking point with me. Unless you are a scholar/linguist/theologian and able to read the earliest versions of the Bible, I think one has to logically concede the current Catholic, King James etc. versions may well contain "translation errors, misinterpretations, out-of-context etc. passages from the original". The example above of Aion, if true, shows how one mistranslated word can change a significant belief of some Christian denominations.

As regards the general point here, this is far more likely to be true of the OT than the NT. Which isn't to say the OT isn't important, I'd just say that it requires more care. The number of manuscripts dating back to the first century we have and the amount of scholarship that has been done on them, combined with looking at the whole of the Bible and not singling out a solo proof-text, virtually eliminate this concern IMO. I'm not saying it's non-existent, just highly remote. The example given is actually a good one - seeing how aion is used in verses that have nothing to do with reward or punishment is quite enlightening on what it actually should mean.

This analogy is not at all original, but I find it helpful. Suppose that you are in charge of a convenience store, and one of your concerns is training people to recognize counterfeit money. Discussing specific counterfeit methods is of limited use because those methods are always changing as adjustments are made to deter them. On the other hand, a strong familiarity with all of the features of the currency teaches you to notice immediately when something is out of place. Similarly, the more one knows of the Bible - and certainly I don't know it a fraction a well as I should know it - the more unlikely one is to fall into any kind of trap, because the major issues can all be balanced against what's taught about them elsewhere. The smaller issues aren't unimportant, but they're not vital and if we are wrong/misled about them the damage is, relatively speaking, minimal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Sure, but the point is that holding all viewpoints to be equally valid means that we can't know anything, or else committing cognitive dissonance to convince oneself that contradictory viewpoints are true.

If you know that interpretation of Scripture is vastly different then you have to have the humility to know that your interpretation may not be the correct one. Otherwise the answer is hubris that you know God's will exactly because your interpretation of Scripture is one way.

I don't think this is an accurate description of those issues at all. Even if it were however, it wouldn't pass your test (which I agree with) of taking Scripture as a whole, in which Scripture is constantly referred to as factual and authoritative.

Where is not being circumcised considered ok in Scripture after the promise is made to Abraham? A crucifixion of the heart is something Paul kind of made up.

And it's also nothing like the way that Jesus used the Scripture, which means that to adopt such an approach, I would have to decide not to try to imitate Christ as we are enjoined to do - in which case what's the point?

Jesus literally decides to toss away Scripture that He feels are not important. That's what gets the Jewish authorities mad at him in the first place. He even says that they don't apply to him when it comes to the Sabbath or washing before a meal.

Or you know deviating from Jewish food laws - that which goes into a man defiles him - completely opposite from the rest of Scripture where God bans certain items from being eaten.

Jesus affirms Scripture, but when Scripture oppresses people, He chooses people. Yes, we should imitate Christ in that.

It's one thing to say they were wrong about certain historical facts and argue that we accept the overarching themes as being true in light of the way history was written. It's quite another to take a specific passage and use the parts supporting our argument as evidence (Jesus questioned by Pilate about being a King) while rejecting the one that don't support it (Pilate's statements to the crowd).

Your second sentence appears to be doing exactly what the first sentence is asking we do. Using the historical record of Pilate to realize that the Pilate narrative in the Gospels is exaggerated, so we look at the overarching themes that Jesus is Lord of all and every knee should bend to Him - not other Empires or countries.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

If you know that interpretation of Scripture is vastly different then you have to have the humility to know that your interpretation may not be the correct one.

Agree completely. I don't see any relationship to what I said though. Acknowledging one's limits and flaws in terms of their knowledge does not mean there is no right answer, or that mutually contradictory answers should be held as correct.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Your second sentence appears to be doing exactly what the first sentence is asking we do.

Not at all. I'm saying that if we say a writer is wrong about some aspect of history, consistency requires that we dismiss everything they say about it - not just the parts that don't line up with our preconceptions.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Jesus literally decides to toss away Scripture that He feels are not important. That's what gets the Jewish authorities mad at him in the first place. He even says that they don't apply to him when it comes to the Sabbath or washing before a meal.

This is simply not true. Washing before meals wasn't a Scriptural command. It was a Jewish tradition, which the gospel writers even state, and this is one of the more prominent cases where Jesus criticizes them for putting tradition above God's commandments. The disciples gleaning while walking through the fields was not a violation of Scripture, and neither was healing on the Sabbath which is the most common thing Jesus did that offended the Pharisees. The Sabbath command was not to work - as in ordinary daily work, as can be seen by the comparison to things like gathering twice as much bread on the day before so they would be free to have the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship . Even the Pharisees held that you could do things like be circumcised, deal with emergencies involving livestock, etc.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

deviating from Jewish food laws - that which goes into a man defiles him - completely opposite from the rest of Scripture where God bans certain items from being eaten.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

A crucifixion of the heart is something Paul kind of made up.

On these things, we must dive at least one level further. Do you think the apostles were wrong not to continue making sacrifices at the Temple as the OT law commanded? Why or why not?

[ISiddiqui]

If you toss out any history that is wrong about any aspects of history, you have no ancient history left. They are all wrong or biased or exaggerated about something. That's why historians look at multiple sources. The birth narrative in Luke we know already is wrong because Quirenius and Herod didn't overlap. Do you toss out the rest of that?

As for gleaning, what did Jesus say when they accosted him? He didn't say the Sabbath is about some strange delineation of what work is (Exodus speaks to Israel telling them they could not pick manna on the Sabbath btw). He said after explaining an emergency exception (which I don't think Jewish leaders would have objected):

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

He is saying He gets to decide what part of the Sabbath means. I will concede hand washing is Talmud not Torah, but the gleaning is where Jesus says he gets to change things.

That's why the apostles make no sacrifices even though Scripture mandates it. Jesus indicated that He would suffice for the sacrifices mandated in Scripture. He rewrites that Scriptural requirements.

As does Peter with the food laws and Paul with circumcision - both had to be argued over by the Apostles Church because Jesus didn't seem to speak to that either before or after he died and came back. If you say you affirm Scripture wholely, you can't pick and choose (using your words) so food and sacrifice laws should be maintained. Unless you agree Jesus changed Jewish laws (though I would argue He had the right to do so).



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

He didn't say the Sabbath is about some strange delineation of what work is (Exodus speaks to Israel telling them they could not pick manna on the Sabbath btw). He said after explaining an emergency exception (which I don't think Jewish leaders would have objected):

Re: manna - that's right along the same line I mentioned. It is ordinary, daily work. It's not as if the disciples were going through the fields with a sickle and a basket. They were traveling - this was in no way part of their standard labors. And the Jewish leaders absolutely would have objected to such an emergency, that was the point here. We know that because they in fact did object. They objected to Jesus healing on the Sabbath period. They objected to a man carrying his bed after Jesus did so - a man who had been unable to walk for 38 years. What did they expect him to do with it? And we also know that the Pharisees had 24 chapters of Sabbath laws. Rabbis would sometimes study a single chapter for years to understand all of the minutae and implications. You couldn't carry anything heavier than a dry fig, or smaller loads that added up to that weight. You couldn't walk more than 1999 steps, because the 2000th step would be a violation - unless you picked up food at the end of that because then you got another 1999. A woman couldn't look in a mirror because she might see a grey/white hair and be tempted to pull it out, and that act would qualify as work (how?). This is the kind of system that people lived under and the hypocrisy inherent in it is why Jesus brought up the livestock emergency situation.

You are right that Jesus did state, many times, that the Sabbath was for man's benefit and that he was Lord of it. I don't think that means, when you look at the whole picture, anything about changing Sabbath law on a whim. I think it was reference, as he often made, to the fact that He was God - and therefore had authority over what the law meant. In isolation it could be taken either way or some other ways, as could pretty much any verse.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

That's why the apostles make no sacrifices even though Scripture mandates it. Jesus indicated that He would suffice for the sacrifices mandated in Scripture. He rewrites that Scriptural requirements.

As does Peter with the food laws and Paul with circumcision - both had to be argued over by the Apostles Church because Jesus didn't seem to speak to that either before or after he died and came back. If you say you affirm Scripture wholely, you can't pick and choose (using your words) so food and sacrifice laws should be maintained. Unless you agree Jesus changed Jewish laws (though I would argue He had the right to do so).

On these issues I do agree with you that the law did change. Circumcision, food, sacrifices are unquestionably to my mind issues where that did happen. I don't think it was because Jesus thought they weren't important though. I don't think either that it was because Paul 'kind of made it up' - if you hold that to be the case then you are saying the man appointed by God to bring the gospel to the Gentiles fabricated a significant part of that gospel message, in which case we really are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is going on with these issues though? Do they fit into any particular framework? Why change these and not others - for example, commands regarding social justice, mercy, love, etc.

I think the best sense is found by looking at what the OT said, esp. in the prophets. Multiple places, probably most famously in Jeremiah 31, describe a time when there would be a new relationship between God and his people. Jonah was sent to Gentiles at Nineveh, showing the evangelistic intent of God even then. What exactly that new covenant entails is beyond the scope of what I'm talking about here to debate, and I'm quite certain I do not fully understand all of it. But when we have the concept by multiple prophets articulated that the details of said relationship between God and man would change, and the statements of Jesus that a time is coming and now is relating to various things, when John the Baptizer said repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand … all of these statements point to the time of Jesus being the point at which at least some of these changes were to take place.

Then we can observe the fact that all of the things that changed, without a single exception AFAIK, were elements of the ceremonial law. That is, none were moral in nature. They were progressively revealed to different people - the disciples, the vision to Peter, the gospel as understood by Paul, etc. They were accompanied by a new sign of the covenant - the signs the apostles were given power to do by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. We can observe the way that the old sign (circumcision) foreshadowed this new sign, just as the old celebrations of the OT foreshadowed key events in Jesus life, the old sacrifices foreshadowed his ultimate sacrifice (which was also validated by John the Baptizer), and so on. The various elements of this picture, coming from multiple in sources OT and NT, indicate that Jesus was a fulcrum invoking a new age or covenant. It seems more sensible to me to view this as not the discarding of Scripture, but the heralding of a new age in which some aspects of that, while still entirely valid for their time, had served their purpose and were quite literally fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

[Edward64]

Religious discussions from the Trump thread

[BYU 14]

It's pretty simple, no.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

It's pretty simple, no.

Word