An
agnostic asks a very good question...
“As I read posts and threads, I am constantly struck by the same question: Why does God need/want/have so many interpreters of His laws? Seems to me that He could very well have implanted the Good Book in our collective DNA in plain English or another language - like Greek - and dispensed with producing a book for a very select few (the vast majority of His people were illiterate).”
A
Born Again Christian offers an interesting response...
“That is such a great question! The answer is really quite simple - God does not need or want "interpreters" of His laws. He has given us His word in the plain language of the day (Hebrew/Greek) and was meant to be understood in the plain meaning of the words. The reason that we have so many different "interpretations" of God's law is that people don't like what the plain meaning is, so they twist it around to mean what they want it to mean, or what they think it should mean. God would have to pretty stupid to give us His "revelation" if it was incomprehensible, don't you think? And if God had "implanted the Good Book in our collective DNA" people would still find a way to twist it to their own purpose --- because that is our nature!”
Now...
this response raises new questions - Hebrew/Greek was not the “plain
language of the day” it is actually two different languages. And
only the most educated of people could read and write in Greek. The
main language of Jesus and the apostles was Aramaic. The vast
majority of people were illiterate. So why did God choose to give
His “revelation” in a language that his messenger and disciples
didn't speak? Also, which God are we talking about - Jesus or
Yahweh? Who wrote Genesis for example, and in what language?
Then
a Christian Apologist wades in, and everything gets messy,
contradictory and complicated (rather like the Bible haha!)
| # | Post |
Commentary
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 23 Nov 2014 at 12:25AM | ||
1
|
The
various books of Scripture were written in the language of the
time and culture when and where they were written. For the most
ancient texts, that would have been Hebrew. The vast majority of
the OT was written in Hebrew, with a few books/passages written in
Aramaic. After Alexander conquered The Levant and points East in
the 4th century BCE, Greek became the common language of a wide
area, and particularly of scholarship. A Greek translation of OT
texts originally written in Hebrew was made around 300BCE,
presumably for use in Jewish communities outside of ancient
Israel, and possibly for proselytizing also. Meanwhile by this
time, Aramaic (a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew) had
become the common spoken language among most people in the Levant
and points East. Jesus did indeed speak Aramaic, although
indications are that He could also read and understand Hebrew,
which remained the language of most religious texts in Israel
during His time.
|
Irrelevant,
and overly complicated. Obviously the Hebrew Bible – the texts
that Jesus was taught - was written in Hebrew. The New Testament
was written in Greek decades if not hundreds of years after Jesus
died. The question which remains unanawered is – why did God
choose such a flawed method of transmitting His Revelation?
|
2
|
Most
books of the NT appear to have been written in Greek--certainly
Paul's Epistles would have been, although some Aramaic phrases are
retained--often to this day in many translations--in the Synoptic
Gospels, especially Matthew. A good case can be made that Matthew
was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic before being translated
into Greek.
|
Never
mind “appear to have been” - they were written in
Greek! There is no evidence that Matthew was originally written
in Hebrew/Aramaic. And again – fails to answer the question.
|
Posted
by JimC on 23 Nov 2014 at 8:31AM
|
||
3
|
I
think your explanation of the complexity supports the point
originally made i.e. it's no surprise that God needs/wants/has so
many interpreters of His laws.
I
do like the suggestion from the Born Again Christian that we
should read the "plain meaning" with no interpretation.
Which version of the Bible would you recommend as the best in
terms of "plain meaning"?
|
|
| Posted by A Religious Apologist on 24 Nov 2014 at 12:09AM | ||
4
|
“Teacher,
which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus
replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and
greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your
neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets(1) hang on
these two commandments.”
[Matthew
22:36-40]
(1)
"All the Law and the Prophets" = the entire compilation
of Scripture as existed in Jesus's time.
Plain
enough for you? :-)
|
One
can only wonder why the Apologist has used this as his reply. I
guess he is trying to use this Biblical extract, which represents
0.0001% of the Bible's text, to demonstrate the simplicity of
God's Word and the lack of a need for interpretation.
Unfortunately, it demosntrates the exact oppositeas we shall see.
It
also ignores the question regarding which version of the Bible is
best.
Anyway
– no it's not plain enough for me!
|
| Posted by A Pantheist on 24 Nov 2014 at 7:44AM | ||
5
|
||
| Posted by JimC on 24 Nov 2014 at 8:07AM | ||
6
|
I've
also wondered why an omnipotent God can't write a book, and I've
always thought it strange that Jesus didn't write anything. Maybe
it was pointless as most of the contemporary audience was
illiterate. Maybe it was part of God's plan to create employment
for thousands of Christian Apologists!
I
think the snippet provided by A Christian Apologist illustrates
the point. The words are plain enough, but the excellent point
raised by A Born Again Christian was the “plain meaning”.
It's obvious the meaning of the tiny fragment A Christian
Apologist provided is not “plain enough” because he had to add
additional text that is not in the Bible!
When
we look at the "plain meaning" of the words in those few
verses and take them at face value we find some points that need
interpreting. If you love something with 100% of your heart, soul
and mind, then this means you don't have any love remaining for
anything else. That means no love remaining for your neighbour, so
the second sentence contradicts the first. The plain meaning of
loving your neighbour as yourself is that you only love the person
next door as yourself. A humanist interpretation would be that it
means loving everyone as yourself (the Golden Rule) but thats not
what it says, and the Scripture that existed in Jesus's time is
full of stories of the Israelites slaughtering and pillaging their
neighbouring tribes, so maybe “neighbour” means “Jewish
neighbour.” And if it's only the Scripture that existed in
Jesus's time which hangs on those two commandments, then the New
Testament does not. And so on. So we can see that sticking to the
“plain meaning” isn't acceptable to Apologists. Even a simple
word such as “neighbour” can, in this context, have multiple
interpretations.
The
thousands of books published over the centuries to explain what
the Bible means support the point made by An Agnostic i.e. it's
no surprise that God needs/wants/has so many interpreters of His
laws.
The
meaning of even the tiniest snippet provided above requires
explanation, and is therefore not plain (a small collection of
interpretations here... http://biblehub.com/matthew/22-36.htm )
|
|
| Posted by A Christian on 24 Nov 2014 at 5:38PM | ||
7
|
There
now follows a brief, but interesting, digression on the topic of
love.
So
here we are trying to interpret Matthew 22:37
In
a nutshell, this person is saying that you can love any number of
people or things with 100% of your heart, soul, and mind.This is
obviously nonsense – what he means is you can love your nearest
and dearest as much as is possible. And that's true. But that's
not what the Bible says.
Plus
we have the weird notion of “choosing to love”...
|
|
| Posted by JimC on 24 Nov 2014 at 6:05PM | ||
8
|
First
of all, if you "choose to love" someone then that's not
genuine love. Love can't be a choice.
Secondly,
I recommend scrapping the idea that you can love something with
100% of your soul, heart and mind, and accept that you love your
wife and children equally, and more than anything or anyone else,
and that applying the word "all" or using percentages,
is silly and inappropriate.
|
|
| Posted by A Christian on 24 Nov 2014 at 6:22PM | ||
9
|
Hmmm...
I think this is confusing true love for someone, which is not a
matter of choice, with acting as if we love someone, which is a
choice, and it does happen, but it is somewhat dishonest. And God
wouldn't want people to be dishonest would He?
|
|
| Posted by A Pantheist on 24 Nov 2014 at 6:32PM | ||
10
|
What a load of rubbish, relationships may take work, but anyone who believes they can "choose" who to love is either a fool or a liar. | |
| Posted by A Christian on 24 Nov 2014 at 7:03PM | ||
11
|
And anyone who thinks love is a magical thing that will just happen, is seriously deluded. |
Say
what?!
|
| Posted by A Pantheist on 24 Nov 2014 at 8:34PM | ||
12
|
||
| Posted by JimC on 24 Nov 2014 at 8:47PM | ||
13
|
||
Posted
by A non-believer on 24 Nov 2014 at 8:48PM
|
||
14
|
Bingo! | |
| Posted by A Pantheist on 24 Nov 2014 at 9:24PM | ||
15
|
I
think the problem is Christians believe they must "love"
Jesus, which actually has nothing to do with love as it is a
conscious decision.
Love
is a strange emotion, I have been in love with people who I really
should hate for what they have done. Which also bring up an
interesting point, is hate a conscious decision?
|
|
| Posted by JimC on 24 Nov 2014 at 9:44PM | ||
16
|
Love, hate, and all our emotions, are unconscious processes. Being commanded to love is at best, nonsensical, and at worst, sinister. | |
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 26 Nov 2014 at 11:35PM | ||
17
|
In
English, we lump a lot of meanings into the same word "love"--but
in Greek (and probably Hebrew as well) love has a more specific
meaning and there are separate words for each of them: (1)
"Eros"--erotic, sexual, or carnal love; (2)
"Philia"--brotherly or sisterly love, friendship, close
friendship/attachment of a non-sexual nature; (3) "Agape"
love--a form of sacrificial love which is an act of will:
"Jesus
gave the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of sacrifice
for the sake of others, even for those who may care nothing at all
for us, or even hate us, as the Jews did the Samaritans.
Sacrificial love is not based on a feeling, but a determined act
of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above
our own. But this type of love does not come naturally to humans.
Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a
love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can
only come from its true Source."
http://www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html
|
Yes
there are different words for different types of love in Greek.
Four as it happens. For some reason the Apologist has forgotten to
include the one that matches the English word. Not on purpose I'm
sure! LOL
Hebrew
has no equivalent of the Geek word “agape” - Further evidence
that the New Testament can hardly be said to be quoting Jesus when
it's written by unknown authors who didn't meet him, in a language
he didn't speak! But that's another topic.
The
point here is that just one verse of the Bible – and just one
word within that one verse, is necessatiting hundreds of
words of interpretation!
All
the Apologist is doing is confirming the point tht was raised
right at the beginning – why didn't God make his message plain,
and write it himself?
|
18
|
So as you see, we're not talking about "love" as an emotional response--we may not even happen to "like" the person whom we act self-sacrificially towards--but it is a desire to bring healing and wholeness and forgiveness and is the same type of love that God bestows upon us: unearned and unmerited on our part, yet a response which is capable of bringing healing and wholeness and reconciliation to those situations where it is practiced. :-) |
This
is quite funny actually – The Apologist admits that this type of
love which God is asking for applies even if we don't happen to
like the receiver of the love! God commands you to love Him even
if you don't like Him!
|
| Posted by JimC on 26 Nov 2014 at 11:43PM | ||
19
|
There
are four meanings of the word love in Greek. You've omitted the
one that's closest to the English meaning. Two questions spring to
mind...
Which
version of love is God wanting His believers to use when He
commands them to love Him?
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 26 Nov 2014 at 11:47PM | ||
20
|
As previously stated, the earliest copies of NT Scripture that we have were written in Greek, and the word "agape" was used for love in that context. Refer to my link for further context. |
Yeah...
but that fails to answer both questions. And don't get me started on the origin of the Greek New testament!
|
| Posted by JimC on 26 Nov 2014 at 11:50PM | ||
21
|
So
God wants you to love Him with agape love - with all your heart
and soul and mind. And Jesus wants you to agape love your
neighbour? Is that right?
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 26 Nov 2014 at 11:53PM | ||
22
|
No, He was probably speaking in Aramaic, unless His quotation of that Scripture came directly from its Hebrew language. Nonetheless, the best translation we have refers to that sort of love as "agape" love. |
How
can we possibly know that “agape” is the best translation if
we don't know which word Jesus used?
|
| Posted by JimC on 26 Nov 2014 at 11:59PM | ||
24
|
So
I have three questions...
1)
God wants you to love Him with agape love - with all your heart
and soul and mind. And Jesus wants you to agape love your
neighbour? Is that right?
2)
What is the Hebrew or Aramaic word for agape love?
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 27 Nov 2014 at 12:10AM | ||
25
|
(1)
Yes!
(2)
and (3) Good questions both--perhaps you or someone else would
care to research the matter? This looks like a good place to
start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
|
OK...
so our love for God should be the same as the love for our
neighbours. I'm not sure theologians would agree, but let's press
on.
The
wikipedia link is no help at all. It doesn't even refer to agape
love.
|
| Posted by A Pantheist on 27 Nov 2014 at 4:41AM | ||
26
|
(2)
"Philia"--brotherly or sisterly love, friendship, close
friendship/attachment of a non-sexual nature;
that
appear to be slightly the wrong definition, the article seems to
combine philia & storge
a
better description can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
You
often describe God's love for mankind as a parent love for their
children (storge love), but your article states the bible only
refers to agap & phileo love, so that definition is clearly
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge |
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 27 Nov 2014 at 5:39AM | ||
27
|
What's
this? “God deliberately chose His family – the Jewish People?”
So
God didn't love everyone with all of his heart and all of his mind
and all of his soul? Just His Jewish family?
God
isn't very Christian is He?!
|
|
| Posted by A Pantheist on 27 Nov 2014 at 5:53AM | ||
28
|
||
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 27 Nov 2014 at 6:02AM | ||
29
|
Good
grief... God chooses His children – then commands them to love
Him.
He's
like an adoptive parent who adopts for all the wrong reasons. Or
perhaps a pet owner.
|
|
| Posted by JimC on 27 Nov 2014 at 8:47AM | ||
30
|
So
to summarise:
First
we are told by a believer that God does not need or want
"interpreters" of His laws because He has given us His
word in the plain language of the day (Hebrew/Greek) and was meant
to be understood in the plain meaning of the words. This sounds
like a reasonable hypothesis until a Christian Apologist tests the
idea on what he considers the most fundemantal passage in the
entire Bible [Matthew 22:36-40]
We
then see that even this is far from plain: the statement itself
required a supporting footnote not included in the Bible; in
English it uses the English word “love” rather than “agape
love”; whoever documented what Jesus is supposed to have said
used Greek rather than Jesus's actual words; the Greek word
“agape” itself has multiple meanings which have changed over
time. Plus, we haven't begun to explore the interpretations of the
word “neighbour" and there's still no answer to the
questions of why a God would command people to love him, the
contradiction of this with the concept of God as a father, which
Bible version is definitive, and why is God unable to write a
book.
|
|
| Posted by A Born Again Christian on 28 Nov 2014 at 12:55AM | ||
31
|
I
have no idea why you are having such trouble with this passage.
This is a great example of the Word of God not needing any outside
"interpretation".
|
The
evidence shows the exact opposite!
|
32
|
The
various meanings of the word love in English and Greek and Hewbrew
and Aramaic does not change the fact that we are to love God with
all of our heart, soul and mind. What is unclear about this?
|
The
various meanings; the concept of being commanded to love; the
concept of loving with all of our hrat, mind and soul - all of
this makes it unclear.
|
33
|
Regarding the word “neighbour” - In the parallel passage in Luke 10:25-37, Jesus expands on this "interpretation" of the word neighbor, which the lawyer who asked the question knew but was "trying to justify himself". In fact, in this passage the lawyer already knew that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves, he was just trying to trap Jesus into making an incriminating statement. Ditto for the "neighbor" question. Sounds a lot like you, JimC ! (BTW, this is why we do not base our reading of a difficult concept on one passage but on the whole of Scripture. That is why God gave us 66 books, not just one!) |
If
we use Luke 10:25-37 as the source of the definition of the word
“neighbour” it gets even more confusing!
|
34
|
This
doesn't make sense. Being commanded to love one's mother and
father is almost as nonsensical and being commanded to love God.
Love and respect should be earned - not commanded. And it makes no
sense to say that loving God will result in a “natural obeyance
of every aspect of the law”. One does not need God to be good!
|
|
35
|
So
where is this definitive or original version of the Greek New
Testament? It doesn't exist. And the Dead Sea Scrolls do not prove
the accuracy of modern manuscripts.
If
God had been able to write a book – this debate wouldn't exist
and there would be no disagreement among Christians on the meaning
of Scripture – let alone Jews, mormons, Muslims, jehovah's
Witnesses... etc.
|
|
| Posted by JimC on 28 Nov 2014 at 9:04AM | ||
36
|
Apologies
if I wasn't clear - let's try that summary again...
The
problems with the first part of the extract from Matthew are: the
word “agape” is missing in English translations; the word
"agape" in the Greek translation is not a word used in
Hebrew or Aramaic; the word "heart" is wrongly used when
agape is not emotional love; the contradiction of "agape"
when applied to the god/human father/children concept; the concept
of a god commanding to be constantly loved (at best illogical but
at worst sinister eg North Korea); the higher priority given to
loving god over people is contradictory.
The
second part is a version of the golden rule and the problems here
are the ambiguity of the word "neighbour" (could refer
just to other Jews; could refer to any caring person; certainly
does not refer to loving neighbouring tribes according to the
Scripture that existed at the time); and the potential for
misinterpretation of the golden rule itself.
The
problem with the third part is the necessary explanation of "All
the Law and the Prophets" and the contradictions in those
laws with the meaning of the first two parts.
The
overall problems are that we don't know the accuracy of the Greek
translation; we rely on the interpretation of the unknown authors
who created the first Greek transcripts; the original text is
unavailable (and not in the Dead Sea scrolls); we don't know what
Jesus's actual words were; even if we did, the meanings of the
words at the time could be different to the meanings today; there
is no definitive English text (approximately 50 versions); God is
unable to write; Apologists cherry pick a verse to make their
point but simultaneously say it's wrong to cherry pick a verse;
some Christians recognise 66 books in the Bible, some 73.
The
overall point is that Scripture, like any other literature, is
open to interpretation and it is natural for people to produce
their personal interpretations, based on their personal values, as
there is no authority to refer to (unless you are Catholic).
Perhaps a new Council of Nicea, chaired by the Pope, is needed to
reach consensus and provide a definitive Word of God for all
Christians, Jews and Muslims.
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 29 Nov 2014 at 12:35AM | ||
37
|
Jesus
didn't use the word “agape” so who says that “agape” was
the best fit of the type of love that God asks of us?
Then
we have the contradiction of applying this type of love to God and
other people. Should we really have ultimate concern for the
welfare of God?
Then
we have the suggestion that naural, emotional love is “shallow”
- when it is actually the deepest and most important emotion of
all! It does suggest that religion has corrupted the very meaning
of love itself. I do wonder if religious apologists know what it
is to genuinely love someone. Perhaps religion meets a need for
love that has not been fulfilled in real life.
|
|
38
|
Cross referencing to Luke 10:29-37 tells us who our "neighbor" is--that is, anyone who is in need and what the agape loving response to his/her situation ought to be. |
But
Neighbour is not defined in Luke as “anyone who is in need”.
And even if it was, that's not the same as loving “anyone”.
|
39
|
Any
apparent contradictions in Scripture are in fact to be
re-interpreted in light of loving God wholeheartedly and loving
others as oneself, per the words of Jesus Himself. That is the
ultimate provision of "context" on the matter! Smiling
|
Any
apparent contradictions in scripture that are to be re-interpreted
provide evidence that Scripture consists of contradictions that
need to be interpreted!
And
where does “Jesus Himself” say that we should “love God
wholeheartedly and others as oneself?” Those words are not in
the Bible.
|
40
|
Jesus's
words provide context. Ancients did not yet have the benefit of
God's full and final revelation, although there were references to
God's values along the way. Passages where God appears
unnecessarily harsh are from the modern context only--ironically
referencing the very values of God's ultimate revelation! God
always acts and always has acted with purpose even if we do not
completely understand the context, especially when we are furthest
removed in experience and understanding of the actual ancient
events and then-available options.
|
This
response is a non-sequitur – it completely fails
to address the points raised: we don't know the accuracy of the
Greek translation; we rely on the interpretation of the unknown
authors who created the first Greek transcripts; the original text
is unavailable (and not in the Dead Sea scrolls); we don't know
what Jesus's actual words were; even if we did, the meanings of
the words at the time could be different to the meanings today;
there is no definitive English text (approximately 50 versions);
God is unable to write; Apologists cherry pick a verse to make
their point but simultaneously say it's wrong to cherry pick a
verse; some Christians recognise 66 books in the Bible, some 73.
|
41
|
One need not agree on every single matter of doctrine and interpretation in order to follow Jesus--indeed, given our different personalities and different strengths and weaknesses it is only natural to follow God through somewhat different paths. In service of loving God and others, there are different specific things God asks of each of us based on our personal strengths and weaknesses and the best way that we might serve His understanding of what is needed. There is still the overarching matter of a fixed, common HMFR that all derive their values from: loving God wholeheartedly and loving others as ourselves--and also referring to Scripture to give us a better understanding of how we might each do so. | This so-called “fixed, common higher moral frame of reference” is niether fixed, common, higher or moral! All this does is confirm that Scripture is no different to literature, - open to interpretation – and so it is natural for people to produce their personal interpretations, based on their personal values. One can just as easily, and arguably more effectively, refer to Dickens, Buddha, Dostoyevsky, Shakespear, Dr Seuss, Aesop, Paine, Spinoza, Jefferson... the list is endless. |
42
|
The KJV has indeed led many people to a loving and everlasting relationship with God through loving and serving His son Jesus the Christ! However, perhaps modern translations may serve the spiritual needs and understanding of certain other people better, provided that all such translations are honest and accurate on all essential matters. Smiling |
Ah
yes... the usual response from Apologists regarding
interpretations they don't like. The only honest interpretation,
is the Apologist interpretation!
|
| Posted by JimC on 29 Nov 2014 at 5:35PM | ||
43
|
Using
your chosen definition of "agape", God is commanding you
to love Him whether you like Him or not. Think about that concept
for a few minutes...
The
second part of your chosen verses appears to be the golden rule,
and if it is, that's as old as the hills and common sense. But you
then go on to say that you love other people because you will be
personally rewarded after death. In my opinion that means you're
being a good person for the wrong reason. Of course, this "Father
Christmas" principle can and does work, and society benefits
if you are good, whatever your reason for being so, so keep it up!
All I ask is for you to develop some empathy and understand that
just because you need God for you to be good, many other people
don't, and I think you are unfair when you look down on them. You
say God "always acts and always has acted with purpose"
and indeed so has every other authoritarian dictator throughout
history.
Your
reference to Luke in order to define "neighbour"
beautifully illustrates the point about interpretation which
started the thread. Luke 10:29-37 doesn't define "neighbour"
the way you've assumed. It says that a neighbour is someone who
shows mercy. If we substitute the Luke definition of neighbour
into the Matthew's Gospel version of the golden, rule we get "Love
someone who shows mercy as yourself". Now obviously, that's
not your interpretation, but that's what it says. And that's the
point.
Judaism
appeals to me more than Christianity because it always seems to
cut to the chase. You may be aware of the story of Rabbi Hillel,
who was asked to teach the entire Torah while standing on one leg.
So he stood on one leg and said "That which is hateful unto
you do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole of the Torah,
The rest is commentary. " The basis of human values is the
golden rule, and most people know it.
Meanwhile
back at the New Testament, we are still stuck with the overall
problems of not knowing the accuracy of the Greek translation; we
rely on the interpretation of the unknown authors who created the
first Greek transcripts; the original text is unavailable (and not
in the Dead Sea scrolls); we don't know what Jesus's actual words
were; even if we did, the meanings of the words at the time could
be different to the meanings today; there is no definitive English
Bible (approximately 50 versions); God is unable to write;
Apologists cherry pick a verse to make their point but
simultaneously say it's wrong to cherry pick a verse; some
Christians recognise 66 books in the Bible, others recognise 73.
The
overall point is that Scripture, like any other literature, is
open to interpretation and it is natural for people to produce
their personal interpretations, based on their personal values, as
there is no authority to refer to (unless you are Catholic).
Perhaps a new Council of Nicea, chaired by the Pope, is needed to
reach consensus and provide a definitive Word of God for all
Christians, Jews and Muslims.
And
as you say, "one need not agree on every single matter of
doctrine and interpretation in order to follow Jesus" and
that's precisely because when you make reference to Scripture you
actually refer to your personal interpretation. It's one's
"personality and weaknesses" to use your words, which
provide the lens through which one makes their interpretation.
That's why every believer considers their interpretation to be
"honest" even though they have contradictory
interpretations to other believers.
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 1 Dec 2014 at 3:08AM | ||
44
|
God is only asking of His followers to act in agape love towards all, whether they happen to be "likeable" or not--and it is presumed that one loves God in the first place in order to take the matter to heart and be willing to do so! |
It
is presumed one loves God in the first place? LOL. This response
completely ignores the point that using the Apologist's chosen
definition of "agape", God is commanding you to love Him
whether you like Him or not.
|
45
|
Common
sense and/or The Golden Rule--as you put it--is ill-defined. Many
who happen to have good will might see value in loving and acting
cooperatively with those of a similar mindset. Forgiving others
for one's own sake may also be found in other philosophies. Loving
and serving others who happen to be one's enemies is completely
counter-intuitive and you will be hard pressed to find evidence of
such in writings and philosophies uninfluenced by the
Judaeo-Christian perspective and its pervasive contemporary
influence throughout the world.
|
Yes
indeedy – even the Golden Rule is open to interpretation - and
that is the point that started the conversation!
Now..
loving one's enemies is yet another Biblical reference – and not
part of the verses originally selected by the Apologist to make
his point. It is also untrue to claim that one is “hard pressed”
to find that message in other philosophies – it's easy to find
in Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism.
|
46
|
There is no certainty of a reward after death--we could all be wrong and there may be no God after all! This very matter of necessary doubt and lack of complete proof in God's existence leaves us room to act out of true love and caring--and ironically by doing so, bring us into conformity with the type of love that God actually wants and needs from us in order to form an eternal bond with Him! |
I
have to agree with this part. If we do our best to act in loving
and caring way we are doing the right thing whether God exists or
not. The point ignored here is that acting the right way isn't
enough for God. If you don't believe and love Him – regardless
of your perfect behaviour - you're doomed!
|
47
|
As for moral superiority - you misunderstand me completely--I never claimed moral superiority over anyone--far from it!! When asked about this matter before I pointed out that all I can claim is to be a much better person than I would have been had God not come into my life! It is only God working in and through me that bears good fruit--and this gift is open to anyone who would receive it! There is absolutely nothing special about me or about anyone else personally apart from what they happen to allow God to do for them in their lives! | I think this confirms that some people really do need a belief in God in order to be good people – aka the"Father Christmas" principle. The rpoblem is when those people can't accept that it is possible to be good without that belief. It's also odd that they feel God is doing things for them, which other people can do without God. |
48
|
God "always acts and always has acted with purpose" and so has every person with any purpose--including heros of any sort. The difference is whether the purpose is good or evil. God falls into the good category. Dictators fall into the evil category. |
This
begins by stating the obvious – and ends by suggesting that
God's actions fall into the good category. Not if you read the Old
Testament!
|
49
|
As for Luke 10:29-37, since the victim was a Samaritan and the person offering help was Jewish, the two were natural enemies. The person offering help and mercy is not to pay any attention to this matter of enmity. Matthew's version is one who LOVES another as oneself--and yes, that does presuppose that a person loves him/herself, which is taken for granted on the part of the listeners of Jesus's words. |
Quite
right, but irrelevant. That verse was provided by the Apologist to
explain the meaning of the word “neighbour”. Matthew's
version is one thing, the definition of “neighbour” in Luke is
something else. So why refer to Luke for the definition and then
ignore it? It's another example of Apologists ignoring what the
Bible actually says.
|
50
|
Your reference to Judaism and Rabbi Hillel rather puts the lie to your whole claim that the God of the OT was some kind of monster, doesn't it? If a Rabbi can see that lesson in only referring to what we would call the OT, that confirms my point about the ultimate nature of God and of Jesus's teaching being consistent on the matter. | Wrong, because Rabi Hillel (sensibly) doesn't even mention the monstrous God of the OT – he only refers to the Golden Rule. |
51
|
None
of your claims about the accuracy and interpreations of the New
Testament make any sense do they? In spite of all you say, the
Christian message shines through quite loud and clear,
transcending generations, eras, cultures, denominations, and
numerous language translations to find resonance with all of
humanity in segments of various cultures all over the world--and
not only resonance, but serious commitment and willingness in many
cases to suffer torture and death for the sake of such!
|
My claims make perfect sense, and this response completely ignores the points I raised regarding accuracy of translations, authorship, versions, copying and forgery of Scripture! The so-called Christian message comes from people – not Scripture. Martyrdom is a whole new topic! |
52
|
Much
as your example of Rabbi Hillel, Christians also recognize that
all of Scripture and all minor differences do not stand in the way
of recognizing that everything boils down to loving God
wholeheartedly and others as oneself, and all draw inspiration
from the actions and teachings of Jesus as recorded in core
Scripture and further passages that expound on such.
|
Again, this completely ignores the point that was raised, i.e. Scripture, like any other literature, is open to interpretation and it is natural for people to produce their personal interpretations, based on their personal values, as there is no authority to refer to. |
53
|
To a certain extent there are different things required of each of us individually given our different talents and how God might choose to use them--but just as in, say, a medical institution where some are doctors and some are nurses and some are cooks and some are janitors and some take care of the books and some do administrative work and so on and so forth, all are working towards the same purpose of bringing health and healing into the world. With God, all things can--and do--work toward the good! :-) |
The
hospital analogy is quite good because the best hospitals are
usually secular - not religious. So it's a good way to
demonstrate that one doesn't need God to be good.
However,
this response has completely ignored the points made, i.e. when
Apologists make reference to Scripture they actually refer to
their personal interpretation. It's one's "personality and
weaknesses" to use the words of the Apologist, which provide
the lens through which one makes an interpretation. That's why
every believer considers their interpretation to be "honest"
even though they have contradictory interpretations to other
believers.
|
| Posted by JimC on 1 Dec 2014 at 9:23AM | ||
54
|
You
continue to illustrate the difference between what the Bible
actually says, and what you want it to mean.
In
the first part of your chosen Bible verses, it says God commands
you to love Him, but you say rather than what the Bible says, this
should be “agape love” which you then say means loving other
people whether they like you or not, which is the Golden Rule,
which was actually the second part of your selection which uses
the word “neighbour” which is open to interpretation. Your
then refer to Luke in order to define "neighbour" but
that clearly says a neighbour is someone who shows mercy. You
ignore what that says and interpret “neighbour” to be
something that makes sense to you (as per the Golden Rule). All of
this neatly illustrates the question raised in the original post
regarding God's need to have so many interpreters of His laws.
You
say common sense and/or the Golden Rule are not well defined, but
of course they are. You then go beyond your chosen selection of
verses to refer to loving one's enemies. You seem to be unaware
that this is also another ancient idea, found in the Tao Te Ching,
Dhammapada and Ramayana as I've explained several times previously
(and also in this essay here...
http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/do-our-values-come-from-god.html)
which again illustrates that your so-called “Christian message”
is an ancient, inherent message (rightly) adopted by Christians,
regardless of what the Bible actually says.
Note
howRabbi Hillel completely avoids mentioning the monstrous God of
the Old Testament, reducing Scripture to the Golden Rule, and
quite right too!
I
think your analogy of a hospital where people of all disciplines
work towards a common goal of reducing suffering, thereby making
this world a better place, is excellent by the way.
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 3 Dec 2014 at 12:41AM | ||
55
|
I've specifically deconstructed the passages you've attempted to refer to in advancing your bitter and biased perspective, after which you do not respond on topic but merely proceed to another insinuation and misrepresentation. |
Er...
what? It was the Apologist who referred to passages and then had
to provide interpretations. I haven't provided any perspective at
all, let alone “bitter and biased” LOL. All I've done is quote
the Bible!
|
56
|
God commands us to agape love, true. |
To
agape love Him and other people. That's the point.
|
57
|
Agape love is volitional and asks us to act in compassion and best interests of others. |
Volitional
love is not love. It is acting as if one loves. Very different!
|
58
|
We are called to do so whether we "like" the others or not. |
The
Golden Rule, common sense
|
59
|
We are called to do so whether the other person is our enemy or not. |
That's
a whole new topic – the ability for Christians to love their
enemies – and to be justified in killing them. Or not,
dependingon denomination (eg Quakers)
|
60
|
We are called to do so whether the other person has hurt us or sought to hurt us or not. |
This
appears to be a logn winded way of saying that we should love
everyone.
|
61
|
Therefore agape love is a volitional response. |
The
word “therefore” is superfluous. We've established the love
that God commands is volitional. Otherwise he wouldn't have to
command it!
|
62
|
"agape
love" is a translation issue--the word appears in the
earliest Scripture texts that we know of.
|
Yes
that's the point – Jesus didn't use the word.
|
63
|
We are called to agape love, as Scripture makes clear from context. |
According
to whoever wrote Scripture – and we don't know who that was. We
know it wasn't Jesus. Or God!
|
64
|
You were the one who originally questioned how love could be a commandment, hence the clarification on my part. |
Clarification?
LOL This just continues to reinforce the point that the Word of
God is far from simple and clear!
|
65
|
The Golden Rule has been translated in different ways: either do unto others as they do unto you, or do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for example. Not all applications of The Golden Rule ask us to treat our enemies well. Many applications of The Golden Rule ask us to forgive--but only for our own sakes. NT Scripture specifically references the fact that we should treat others--friend or foe, helpful or hurtful--with compassion while addressing their needs. |
There
are indeed various versions and interpretations of the golden rule
– and that's the whole point! - everyone interprets what they
read according to their own values! It's pretty obvious that
if a rule refers to “others” it doesn't mean “some others”.
If the rule applies to everyone, then that's everyone, enemies and
all.
|
66
|
That
passage--Luke 10:36-37--as it appears in my Bible: Jesus: "Which
of these men, in your opinion, was the man who was neighbor to the
man who fell in with the robbers?" The answer came, "The
one who treated him with compassion." Jesus said to him,
"Then go and do the same."
So
it wasn't just treating the man who fell in with the robbers with
mercy--but with compassion! I find the following definition of
compassion:"a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another
who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to
alleviate the suffering."
|
This
is another non-sequitur – ignoring the point regarding the
definition of “neighbour” by changing the subject to the
definition of “compassion”
|
67
|
The
passage in context seems pretty straightforward to me, and has
inspired millions--if not billions--from all sorts of cultures in
all different eras. That's the beauty of teaching in parables--it
touches on the heart of the matter. :-)
|
Another non-sequitur – completely avoiding the point that God needs to have so many interpreters of His laws. |
68
|
As
for your statement that loving one's enemies is also another
ancient idea, found in the Tao Te Ching, Dhammapada and Ramayana
an the so-called “Christian message” is an ancient, inherent
message adopted by Christians, note my bullet points above.
|
Eh?
There are no bullet points which address this point! Another
dodge!
|
69
|
You say Rabbi Hillel completely avoids mentioning the monstrous God of the Old Testament, and reduces Scripture to the Golden Rule, but one could hardly come to such a recognition of God's will without refernecing what you falsely refer to as "that monstrous god"--and again, that merely betrays your false and bitter perspective on the matter. |
Yet
another non sequitur. Completely avoids the point that the Rabbi
didn't even mention God when asked to summarise the Torah. Another
dodge!
|
70
|
Thanks or liking my analogy of a hospital--but for the Body of Christ--in other words the totality of followers of Jesus--the matter is no different: "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work." (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). All of 1 Corinthians chapter 12 provides a good explanation of the matter. :-) |
Er...
yeah so... the matter is no different if one believes in Jesus or
not. Except the followers of Jesus need that belief in order to do
good things. Presumably. It's the Father Christmas principle
again. And surely this is off topic?
|
| Posted by JimC on 3 Dec 2014 at 9:28AM | ||
71
|
The
continued levels of complexity in your interpretation and the
necessity for you to now “deconstruct” what is supposed to be
the simplest, most essential and most fundamental verses in the
Bible illustates even further the point made by An Agnostic at
the start of the thread. The Bible clearly says that God commands
people to love Him with all their heart, mind and soul. You claim
this is not the English word “love” but rather “agape love”
which you say means loving other people whether they like you or
not. Therefore, according to your interpretation, the Bible wants
you to love God in the same way that you'd love someone whether
they liked you or not. It's obvious you recognise the inherent
ridiculousness in this, so you then drop any reference to loving
God with agape love and instead refer to loving other people (i.e.
the golden rule). Your then refer to Luke in order to define the
word "neighbour" but Luke clearly says a neighbour is
someone who shows mercy, or who behaves with compassion (depending
on which Bible one happens to own). If that's what “neighbour”
means, then loving your neighbour doesn't mean loving everyone, or
your enemy, or the person next door – it means loving those who
show mercy or compassion. The passage you originally picked only
seems straightforward when we make it straightforward by
interpreting it according to our values and worldview. Note how
Rabbi Hillel completely avoids any reference to the monstrous and
capricious God of the Old Testament, instead he reduces Scripture
to the Golden Rule, and quite right too!
You
also claim these ideas originated with Jesus but the fact is they
pre-date Jesus and can be found in the Tao Te Ching, Dhammapada
and Ramayana as I've explained several times previously (and also
here...
http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/do-our-values-come-from-god.html)
so this again illustrates that your so-called “Christian
message” is an ancient, inherent, humanist message (rightly)
adopted by Christians, regardless of what the Bible actually says.
I
think your analogy of a hospital where people of all disciplines
work towards a common goal of reducing suffering, thereby making
this world a better place, is excellent by the way, and I'm very
pleased to hear that Christians agree with that goal (or rather,
that they should). And the extract from Corinthians explains why
even from a religious point of view, free will is an illusion.
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 15 Dec 2014 at 2:07AM | ||
72
|
It isn't difficult at all to glean meaning from Scripture if one approaches such with the right attitude and open mindedness. It is only when one has a bitter and biased prejudice and/or an intention to misrepresent such that a detailed response--referencing all sorts of cultural and translation factors--then becomes necessary to correct that skewed perspective. :-) |
Another
non-sequitur (with some ad honimen thrown in!) Completely avoids
the point that the layers of complexity in the Apologist's
responses and interpretations of even the simplest, most essential
and most fundamental verses in the Bible, illustates even further
the point made at the start of the conversation.
|
73
|
One
needs reference to all of NT Scripture in order to understand the
perspective that God asks of us in loving our enemies. If not in
the parable of The Good Samaritan (although even here we see the
imperative to love one's enemies through a "Samaritan"--a
perceived enemy of the Jewish people in Jesus's time--being cast
as the hero), here are other passages--including one from the OT:
http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/5-bible-verses-that-will-teach-you-to-love-your-enemies-in-spite-of-everything-125406/
|
More
dodging of the specific points regarding
God commanding people to love Him, “agape love” and the
inherent ridiculousness of this concept, the definiton of
neighbour” and so on.
This
response also raises the validity of the apologist cherry picking
a few verses when he simultaneously claims that one needs to
reference the entire NT! .
|
74
|
Regarding
the passage I originally picked from matthew, our values and
worldview in our respective Western countries with a Christian
inheritance derive such values specifically from that inheritance!
Don't forget how counter-cultural and radical those values were
originally in context!
|
Another
non sequitur. This response has nothing to do with the point it is
supposed to address. And it's factually incorrect. LOL
|
75
|
And again dodges the point made that Rabbi Hillel completely avoids any reference to God when summarising the message of Scripture! | |
76
|
Your
claims that the messages of loving others and one's enemies
pre-date Jesus are false claims that have been deconstructed. Our
Judaeo-Christian heritage has had profound impact on our
respective societies and their values, as well as on the values
and perspective of all other Christian cultures and societies:
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-impact-of-christianity
Also
note:
http://www.icr.org/article/christianity-cause-modern-science/
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7377
|
They
are not false claims and they have not been “deconstructed”
(poor Jacques Derrida
must be spinning in his grave if he reads this!)
|
77
|
I'm glad that we have some common ground of agreement on the Hospital analogy. But my quote from Corinthians chapter 12 does not make a point about free will at all! Why would you claim such? |
Common
ground is always good – albeit rare in this conversation! To
explain the free will concept should be another thread. Big
subject!
|
| Posted by JimC on 15 Dec 2014 at 8:31AM | ||
78
|
You
continue to reinforce the point made by An Agnostic - the Bible
doesn't actually say what you want it to mean. So far, by my rough
calculations, you are having to provide 128 words of your own
interpretation for every word taken from the Bible (and ironically
making the text increasingly more incomprehensible). You also
cherry pick verses to make a point, but then say it's wrong to
cherry pick! You could make things a lot simpler by following the
examples of Rabbi Hillel and, indeed, Jesus: It all boils down to
the Golden Rule.
You
also claim these ideas originated with Jesus but the fact is they
pre-date Jesus and can be found in writings by Confucius,
Isocrates, in the Mahabharata, the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada,
the Hindu Ramayana and many other ancient texts, as I've explained
several times previously (and also
here...http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/do-our-values-come-from-god.html)
- so this again illustrates that your so-called “Christian
message” is an ancient, inherent, humanist message (rightly)
adopted by Christians, regardless of what the Bible actually says.
|
|
| Posted by A Christian Apologist on 17 Dec 2014 at 12:20AM | ||
79
|
I believe I am referencing several sources that explain Scripture--and its meaning--in context. I often provide links to such. You on the other hand merely seek the most twisted and skewed interpretation possible--no matter how outlandish--to come up with an interpretation that suits your preconceived bitter and biased perspective, and you provide nothing other than your personal assurances that yours is true. Now--which interpretation is more logical to run with? |
Another
non sequitur which dodges the point that started the thread - the
Bible doesn't actually say what you want it to mean. The fact that
there are so many sources to refer to, reinforces the point. And
I'm not providing any kind of interpretion – let alone twisted
and skewed!
|
80
|
If
you go to the trouble of counting out the words I find necessary
necessary to correct your multiple falsehoods and insinuations,
then I would at least hope for a specific example of what you are
referring to, rather than an attempt at general character
assassination in your ad hominem attack:
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
|
Well
I didn't actually count them – the ratio of 128:1 was a guess.
But yet again the point is dodged – if it takes 128 words to
explain the meaning of 1 word in the Bible, them the point upon
which the thread is based is again reinforce. And of course it
wasn't ad hominem. The Apologist misuse of logical fallacies is a
constant source of amusement – illustrating again that reason
and logic are the enemes of faith!
|
81
|
Another dodge – avoids the point that the Apologist cherry pick verses to make a point when it suits him, but then says it's wrong to cherry pick! | |
82
|
Untrue.
The only response has been to ignore the fact that Rabbi Hillel
avoided any reference to God and, indeed, Jesus, to illustrate
that Scripture boils down to the Golden Rule.
|
|
83
|
And
yet another non sequitur! The point that the so-called Christian
messages pre-date Jesus has been completely avoided. Instead a
new topic is introduced – the reasons why people convert to
Christianity.
|
|
84
|
As
for the verses from Corinthians, in explaining this concept
before, I referenced a hypothetical institution--say, a hospital,
but you might pick any institution dedicated to a common cause or
purpose. In the hospital example, some are doctors. Some are
nurses. Some are orderlies. Some are janitors. Some manage data.
Some deal with other institutions, and/or the outside world. Think
of as many other occupations as you can in such a context. So--all
handle different specific jobs--but all are working towards the
same goal!
Now,
the passage you refer to in larger context, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11:
"There
are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes
them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in
everyone it is the same God at work.
"Now
to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the
common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of
wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same
Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of
healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to
another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to
another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still
another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of
one and the same Spirit, and He distributes them to each one, just
as He determines."
|
Another
dodge, but maybe not deliberate this time. The problem is that the
Apologist is using the hospital analogy explaining a different
concept to the free will illusion concept implied in Corinthians.
The concept that isn't being explained is that in all kinds of
working, God is at work. The fact that people work towards a
common purpose for a variety of their own reasons, is a different
concept.
If
I work in a hospital (which I do!) my “cause” is obviously
nothing to do with God! And some people work there purely to earn
a living. Nothing wrong with that of course. But a different
motivation to mine.
|
...the
thread continues in this vein for a while, with the apologist's
responses getting longer and more convoluted, and further away from
the original point which is already lost. There is also a subsequent revisit to the concept of "neighbour" - this time the apologist says...
As to the meaning of "neighbor," recall that when a pharisee questioned who one's "neighbor" was, Jesus answered with the parable of the good Samaritan--an outsider--who responded in loving concern to the situation he encountered. That's the context in which "neighbor" is understood to be "anyone in need."
But if we rewind to line 38, we see that Luke 10:29-37 does not define "neighbour" as “anyone who is in need”.
And so on...
Let's remind ourselves how this discussion began...“Why does God need/want/have so many interpreters of His laws? Seems to me that He could very well have implanted the Good Book in our collective DNA in plain English or another language - like Greek - and dispensed with producing a book for a very select few (the vast majority of His people were illiterate).”
As to the meaning of "neighbor," recall that when a pharisee questioned who one's "neighbor" was, Jesus answered with the parable of the good Samaritan--an outsider--who responded in loving concern to the situation he encountered. That's the context in which "neighbor" is understood to be "anyone in need."
But if we rewind to line 38, we see that Luke 10:29-37 does not define "neighbour" as “anyone who is in need”.
And so on...
Let's remind ourselves how this discussion began...“Why does God need/want/have so many interpreters of His laws? Seems to me that He could very well have implanted the Good Book in our collective DNA in plain English or another language - like Greek - and dispensed with producing a book for a very select few (the vast majority of His people were illiterate).”
No comments:
Post a Comment