ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

[aikido7]

...then let's just say that when John says Jesus is "the Lamb of God" then Mary must have "had a little lamb?"

Poly, Poly, Poly!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by aikido7
In other words, metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true, even though not literally factual. We really need to do some "non-secular" study of what metaphor, myth, and parable ACTUALLY mean. Does that make sense to you? Only then can we get closer to reading the Bible on ITS terms rather than through lenses we have been conditioned to wear. These were first-century writers. This is not worldly biography. The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology

In other words, all that stuff about God was made up. This is what aikido7 is trying to get people to believe, without coming straight out and saying it.

 

[aikido7]

What specific "stuff" about God was made up? How do you presume privy to what I am doing? "Trying to get people to believe?" To BELIEVE??? Where specifically did I say THAT?

Unfortunately, you missed the point. Fortunately, for you, you are obviously unaware of missing it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by aikido7
What specific "stuff" about God was made up?

You tell me -- that's what you're trying to say.

How do you presume privy to what I am doing?

I presume nothing. It's obvious what you're doing.

"Trying to get people to believe?" To BELIEVE??? Where specifically did I say THAT?

You didn't have to.

Unfortunately, you missed the point. Fortunately, for you, you are obviously unaware of missing it.

I don't think so.

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You tell me -- that's what you're trying to say.

That's not what I am trying to say. Tell me, specifically, what leads you to presume I am "making stuff up" about God?

I presume nothing. It's obvious what you're doing.

How do you presume that what I am doing is obvious? No grand generalities here--be explicit and unambiguous....(if you are able!)

You didn't have to.

If I "didn't have to," then you need to take me more literally. And it would be nice if you would answer specifically and literally as well. Again:

"Where and what, specficially, did I say in my post that led you to presume I did not have to say anything about 'getting people to believe.' ?"

I don't think so.

Well then I must be mistaken. You obviously ARE aware of missing it. Confessing ignorance is not easy. Good for you!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by aikido7
That's not what I am trying to say. Tell me, specifically, what leads you to presume I am "making stuff up" about God?

I never said you were making stuff up about God. You're the one claiming that the theology (stuff about God) contained in the Gospels is embellished (made up).

How do you presume that what I am doing is obvious?

I presume nothing. All I have to do is read your posts to see what you're doing.

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I never said you were making stuff up about God. You're the one claiming that the theology (stuff about God) contained in the Gospels is embellished (made up).

I presume nothing. All I have to do is read your posts to see what you're doing.

I never said that. You presume to embellish and make up what I said. And presuming "to know what I'm doing" by selectively or superficially reading what I posted on a message board is laughable.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by aikido7
I never said that.

Yes, you did.

Originally posted by aikido7
The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology

Those are your own words.

You presume to embellish and make up what I said. And presuming "to know what I'm doing" by selectively or superficially reading what I posted on a message board is laughable.

Once again -- I presume nothing. Your feeble attempts at deception are transparent.

 

[Turbo]

To clarify:
aikido7, you stated,

The gambling for the garmets and the other small details were added into the story of the crucifixion.

You said that this event did not happen, but that the Gospel writers recorded that it did anyway so that they could (falsely) claim a prophesy was fulfilled. Isn't that what you believe?

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how everything that is described in Psalm 22 applies to its author.

 

[aikido7]

quote:
Originally posted by aikido7
"I never said that."

Yes, you did.

quote:
Originally posted by aikido7
"The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology"

Yes--but I did NOT say that "theology" or "stuff about God" is "made up." That's what you presumed I said. That would be a rather unbelievable claim--either on my part or in the Bible itself. That's not my idea of how sacred textual language and inspiration work.

Those are your own words.

And I stand by them. But I will not accept that biblical theologies are "made up" and I do not accept theology as "stuff about God." I see embellished (focused, embroidered, changed and/or improved upon) as quite a different thing than "making stuff up." The latter would fall into the category of the usual secular notions about "myth." And I think the word "stuff" is crude and demeans theology and ultimately, God.

quote:
"You presume to embellish and make up what I said. And presuming "to know what I'm doing" by selectively or superficially reading what I posted on a message board is laughable."

Once again -- I presume nothing. Your feeble attempts at deception are transparent

If you think it is deception, you are wrong. I am not here to deceive. I will be glad to answer your questions and try to explain it to you. If you don't agree that the Bible is not all literal, then just say so--let your yes be a yes or your no be a no. If you do not grasp the richness in the text, the form of ancient religious writing and the details of the New Testament , then I have evidently made a feeble attempt to explain how inspriation works, what mythic language is and why Jesus spoke in parables.

Myth is the world view. Mythic language is the culture (this includes institutions, art, language, dress, habits of relationship, social hierarchies, etc. etc.) which demonstrate that world view day after day. In people's lives. It is like the water that surrounds the fish and sustains it.

Parable undercuts and ultimately subverts myth.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by aikido7
Yes--but I did NOT say that "theology" or "stuff about God" is "made up." That's what you presumed I said. That would be a rather unbelievable claim--either on my part or in the Bible itself. That's not my idea of how sacred textual language and inspiration work.[b/]

You did say that no one cast lots and divided Christ's garments, but that the Gospel writers added that to the account to claim a fulfilled prophesy. (You thereby accuse the Gospel writers of bearing false witness, by the way.)

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by aikido7
Yes--but I did NOT say that "theology" or "stuff about God" is "made up."

You said the Gospels contained embellished theology.

That's what you presumed I said.

I presumed nothing. I simply took what you said and made the meaning clear.

That would be a rather unbelievable claim

I find most of your claims to be quite unbelievable.

And I stand by them.

Then why do you try to deny them?

I do not accept that biblical theologies are "made up"

Then why do you imply they've had fictitious details added?

and I do not accept theology as "stuff about God."

What do you accept as theology then?

If you think it is deception, you are wrong.

I don't think so.

If you do not grasp it, then I have evidently made a feeble attempt to explain how inspriation works, what mythic language is and why Jesus spoke in parables.

Oh, I grasp what you're saying all right. All too well apparently, judging by how upset you get when I point it out to others.

 

[Turbo]

Aikido, did was Christ actually raised from the dead? Or was that a parable? Or did the Gospel writers add in that detail?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Aikido doesn't believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ.

 

[Turbo]

Surprise, surprise!

Is that right, aikido?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

He's busy quoting my post, obviously trying to think up some clever argument.

 

[Turbo]

I wish he'd take a little more care formatting the quotes.

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by Turbo
To clarify:
aikido7, you stated,
You said that this event did not happen, but that the Gospel writers recorded that it did anyway so that they could (falsely) claim a prophesy was fulfilled. Isn't that what you believe?

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how everything that is described in Psalm 22 applies to its author.

You misunderstand the intent of the gospel writers. First of all, they were gospels. Literally, that means "good news." The word "good" implies an evaluation--a judgement. In this case, the judgement comes from different gospel writers. Those who saw Jesus' teachings as harmless would not use the same evaluation. The Romans, generally speaking, certainly didn't.
So it was "good" only from a particular point of view. Not all people then--good and bad, just and unjust--saw it that way. It's the same today. "News" implies what is in the word itself. New. Fresh. Not yesterday's papers. This is news! Each gospel writer updated that original news (Jesus' teachings) to a new time and a new community. Each of the four gospels were written from about 50 to 80 years after Jesus died. Each gospel writer updated Jesus' timeless message to be available to their own community.

Did you read the gospels in parallel--side-by-side? Did you note where they deviated from each other and how? Do you think those were just "transcription errors" that caused the differences? I don't believe so.

Now--I see a difference between making something up and updating a message for a new audience. Creativity is not deception. Inspiration is not channeling. It is spiritual art.

The Psalms were part of every Jew's mythology and it does not surprise me they were freely used to drive home the point that the Romans treated Jesus like some abomination. Matthew--whose agenda was to make Jesus the "new Moses" anyway and more palatable to mainstream Jews-- used parts of the Hebrew Bible which would resonate with power and turn prophecy into history.

Otherwise, you have a lot of messy details in the so-called "prophecies" which just do not fit.

Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written. It tells a story that was partially and selectively pasted into the Passion narratives. It's not that the ancient writers were so dumb and they told these mythological stories--it's that the ancients told creative, myth-filled stories and we got dumb and took them literally.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Turbo
I wish he'd take a little more care formatting the quotes.

I think he formats his stuff weirdly to throw his opponents off in debates. He usually does that after several posts. And my mistake -- he was quoting you, not me.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Turbo
Surprise, surprise!

Is that right, aikido?

You can read his own words here.

Originally posted by aikido7
Like Paul, I believe the resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus' earthly body. God does not literally "raise bodies up from the dead" or empty the cemeteries. There is a divine constancy and consistency to the natural order.

No one knows for sure what happens after we die. Human hopes and fears are articulated in our theologies and myths.

Personally, I think it will either be one of the greatest experiences of all or it will be absolutely nothing.

Jesus wasn't concerned with heaven. Heaven was in good shape.