The Bible + Religion = Confusion

[Robert Pate]

There is nothing wrong with the Bible. It is a clear concise book. The problem starts when one tries to introduce doctrine or religion into the Bible that is not even mentioned in the Bible. Example, there is no mention of Calvinism in the Bible. There is no apostle named John Calvin.

The main emphasis in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is that, "The just shall live by faith" Romans 1:17. The Bible is NOT about religion. The Bible is a faith book. It is about believing God. In the Old Testament they were justified by believing God. "Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness" Romans 4:3. Nothing about works or religion.

In the New Testament, God says, "Here is my Son, listen to him". Things have not changed, we are still called to live by faith, but now its faith in Christ. Its not faith in Calvinism or Catholicism, its faith in Christ. When one adds faith in religion to faith in Christ then you will have confusion. There is no room in the Gospel for religion. Jesus and Jesus alone is the savior of the world. Jesus and Jesus alone is the object of our faith.

Both the Calvinist and the Catholics have other writings than the Bible. They hold these writings right up along side of the Bible and profess them to be the inspired word of God, just like the Bible. Here is where the confusion begins. There is only one inspired word of God and that is the Bible. There is nothing, absolutly nothing in the Bible about Calvinism or Catholicism. The word "Predestination" only appears in the New Testament 4 times, none of the words are related to anyone being predestinated.

The Bible is the all suffecient word of God, all that we need to know about Jesus Christ and his Gospel is in the Bible. No other writings are needed. If you want confusion then try to add things that are outside of the Bible into the Bible and you will have confusion.

 

[aikido7]

Read Luke and Matthew in parallel. Anyone who carefully compares the birth and infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew will soon discover there is little that is "clear OR concise" or intelligible in the comparisons. Each gospel author spoke to his own community of believers with their unique and different concerns. Each gospel was written at different times and different places by different men inspired by their God to explain what Jesus meant to them.

The New Testament contains:

--remembered actual words and events
--oral traditions and the inherent problems of transmission through time
--mythologies
--metaphors
--legends

It's more helpful in my opinion to endeavor to study enough so that it becomes easier to recognize and separate these strands that are woven throughout the texts. Once we can discover and understand what a verse or passage meant to their original authors we are well on our way to a more effective way to study and understand the Bible.

Only then can we apply the ancient wisdom to our modern day. We too often make the mistake of reading back into ancient history our own modern ideas and prejudices. This is not historical methodology. It is making up our own personal theology as we go along.

 

[Robert Pate]

Anyone who carefully compares the birth and infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew will soon discover there is little that is "clear OR concise" or intelligible in the comparisons. Each gospel author spoke to his own community of believers with their unique and different concerns. Each gospel was written at different times and different places by different men inspired by their God to explain what Jesus meant to them.

The New Testament contains:

--remembered actual words and events
--oral traditions and the inherent problems of transmission through time
--mythologies
--metaphors
--legends

It's more helpful in my opinion to endeavor to study enough so that it becomes easier to recognize and separate these strands that are woven throughout the texts. Once we can discover and understand what a verse or passage meant to their original authors we are well on our way to a more effective way to study and understand the Bible.

Only then can we apply the ancient wisdom to our modern day. We too often make the mistake of reading back into ancient history our own modern ideas and prejudices. This is not historical methodology. It is making up our own personal theology as we go along.

There are some small discrepancies in the Bible, but nothing to really change the central message of justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

When it comes to Jesus Christ and who he is and what he has done the message is loud, clear and concise.

He is indeed the savior of the whole world.

 

[aikido7]

There are some small discrepancies in the Bible, but nothing to really change the central message of justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

When it comes to Jesus Christ and who he is and what he has done the message is loud, clear and concise.

He is indeed the savior of the whole world.

I guess it depends upon what "small" is (I got that from Bill Clinton, I guess!).

One discrepancy is the day of Jesus' death. The synoptics tell us it was on Passover. The Gospel of John says it was on the Day of Preparation, when the paschal lambs were slaughtered for the upcoming Passover holiday.

The discrepancy here makes profound metaphorical sense. John's aim was to present Jesus as the sinless Lamb of God who was crucified for humankind's sins. The other gospel traditions did not have this agenda.

In Mark's account, the friends of the paralytic "dig" through the earth and thatch of the peasant roof in Galilee so that Jesus could heal the man. Mark was written earliest and most of the gospel took place in the hamlets and villages around there.

Luke, however, writing for a later and more urban audience, told the same story but made sure that the man's friends "removed the tiles" from the roof. He altered the tradition so it would make sense to his unique audience.

I don't feel any metaphysical panic to paper over and "resolve" the discrepancies and contradictions. They are there for a reason--a good and understandable reason.

 

[aikido7]

There are some small discrepancies in the Bible, but nothing to really change the central message of justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

I agree absolutely about the central message. We do not need to hysterically scurry around and force the contradictions into some "excuse" or "reason" to make it come out factually correct.

When it comes to Jesus Christ and who he is and what he has done the message is loud, clear and concise.

Each gospel writer handles this task differently. They were all written long after the crucifixion by different writers speaking to different faith communities in different places. If the message were literally loud, clear and concise there would be no theological disagreements among the faithful--don't you think?

He is indeed the savior of the whole world.

That is a statement of theology, faith and belief. It is not "true" any more than Caesar Augustus (Octavian) was also believed to be "savior of the whole world." Everyone knew it. That title and similar titles were stamped on the coins, carved into the temple architecture and in surviving Roman texts.

It was no accident that those very same statements were also applied to Jesus by his followers. They knew what they were doing.

It was an act of high treason.

Caesar was declared Son of the gods, divine, born of a virgin, etc. The reason the formulation "Kingdom of God" was used by Jesus is that he was trying to point out what the world would be like if God sat on the throne of power and not Caesar.

 

[fishrovmen]

If you want confusion then try to add things that are outside of the Bible into the Bible and you will have confusion.

Yes, Robert you have been the master at doing such, and have become TOL's "Legend of confusion". You needn't tell us, we already know.

 

[aikido7]

The Bible + Religion + Human Beings = CONFUSION

"The church's meddlings have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust." --THOMAS JEFFERSON

 

[Buzzword]

It's more helpful in my opinion to endeavor to study enough so that it becomes easier to recognize and separate these strands that are woven throughout the texts. Once we can discover and understand what a verse or passage meant to their original authors we are well on our way to a more effective way to study and understand the Bible.

Only then can we apply the ancient wisdom to our modern day. We too often make the mistake of reading back into ancient history our own modern ideas and prejudices. This is not historical methodology. It is making up our own personal theology as we go along.

This is actually the subject of my current study.

So much of our current mode of thought is the result of a combination of Greco-Roman philosophy and Enlightenment philosophy/theology.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either, and each generation is naturally the rhetorical, intellectual, and spiritual offspring of its forbears.

But it becomes an issue when we apply our modern sensibilities on ancient texts.

Many of our "traditional" doctrines are not the result of some great movement of the Spirit, but the application of Plato, Aristotle, or John Edwards to texts which predate them.

For example, the traditional doctrine of "The Fall" is basically Plato's descent into the cave of illusion.
The original tellers of the story (remember, it was passed down orally for generations) did not think in terms of perfect "forms," or more precisely, changeless states.
Especially since most of the first four chapters of Genesis were originally POEMS, meant to reflect on higher truths in figurative language rather than portray hard facts of reality.


Another negative effect of this application is that we tend to read the Bible backwards, for example reading the Old Testament with Jesus in mind, instead of forwards with the contexts of the individual writers in mind.

We fail to understand the cultural context in which each book of the Old Testament (or in the case of Genesis, in which each section of each book) was created, because we operate under the flawed unconscious assumption that the Bible is essentially a legal constitution.

We assume cohesiveness and continuity from cover to cover because our current philosophical context demands such, even though a basic reading of each book demonstrates a vast variety of literary, cultural, and historical contexts across the anthology.
Up to and including many contradictions, internally and with our present spirituality.

But the storytellers and writers whose works are included in the current canon obviously did not think of themselves as "Biblical authors", and the historically earlier authors had no notion of the historically later authors' existence or ideas or cultural context.

Thus if we are truly to apply our present standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants philosophical methods, we must abandon the legal-constitution assumption which has driven so much of the church's methodology for generations, and re-examine the Bible as a cultural exploration of an evolving understanding of God.

Too many people have been driven away by the church's iron-fisted approach to "divine inspiration" (to say nothing of "inerrancy") for us to continue to pound the pulpit with unrelenting tradition which fears doubt and curiosity and basic questions from anyone, especially those already in its grip.

 

[Robert Pate]

Yes, Robert you have been the master at doing such, and have become TOL's "Legend of confusion". You needn't tell us, we already know.

I have no religion.

You are the one that has embraced the doctrine of a heretic.

This is why you are so confused.

 

[Robert Pate]

The sole purpose of the Bible is to be a witness for Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

It is not a Christian Torah as many believe.

The "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ is the heart and the main focus of the Bible. To not understand the Gospel is to not understand the Bible.

The Gospel is the light that lightens every man.

With understanding and acceptance of Jesus and his Gospel brings the blessed Holy Spirit. Who is the Christians teacher, John 14:26.

 

[Buzzword]

The sole purpose of the Bible is to be a witness for Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

The "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ is the heart and the main focus of the Bible. To not understand the Gospel is to not understand the Bible.

This is precisely what I mean by "reading the Bible backwards".

 

[RBBI]

Good conclusion in the title, but I'd word it this way, "The Bible plus the carnal mind = religious confusion."

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Good conclusion in the title, but I'd word it this way, "The Bible plus the carnal mind = religious confusion.

:chuckle:

 

[aikido7]

This is actually the subject of my current study.

So much of our current mode of thought is the result of a combination of Greco-Roman philosophy and Enlightenment philosophy/theology.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either, and each generation is naturally the rhetorical, intellectual, and spiritual offspring of its forbears.

But it becomes an issue when we apply our modern sensibilities on ancient texts.

Many of our "traditional" doctrines are not the result of some great movement of the Spirit, but the application of Plato, Aristotle, or John Edwards to texts which predate them.

For example, the traditional doctrine of "The Fall" is basically Plato's descent into the cave of illusion.
The original tellers of the story (remember, it was passed down orally for generations) did not think in terms of perfect "forms," or more precisely, changeless states.
Especially since most of the first four chapters of Genesis were originally POEMS, meant to reflect on higher truths in figurative language rather than portray hard facts of reality.


Another negative effect of this application is that we tend to read the Bible backwards, for example reading the Old Testament with Jesus in mind, instead of forwards with the contexts of the individual writers in mind.

We fail to understand the cultural context in which each book of the Old Testament (or in the case of Genesis, in which each section of each book) was created, because we operate under the flawed unconscious assumption that the Bible is essentially a legal constitution.

We assume cohesiveness and continuity from cover to cover because our current philosophical context demands such, even though a basic reading of each book demonstrates a vast variety of literary, cultural, and historical contexts across the anthology.
Up to and including many contradictions, internally and with our present spirituality.

But the storytellers and writers whose works are included in the current canon obviously did not think of themselves as "Biblical authors", and the historically earlier authors had no notion of the historically later authors' existence or ideas or cultural context.

Thus if we are truly to apply our present standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants philosophical methods, we must abandon the legal-constitution assumption which has driven so much of the church's methodology for generations, and re-examine the Bible as a cultural exploration of an evolving understanding of God.

Too many people have been driven away by the church's iron-fisted approach to "divine inspiration" (to say nothing of "inerrancy") for us to continue to pound the pulpit with unrelenting tradition which fears doubt and curiosity and basic questions from anyone, especially those already in its grip.

You tell it all and very elegantly. I would not be surprised if you could easily be banned because of your comments.

As a committed Christian, what you say should be just considered common sense. Which it is.

The liberals are afraid of diverse free speech and conservative believers are afraid of any idea that upsets their personal theological apple cart.

There is much information we can use to enhance and deepen our own faith. It is dysfunctional to ignore our own traditions of Christian history. Continuing to do so is why so many are getting fed up by expressions of faith found in Islam and Christianity.

 

[aikido7]

The sole purpose of the Bible is to be a witness for Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

It is not a Christian Torah as many believe.

The "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ is the heart and the main focus of the Bible. To not understand the Gospel is to not understand the Bible.

The Gospel is the light that lightens every man.

With understanding and acceptance of Jesus and his Gospel brings the blessed Holy Spirit. Who is the Christians teacher, John 14:26.

Matthew is the culprit here. He was intent on finding arcane references to a hope in a messiah and taking the Hebrew Bible out of context to "prove" Jesus was "predicted" all along and the Jews were simply wrong about him.

His taking things out of context has been studied again and again and is freely available for any believer's Bible study.

 

[Cruciform]

There is nothing wrong with the Bible.

Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not claim or teach that there is "something wrong with the Bible." Try again.

It is a clear concise book.

The phenomenon of Protestantism itself directly refutes your claim---50,000+ competing and contradictory denominations and sects all claiming that their novel doctrines come from the "clear concise" Bible, yet all in fundamental conflict regarding even the central and defining teachings of the Christian faith.

In addition, the Bible itself indicates that Scripture is certainly not always "clear and concise" (2 Pet. 3:16).

The problem starts when one tries to introduce doctrine or religion into the Bible that is not even mentioned in the Bible.

Of course, your statement here merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, a claim that is itself entirely unbiblical, and so which directly refutes itself. So much for the supposed "problem" mentioned above.

...the Catholics have other writings than the Bible.

No other writings that we consider "Scripture," however.

They hold these writings right up along side of the Bible and profess them to be the inspired word of God, just like the Bible.

A false statement on your part. (See just above.)

There is only one inspired word of God and that is the Bible.

See my answer on sola scriptura above.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Bible about...Catholicism.

On the contrary. Try again.

The Bible is the all suffecient word of God, all that we need to know about Jesus Christ and his Gospel is in the Bible.

Again, too bad that your claim here is itself nowhere taught in the Bible, and so merely refutes itself (see above on sola scriptura).

If you want confusion then try to add things that are outside of the Bible into the Bible and you will have confusion.

Ah, you must be referring to such bogus Protestant beliefs as, for example, sola scriptura, Baptism as a mere memorial, anti-sacramentalism, sola fide, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[aikido7]

...

He is indeed the savior of the whole world.

Using common sensical and historical methodology, we must then acknowledge that Caesar was also LITERALLY "Savior of the whole world." Like Jesus, the opinions of what every Roman citizens thought he was were well known.

The divinity of Caesar was carved into the temple walls and architecture and stamped on the coins.

 

[Robert Pate]

Using common sensical and historical methodology, we must then acknowledge that Caesar was also LITERALLY "Savior of the whole world." Like Jesus, the opinions of what every Roman citizens thought he was were well known.

The divinity of Caesar was carved into the temple walls and architecture and stamped on the coins.

Was Caesar able to raise the dead?

Jesus claimed to be the savior of the world, John 12:47.

To not believe him is to call him a liar.

 

[Robert Pate]

Straw Man Fallacy, since Catholics do not claim or teach that there is "something wrong with the Bible." Try again.


The phenomenon of Protestantism itself directly refutes your claim---50,000+ competing and contradictory denominations and sects all claiming that their novel doctrines come from the "clear concise" Bible, yet all in fundamental conflict regarding even the central and defining teachings of the Christian faith.

In addition, the Bible itself indicates that Scripture is certainly not always "clear and concise" (2 Pet. 3:16).


Of course, your statement here merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, a claim that is itself entirely unbiblical, and so which directly refutes itself. So much for the supposed "problem" mentioned above.


No other writings that we consider "Scripture," however.


A false statement on your part. (See just above.)


See my answer on sola scriptura above.


On the contrary. Try again.


Again, too bad that your claim here is itself nowhere taught in the Bible, and so merely refutes itself (see above on sola scriptura).


Ah, you must be referring to such bogus Protestant beliefs as, for example, sola scriptura, Baptism as a mere memorial, anti-sacramentalism, sola fide, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

What Catholicism is to the Catholic, Jesus Christ is to the Christian.

 

[Cruciform]

What Catholicism is to the Catholic, Jesus Christ is to the Christian.

Straw Man Fallacy.

Post #16 stands.