TOT's Heretical Beliefs

[velkyn]

1. God is not a trinity
2. Jesus was a man with no human sire that lived a sinless life who was anointed by God to reign as King in the Kingdom of Heaven.

which makes him not a man at all since humans have two parents, not some nonsense like Zeus and your god. Again, you pick and choose what you want your “messiah” to be. 

*3. God's ultimate purpose for His creation is life and expects for His creations to be holy and blameless.*

which he knew they wouldn’t be.

4. The covenant between God and Israel began at Sinai and was ended with Jesus' murder. (The ending was ultimately culminated some 40 years later when Jerusalem and the Temple were decimated.)

There is nothing to support this at all. You should explain this to the Jews.

5. The "last days" language in scripture is a reference to the (mid) 1st century times.

and you can’t show that any of those supposed events described happened at all.

6. The penalty for sin is death, not hell.

As you say you “interpret” it this way. Others do not. 

7. With very few possible exceptions, ALL who have ever lived will eventually be raised from the dead. Some will be given life in the age while those who are unjust will be punished with destruction never to live in any way, shape, or form again.

“live in the age”, what does this mean?  And hmm, those who are “unjust”.  You mean like your god which punishes people for other people’s actions?  That seems to be the ultimate “unjustness”. 

8. A Heavenly reward was only promised to an elect number, not all believers.

yep, those eunuchs. 

9. The righteous will ultimately be rewarded with life (most likely on Earth, but maybe not limited to this planet) in an age of peace and righteousness where sin and death will be no more.

  And don’t forget no sex, TOT.  What will this “LIFE” that you claim be like with nothing like actual humans living it? 

10. Ultimately Jesus will turn over the Kingdom back to the Father and God will then be all and in all.

Something made up by you.   
What I do not believe the Bible teaches:
1. Man has an immortal soul
2. Lucifer is the name of a fallen angle that became the satan
3. Heaven or Hell is the ultimate destination of everyone who's ever lived.
4. Any part of a person continues to live after the person dies.
5. Jesus is God, the Son as opposed to being simply the only begotten son of God.
6. The modern church is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven.
7. A seven year tribulation will happen at the end of the world prior to or after the "rapture"[/quote] pretty much “those other Christians are wrong and I’m right”. 

8. The Law had any bearing before Sinai or after Jesus fulfilled it

  I do love this one.  The law, something that supposedly God wanted for people to follow, has an expiration date so you don’t have to follow it, as opposed to what JC said that you did have to follow it and those who follow it would get better seats in heaven. 

All in all, some pretty typical spag. 

[12 Monkeys]

ahh so you think that all of the other millions of christians that claim they do, are lying and therefore false?

I can honestly say that I do not believe their claims, however, my belief in them has no bearing or whether their claims are true or not. I just beliee their claims are unfounded and baseless, but hey, that just 1 man's opinion.

As are yours

[12 Monkeys]

1. God is not a trinity
2. Jesus was a man with no human sire that lived a sinless life who was anointed by God to reign as King in the Kingdom of Heaven.
*3. God's ultimate purpose for His creation is life and expects for His creations to be holy and blameless.*
4. The covenant between God and Israel began at Sinai and was ended with Jesus' murder. (The ending was ultimately culminated some 40 years later when Jerusalem and the Temple were decimated.)
5. The "last days" language in scripture is a reference to the (mid) 1st century times.
6. The penalty for sin is death, not hell.
7. With very few possible exceptions, ALL who have ever lived will eventually be raised from the dead. Some will be given life in the age while those who are unjust will be punished with destruction never to live in any way, shape, or form again.
8. A Heavenly reward was only promised to an elect number, not all believers.
9. The righteous will ultimately be rewarded with life (most likely on Earth, but maybe not limited to this planet) in an age of peace and righteousness where sin and death will be no more.
10. Ultimately Jesus will turn over the Kingdom back to the Father and God will then be all and in all.


What I do not believe the Bible teaches:
1. Man has an immortal soul
2. Lucifer is the name of a fallen anger that became the satan
3. Heaven or Hell is the ultimate destination of everyone who's ever lived.
4. Any part of a person continues to live after the person dies.
5. Jesus is God, the Son as opposed to being simply the only begotten son of God.
6. The modern church is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven.
7. A seven year tribulation will happen at the end of the world prior to or after the "rapture"
8. The Law had any bearing before Sinai or after Jesus fulfilled it

Certain omitted gospels(Thomas) dont paint a pretty picture of Jesus as sinless. Why are not all the "books" part of the bible? why have some been censored or deleted outright?

[Truth OT]

In the course of my recent studies of scripture it has come to my attention that the idea that the scriptures are infallible (even when pinned originally) may be off base. The biggest reason why I say this is because the NT writings do not seem to claim to be inspired writings. In the NT in places like 2 Timothy, if refers to the scriptures being inspired, but very likely, the scriptures referred to are the OT texts since the NT was not completed and in circulation when Paul wrote that letter. What they do claim to be is either first hand accounts of witnesses or second hand accounts of information provided to the writer by eye witnesses of the events spoken of. The gospel of Luke is one such example. Nowhere that I am aware of do any of the writers with the possible exception of John for Revelation claim that what they wrote was inspired or prompted by God's Holy Spirit. That being said, one could make the case that the writings were simply the works of men that were a part of the movement they were writing about, writing what they were fully convinced of with the intent of relaying and restating the good message (gospel) to their contemporaries. Though what these writers claimed they wrote was true, as readers we have no reason to believe the writers were infallible and that what they wrote cannot contain any error as if God Himself was guiding their hands. 

[Brakeman]

.. as readers we have no reason to believe the writers were infallible and that what they wrote cannot contain any error as if God Himself was guiding their hands.

So the key messengers of the christian religion were probably liars who piled up holy stories to make themselves important to other god believers? Of course! The motive is strong for them to lie and make people believe that they are the voice of god. It gives them power and prestige. All of the writers of all of the religions in the world also have this motive. That's why they lie. It is ridiculous to think that the OT authors were any more truthful than the NT authors, just older.

[JeffPT]

In the course of my recent studies of scripture it has come to my attention that the idea that the scriptures are infallible (even when pinned originally) may be off base. The biggest reason why I say this is because the NT writings do not seem to claim to be inspired writings. In the NT in places like 2 Timothy, if refers to the scriptures being inspired, but very likely, the scriptures referred to are the OT texts since the NT was not completed and in circulation when Paul wrote that letter. What they do claim to be is either first hand accounts of witnesses or second hand accounts of information provided to the writer by eye witnesses of the events spoken of. The gospel of Luke is one such example. Nowhere that I am aware of do any of the writers with the possible exception of John for Revelation claim that what they wrote was inspired or prompted by God's Holy Spirit. That being said, one could make the case that the writings were simply the works of men that were a part of the movement they were writing about, writing what they were fully convinced of with the intent of relaying and restating the good message (gospel) to their contemporaries. Though what these writers claimed they wrote was true, as readers we have no reason to believe the writers were infallible and that what they wrote cannot contain any error as if God Himself was guiding their hands.

Not first hand accounts.  Second hand at the very least. We know that they are not first hand accounts because nowhere do you ever see a sentence like "Jesus and I did X" in any of the accounts.  They aren't written as if the authors were eyewitnesses to the events. 

In Bart Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted chapter 4 is titled "who wrote the gospels"?  In it he gives several reasons why the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses.  I'll just quote one thing he said, because you can read it for yourself if you have access to it.   In one of the last sentences in the first section of chapter 4, when speaking of the gospel writers he says..

But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

Second hand information, at the very best.  More likely much further on down the line though. 

As to the rest, I would agree with you here.  Now follow that where it logically goes.  We don't know who the NT writers were.  No clue.  We have differing and sometimes conflicting reports among the 4 gospel stories.  And now you say it's completely possible that they were not divinely inspired works.  Given what you've said here, do you really think it's a smart move to consider such accounts reliable?  Especially considering the massively extraordinary claims they are expounding?

Be honest here... you're a pretty smart guy.  If this was the information you had to go on, in any other realm of your life, you'd laugh about it and shake your head.  As an example... if you had a book about leprechauns, written 2000 years ago, by unknown authors, comprised of 4 strikingly different second, or third hand reports, would you find that sufficient evidence to start looking for pots of gold at the end of rainbows?  For the life of me, I don't see any way you could do that and still claim that you're a reasonable, rational person. 

As readers, we have no reason to believe the stories are true, period.  If you open up that some errors are possible, then you open up the notion that the whole thing could be wrong.  And the flood gates fly open. 

[velkyn]

In the course of my recent studies of scripture it has come to my attention that the idea that the scriptures are infallible (even when pinned originally) may be off base. The biggest reason why I say this is because the NT writings do not seem to claim to be inspired writings.

So, since you think no one has claimed to be inspired by God in the NT, this means they didn’t think they were inspired in the NT?  Paul certainly seems to think he has a hotline to God, in that he claims that only he is to be listened to, not those “other” preachers. 

In the NT in places like 2 Timothy, if refers to the scriptures being inspired, but very likely, the scriptures referred to are the OT texts since the NT was not completed and in circulation when Paul wrote that letter.

Possible, but considering that Paul thought the gospels he knew and the letters he wrote were infallible, I find this only a partial explanation. It also begs the question, why are the OT scriptures so contradictory, full of nonsense and simply wrong?

What they do claim to be is either first hand accounts of witnesses or second hand accounts of information provided to the writer by eye witnesses of the events spoken of. The gospel of Luke is one such example.

Yes, claims that are baseless, especially considering the contradictions.

Nowhere that I am aware of do any of the writers with the possible exception of John for Revelation claim that what they wrote was inspired or prompted by God's Holy Spirit.

Are you including Paul in with this?  Because he has repeatedly insisted that his words are right from God.  Does this equate with being inspired? 

That being said, one could make the case that the writings were simply the works of men that were a part of the movement they were writing about, writing what they were fully convinced of with the intent of relaying and restating the good message (gospel) to their contemporaries. Though what these writers claimed they wrote was true, as readers we have no reason to believe the writers were infallible and that what they wrote cannot contain any error as if God Himself was guiding their hands.

  Yes, however most Christians, including you it seems, want to pick and choose what parts they think are indeed inspired by this deity.  If we go with a bunch of men who are spreadiang things they only think are true,  with NONE of it being based on any reality, it makes your religion gutted and pointless, and we’re back to the cherry-picking. 


And I'm wondering if you'll answer Hatter's request "Please show me how the Bible can be differentiated from the Illiad." And my qeustions in my review of your beliefs.

[Truth OT]

"Please show me how the Bible can be differentiated from the Iliad."

I honestly do not remember enough about the Iliad to do it justice, but I'll take a stab at it. This will likely be short.
It's my understanding that the Iliad was written and compossed exclusively by Homer and there are no other corraborating accounts by any of his contemporaries. That's different from the Bible in that the Bible itself is a compilation of writings by many different writers whose writing often are corraborating accounts.
A fair comparison in my opinion is not one between the Iliad and the entire collection of writings that has come to be known as the Bible, but rather with an individual book from the Bible like Acts. Both may in fact be centered around something that indeed is historical like the life and times of the saints of the 1st century and the Trojan War and both make claims of the miraculous and what many would call nonsensical. Between these 2 works, is there any reason to believe one may in fact be more credible than the other? As you likely have guessed, my answer is yes, I am persuaded that Acts is more credible. The reason why is that there are other contemporary first century writings that discuss the material and people described in Acts.

[velkyn]

"Please show me how the Bible can be differentiated from the Iliad."

I honestly do not remember enough about the Iliad to do it justice, but I'll take a stab at it. This will likely be short.
It's my understanding that the Iliad was written and compossed exclusively by Homer and there are no other corraborating accounts by any of his contemporaries. That's different from the Bible in that the Bible itself is a compilation of writings by many different writers whose writing often are corraborating accounts.

Or they could be simply copying from each other.  And there are no corroborating external accounts.

A fair comparison in my opinion is not one between the Iliad and the entire collection of writings that has come to be known as the Bible, but rather with an individual book from the Bible like Acts. Both may in fact be centered around something that indeed is historical like the life and times of the saints of the 1st century and the Trojan War and both make claims of the miraculous and what many would call nonsensical.

Yep, they do. Where is the evidence that supports yoru claims that the bible stories are more accurate than the accounts in the Illiad?  I suspect that anything you come up with I can also apply to the Illiad, but you are welcome to try to come up with something.

Between these 2 works, is there any reason to believe one may in fact be more credible than the other? As you likely have guessed, my answer is yes, I am persuaded that Acts is more credible. The reason why is that there are other contemporary first century writings that discuss the material and people described in Acts.

Why are you “persuaded” that Acts is more credible?  And again, where are these contemporary writings that discuss the material and people?  And not the bible’s other books since we have no way to know if they aren’t just copying from each other since they were all floating around at the same time. Where are the external accounts? 

[Add Homonym]

I say, if you want to know what parts of the NT are true, then roll dice for each verse. Surely God will guide the fall of the dice?

The reason I say dice rather than die, is that you should roll about 10 of them, and if they all turn up 6, then that verse is true.

[Truth OT]

Or they could be simply copying from each other.  And there are no corroborating external accounts.
Why are you “persuaded” that Acts is more credible?  And again, where are these contemporary writings that discuss the material and people?  And not the bible’s other books since we have no way to know if they aren’t just copying from each other since they were all floating around at the same time. Where are the external accounts?

The reason is as I said it previously is because other works exist the help corraborate the story. Are those other works are SEPARATE letters and writings that have been complied together in the Bible? Yes. Does that mean that they are inadmisable as SEPARATE contemporary works? No.

It's funny how quickly it gets pointed out that they are separate when they appear to disagree, contradict, or are used in conjunction with each other to prove a point, but when used corraborate each other's events in this instance, they have suddenly become a cohesive singular work.

[velkyn]

The reason is as I said it previously is because other works exist the help corraborate the story. Are those other works are SEPARATE letters and writings that have been complied together in the Bible? Yes. Does that mean that they are inadmisable as SEPARATE contemporary works? No.

TOT, what makes a difference if they are separate if we can safely postulate that they could have come from a single source?  We have biblical scholars who are in great agreement that the gospels are individual sources.  They seem to have come from Mark and another as yet unknown source.  So, even if we have different writers and different sheets of paper, that doesn’t mean that they are unique sources.  You are trying to claim that they are and they are not.   

It's funny how quickly it gets pointed out that they are separate when they appear to disagree, contradict, or are used in conjunction with each other to prove a point, but when used corraborate each other's events in this instance, they have suddenly become a cohesive singular work.

I agree, it does appear that you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  However, it is demonstrating that there are parts that are similar and parts that are different.   I always have Christians trying to claim literary analysis for how they interpret their bible’s stories.  What you, and they, never seem to realize is that this analysis can explain this quite easily.  We have root sources, then they are changed and added to.  Those additions vary on the details that the author decides were true.  As you say, they were separate books so the authors couldn’t double check on who was getting what parts of the myth put down.  Now, why these weren’t reconciled by those who determined which books their god “really meant” I have no good idea other than they really did believe that bit in Revelation that says nothing is to be changed in the bible as written or you get divine boils.  But the result is we have a bunch of books that have some similarities and some ridiculous contradictions like who was at the tomb, what did the thieves say, how does one get into God’s favor, etc. 

and again where are the external accounts you claim support Acts? 

[Truth OT]

External accounts of 1st century miracles are lacking. As i search for evidence of them I keep coming across the same sources. Here is an article that summarized some of them:

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-1301.htm

Can the biblical accounts of miracles be corroborated by testimony other than that of Scripture?

This is an excellent question that suggests at least two objections to the idea of miracles. The two are: "The authors made up the accounts because they were biased toward Christianity", and, "If the miracles happened, why aren't they recorded outside of the Bible?"

The fact is that some miracles of the Bible are recorded outside of Scripture, and by people who were not favorable to Christianity. Here are some excellent examples collected by Josh McDowell and often cited in his many works:

Thallus, a writer around AD 52, wrote to speculate on natural reasons that would explain away the three hours of darkness that occurred during Christ's crucifixion. Although the event corresponded with the monthly period of a full moon (which is sufficient to prove that the darkness could not have been a lunar eclipse), the most important point is that Thallus deals with Christ's crucifixion and the accompanying darkness as factual events. These were events for which he desired alternative explanations. A writer named Phlegon, circa AD 140, wrote similarly in one of his books entitled Olympiads. 1

The point of the Thallus and Phlegon examples is that if Christ's crucifixion and accompanying darkness were only myths, ancient critics would not have sought alternative explanations to deny the miraculous aspects of the events - they would be denying the events altogether.

The writings of Flavius Josephus also corroborate the Bible in a number of aspects. He was a Jew who turned his loyalty away from Jerusalem to the empire of Rome. Between AD 66-93, he wrote extensively of Jewish history. His works include detailed mentions of King Herod, "John, surnamed the Baptist" 2, and "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". 3

Josephus indicates some acknowledgment of miracles or miraculous claims in a passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Because it so thoroughly supports the existence and reputation of Christ, some allege that early Christians must have altered the Greek text of Josephus' words. Granting that possibility, here is a translation of the same passage from an Arabic text. This would have been far less likely to circulate in Christian circles of that time, and it is admittedly less complimentary than other translations:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;.. 4

A rabbinical writing, perhaps as early as AD 70, states that one called Yeshu (Jesus), "practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray." 5 This is further indication that many outside of Jesus' circle of followers have associated irregular events with his person.

The Islamic Qur'an even mentions Christ's virgin birth (Mary 19:15-22), his healing of the blind and lepers, and his raising of the dead (Table 5:110-112).6

Finally, an unusual, derogatory remark by Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome and great foe of Christianity, describes Jesus as one

having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal lame and blind people and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany. 7

[velkyn]

External accounts of 1st century miracles are lacking. As i search for evidence of them I keep coming across the same sources. Here is an article that summarized some of them:

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-1301.htm

Yes, I know that they are lacking.  I have to ask did you actually read any of these supposed external accounts, TOT?  If not, you really should have and have read the rebuttals of them. Josh McDowall is a poor source to cite, and I’ll show you why.

Thallus.  No one noticed the three hours of darkness (or the earthquake or the dead walking the streets, etc).  No one in the area, and we only have third and fourth hand references to it much later.  No one can also figure out when JC supposedly died, so they must try to stuff it into what actually did happen.  IF we don’t know this, and why we don’t is a good mystery on how Christians managed to forget the date of the most important event in their religion, how can we know if it matches the date of any solar eclipses?  Is it valid to point to an eclipse and say “why that must have been when JC died”?  Solar eclipses also do not provide total darkness for 3 hours.  Your source also wants to claim that since Thallus thought it was real, then it was real.  ::facepalm:: We also had Tacitus claim that Vespasian did miracles. He certainly seemed to think he did so does that make those claims true too?   Furthermore, Thallus’ actual words are not recorded, they are mentioned secondhand by Julius Africanus. We have no idea of what was really said about the darkness or if he mentioned the darkness at all.  You have the same problem with Phlegon. 

Then you want to claim Josephus supports the Bible.  Have you read anything about these works, TOT?  It seems not.  We have one mention of JC and that is widely considered to be a forgery.  Yes, he does mention John the Baptist and Herod etc.  But again, the events claimed by the Bible are not supported.  I may as well claim that since ‘The Hunt for Red October” mentions Moscow, that means the book events happened too. 

The rabbinical text call out someone named Yeshu, which is often rendered Joshua, etc.  This Yeshu was supposedly stoned to death.  Does that match what supposedly happened?  I see your source fails to mention that little detail. How many men do you guess were named Yeshua/Yeshu/Joshua/Jesus in Palestine, TOT?

Citing the Qu’ran is amusing since that was written much later and was admittedly a spawn of Judaism and Christianity. 

That last is rather curious too.  We have a Roman emperor, 4 centuries after the whole events, making comments about Jesus.  I would ask, so what if Julian thought JC was real and did miracles?  Again, we have others claim of miracles all through that period and people believing all sorts of things from stories.  It certainly does not support that these stories were real, only that someone heard them and believed them.

Now, looking at these problems, is there any other part of your life that you would accept such shoddy claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

[velkyn]

TOT, I hope you have time in the future to address some of my questions on how you would respond to my rebuttals about the supposed evidence for JC. 

[Truth OT]

At this point, I doubt that much of what was written and compiled to make up what we have as the Bible it factual and true. I do still belief that my grasp, understanding of what is written within its pages is very good.

[screwtape]

^ come again?  I think there is a small typo that changes and obscures your meaning. My best guess would be:

At this point, I doubt that much of what was written and compiled to make up what we have as the Bible is factual and true. I do still belief that my grasp, understanding of what is written within its pages is very good.

[velkyn]

At this point, I doubt that much of what was written and compiled to make up what we have as the Bible it factual and true. I do still belief that my grasp, understanding of what is written within its pages is very good.

why?  If the bible isn't factual and true, why do you think that your understanding of what's written there is "very good"?  Is it good because you finally realize it's not factual and untrue or that you are again cherry picking what you want to be "factual and true"? 

Also, are you still claiming that Josephus, Thallus, et al are supporting this bible where you say that much of it isn't factual or true? 

[Truth OT]

At this point, I doubt that much of what was written and compiled to make up what we have as the Bible IS factual and true. I do still belief that my grasp, understanding of what is written within its pages is very good.

why?  If the bible isn't factual and true, why do you think that your understanding of what's written there is "very good"?  Is it good because you finally realize it's not factual and untrue or that you are again cherry picking what you want to be "factual and true"? 

Also, are you still claiming that Josephus, Thallus, et al are supporting this bible where you say that much of it isn't factual or true?

Confidence in the work put forth in studying its contents and evaluation after evaluation leads me towards such a conclusion. For me, NOT believing in the infallability of the texts has little to moderate bearing on understanding what's in the text. I can take various viewpoints from a) It's all true, to B) It's partially true, to C) It's all likely untrue, and come to basically the same conclusion as it pertains to understanding what was written within the pages of scripture. It's factual content means very little as it relates to this conclusion.

[velkyn]

I’m sorry, TOT, but I can’t comprehend this at all.  How can you come to the “basically same conclusion” if you have on one hand “it’s all true” and on another “it’s all likely untrue”?  How do you come to the same conclusion from two contradictory stances? 

Also, can you answer my questions as they are posed? 

[JeffPT]

At this point, I doubt that much of what was written and compiled to make up what we have as the Bible IS factual and true. I do still belief that my grasp, understanding of what is written within its pages is very good.

why?  If the bible isn't factual and true, why do you think that your understanding of what's written there is "very good"?  Is it good because you finally realize it's not factual and untrue or that you are again cherry picking what you want to be "factual and true"? 

Also, are you still claiming that Josephus, Thallus, et al are supporting this bible where you say that much of it isn't factual or true?

Confidence in the work put forth in studying its contents and evaluation after evaluation leads me towards such a conclusion. For me, NOT believing in the infallability of the texts has little to moderate bearing on understanding what's in the text. I can take various viewpoints from a) It's all true, to B) It's partially true, to C) It's all likely untrue, and come to basically the same conclusion as it pertains to understanding what was written within the pages of scripture. It's factual content means very little as it relates to this conclusion.

Truth OT, you and I once discussed the notion of Jesus coming not to abolish the law but to fulfill it... We got into a few posts about whether or not that meant he was going to fulfill (follow or obey) or fulfill (complete) the laws.  Given the context of Matthew (its own book, separate from all the other books, with it's own message, and a very Jewish message at that) and your new found appreciation for the falseness of the entire thing; has your view on what the word "fulfill" means changed?  I would think your interpretation here might have changed.  To me, given the notion that the books were written by different people, at different times, with different agendas, and that Matthew is the most Jewish of all the gospels, is only something that you can fully grasp when you don't believe it all anymore. 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have argued in the past that you believe the bible has a 'central message'.  Has that changed?  Do you find you have more clarity about certain passages just due to the sheer acknowledgement of the 'man-made-ness' of the bible? 

[Truth OT]

I’m sorry, TOT, but I can’t comprehend this at all.  How can you come to the “basically same conclusion” if you have on one hand “it’s all true” and on another “it’s all likely untrue”?  How do you come to the same conclusion from two contradictory stances? 

Also, can you answer my questions as they are posed?

I, or anyone reading the texts can conclude the same thing about the message they convey as well as the stories found therein whether one believes them to be true or a legend. The thing that would change and has changed for me is the implication(s) of what was written for me and my fellow man.

JeffPT
Truth OT, you and I once discussed the notion of Jesus coming not to abolish the law but to fulfill it... We got into a few posts about whether or not that meant he was going to fulfill (follow or obey) or fulfill (complete) the laws.  Given the context of Matthew (its own book, separate from all the other books, with it's own message, and a very Jewish message at that) and your new found appreciation for the falseness of the entire thing; has your view on what the word "fulfill" means changed?  I would think your interpretation here might have changed.  To me, given the notion that the books were written by different people, at different times, with different agendas, and that Matthew is the most Jewish of all the gospels, is only something that you can fully grasp when you don't believe it all anymore. 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have argued in the past that you believe the bible has a 'central message'.  Has that changed?  Do you find you have more clarity about certain passages just due to the sheer acknowledgement of the 'man-made-ness' of the bible?

I still lean towards fulfill meaning to complete, as I believe it makes the most sense given the overall context of the book as well as the other synoptics which tell virtually the same stories from different POV, but am less rigid in that stance.

Now, I find myself saying, "Oh come on now" when I read certain passages that are hard to swallow that in the past I had to rationalize or ignore until I got a "better understanding" (Jonah and Noah for instance).
As far as the central message goes, I will admit that some of the writings seem to have nothing to do with the central message as I understand it. That message, by the way is; "There is a God that holds life in His hands and unless man honors and keeps the commandments of this God, ultimately man's life will be taken and never known again." God is pictured as the giver of man's greatest gift, life as well as the sole source of man's hope of overcoming man's greatest "enemy", death, that is the message that I believe the scriptures overwhelming try to convey though a few books included in the overall text do not delve into this idea.

[velkyn]

I’m sorry, TOT, but I can’t comprehend this at all.  How can you come to the “basically same conclusion” if you have on one hand “it’s all true” and on another “it’s all likely untrue”?  How do you come to the same conclusion from two contradictory stances? 

Also, can you answer my questions as they are posed?

I, or anyone reading the texts can conclude the same thing about the message they convey as well as the stories found therein whether one believes them to be true or a legend. The thing that would change and has changed for me is the implication(s) of what was written for me and my fellow man.

Demonstrate this for me then, TOT.  I can see that “anyone” isn’t true just from seeing how Christains differ in their interpretations.  They obviously don’t conclude the same thing about the message or the stories in the bible.

[Truth OT]

Demonstrate this for me then, TOT.  I can see that “anyone” isn’t true just from seeing how Christains differ in their interpretations.  They obviously don’t conclude the same thing about the message or the stories in the bible.

Before I go forward, let me clarify my statement about coming to virtually the same conclusion about the messages being conveyed by the scriptures both as a believer in their factuality and authenticity and as a person that now doubts those aspects. I simply was implying that my understanding of the texts has not been greatly affected by the change in my viewpoint on the factuality and authenticity of the scriptures. The only real difference now as opposed to before is that when I would read texts that said this or that, I used to believe the this or that was true and real, now I do not necessarily buy the truthfulness of the "this or that," but the "this or that" is basically still the same.

You often mention how Christianity is full of divided interpretations of scripture, and it definately is. I believe the biggest reasons for the massive divisions is due to ignorance of the texts as opposed to disagreements about what the texts mean. Most people get involved in religion based on circumstance, NOT study. They then, by nature study to further entrench themselves in what they already believe or are being taught by their trusted spiritual advisors. Critical study and analysis is not widely practiced and at times not even advocated in many Christian circles.

Admittedly, even if the texts were to be studied and analyzed in a preconception and religious free vacuum, the analysts would differ from time to time, but I highly doubt there would be even a fraction of the divergence that is so prevailent now.

[velkyn]

Before I go forward, let me clarify my statement about coming to virtually the same conclusion about the messages being conveyed by the scriptures both as a believer in their factuality and authenticity and as a person that now doubts those aspects. I simply was implying that my understanding of the texts has not been greatly affected by the change in my viewpoint on the factuality and authenticity of the scriptures. The only real difference now as opposed to before is that when I would read texts that said this or that, I used to believe the this or that was true and real, now I do not necessarily buy the truthfulness of the "this or that," but the "this or that" is basically still the same.

Implying?  Why can’t you actually say what you mean?  This seems to me that you are trying to excuse yourself from what you actually said.  I still cannot understand how you are separating the “truthfulness” of the “this and that” from understanding the “this and that”.  Canyou give me an example of a verse or something?

You often mention how Christianity is full of divided interpretations of scripture, and it definately is. I believe the biggest reasons for the massive divisions is due to ignorance of the texts as opposed to disagreements about what the texts mean. Most people get involved in religion based on circumstance, NOT study. They then, by nature study to further entrench themselves in what they already believe or are being taught by their trusted spiritual advisors. Critical study and analysis is not widely practiced and at times not even advocated in many Christian circles.

I would disagree that it is simply “ignorance of the texts”.  It seems that everyone can read what they see but it is the interpretation of these texts that is the problem and all theists are sure that theirs are the only right ones and that they are the only ones who use “critical study and analysis” to determine what they claim to be the ultimate “truth”.   

Admittedly, even if the texts were to be studied and analyzed in a preconception and religious free vacuum, the analysts would differ from time to time, but I highly doubt there would be even a fraction of the divergence that is so prevailent now.

Perhaps not so much, but still plenty I would hazard. We have different opinions on how the culture, retranslation, the author, the author’s intent, etc which al would come into play. 

[Truth OT]

I would disagree that it is simply “ignorance of the texts”.  It seems that everyone can read what they see but it is the interpretation of these texts that is the problem and all theists are sure that theirs are the only right ones and that they are the only ones who use “critical study and analysis” to determine what they claim to be the ultimate “truth”.

Do you think a textual analysis and interpretation by various unbiased non believers would result in as many different interpretations as the same type of analysis done by various believers from differing faiths would yield?
 
I believe again that in most cases, it is not critical study and analysis that acts as the primary determinant of "truth", instead it is the circumstance and values of the religious culture that one is born into that acts as the primary determinant.

[velkyn]

I would disagree that it is simply “ignorance of the texts”.  It seems that everyone can read what they see but it is the interpretation of these texts that is the problem and all theists are sure that theirs are the only right ones and that they are the only ones who use “critical study and analysis” to determine what they claim to be the ultimate “truth”.

Do you think a textual analysis and interpretation by various unbiased non believers would result in as many different interpretations as the same type of analysis done by various believers from differing faiths would yield?

not as many, but quite a few.  Humans love to disagree over things that are nebulous.
 

I believe again that in most cases, it is not critical study and analysis that acts as the primary determinant of "truth", instead it is the circumstance and values of the religious culture that one is born into that acts as the primary determinant.

I agree.  However, my point is that all theists claim they do this, and it gets into a "TrueChristian" argument when one tries to pick out which theistic interpretation is the "right" one.  The terms "critical study and analysis" seem to mean vastly different things to theists and nontheists.

[Truth OT]

I still cannot understand how you are separating the “truthfulness” of the “this and that” from understanding the “this and that”.  Canyou give me an example of a verse or something?

Consider the story of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for 3 days and living to tell about it. I understand the story to be about Jonah and his "encounter" as a warning from God to obry God's command reguarding Ninevah, though I do not believe this tale to be a recant of an actual event, my conclusion about what the "this and that" of the tale is would likely be the same as a person who actually believes the events of the tale took place. In this and other instances, truthfulness of what was written has no bearing on the reader understanding what was written. 

[velkyn]

I still cannot understand how you are separating the “truthfulness” of the “this and that” from understanding the “this and that”.  Canyou give me an example of a verse or something?

Consider the story of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for 3 days and living to tell about it. I understand the story to be about Jonah and his "encounter" as a warning from God to obry God's command reguarding Ninevah, though I do not believe this tale to be a recant of an actual event, my conclusion about what the "this and that" of the tale is would likely be the same as a person who actually believes the events of the tale took place. In this and other instances, truthfulness of what was written has no bearing on the reader understanding what was written.

ah, I get it, I think.  You think that the events as described, you thinking that they are metaphor, another thinking them as literal, would give the same conclusion, that one should obey god's commands.  I can see this happening occasionally, but not entirely.   How about the resurrection story?