The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Roger]

marg:

marg previously: So Paul didn't have to alter any gospels and the gospel writers were apparently writing to a Greek speaking audience.


Roger: Well this is my position, yes, but not that of Maccoby, the guy you cited.

I don't follow you. I don' think Hyam Maccoby suggested the Gospels were changed. I could pull out the book to find what he has to say about the Gospels, but I think the Gospels were intended for a Roman Pagan audience, not a Jewish audience I believe that is Hyam's position and were written with that in mind.

From Maccoby: (underline mine)

the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament. This is, of course, not the whole story, for the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul, and these early traditions and sources are not entirely obliterated in the final version and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

Sure sounds like he's suggesting that to me.

[Guest]

I don't agree that paul shaped the gospels - the letters of Paul are sort of uplifting but the gospels have an angry feeling to them - maybe because Rome was ripping the Jews and Jerusalem apart or had ripped it apart when the Gospels were written. I believe that even some of the sayings Paul gives to Jesus are not in the Gospels. If I recall correctly it is better to give than receive was something Paul wrote that Jesus said but I can't remember those in the Gospels.

I would place Mark first, and Matthew and Luke had access to Mark, and then Paul and then John. And John is the only eye witness to write something down.

[_marg]

Sure sounds like he's suggesting that to me.

What I understand/understood Maccoby to be saying is that there were more gospels written than what is in the Bible. That the particular ones chosen were not intended for a Jewish audience. That those writers had adopted previously written gospels and were familiar with Paul's letter..when they wrote their version. I don't want to say too much more on Hyam position without quoting him and reviewing his book which I don't have the time for atm.

I probably erroneously had the impression you were saying Paul got a hold of those gospels that are now in the Bible and he changed them himself.

[_Roger]

Scratch:

If the assertion is going to be that Paul had control over the gospels to such an extent that he comes out looking like the hero, then I would suggest he intended for them to be taken literally.

Why? I don't think I follow your logic here. I'm not sure how or why editorial control should equal "take this text as literal truth." I'm sure the folks at Norton don't expect us to take, say, Hardy's Jude the Obscure as "literal truth," nor Paradise Lost.

Paul is asking people to change their way of life and place faith in the alleged resurrection of a contemporary, poverty stricken Jew and then be prepared even to die if necessary for the promised benefits of such faith... and you want me to think that his intent was to ask people to do this while not at the same time expecting them to take the basis of that faith literally?

All of this boils down to very basic literary and interpretive theory:

For you maybe. You see it as nothing more than a text. I think Paul saw things differently than you do and I think his intended audience did too.

it is merely a logical conclusion based on one skeptical interpretation of Paul's influence on the gospels which, Maccoby, the writer marg cited, suggests is what happened.

I don't think I follow you here, Roger.

I agree.

You're saying that we should treat the Gospels as "literal" because of the way Paul edited them?

No. I'm saying that based on your logic as follows:

How do you mean? Wasn't "the Jesus story," as we know it today, written/assembled after Paul's death?

...and that of the author cited by marg (see my post above), that it is rational to conclude that Paul's intent in editing the Gospels would have been for his audience to take them literally.

I, however, do not believe that Paul edited the Gospels.

By that logic, we should treat accounts of alien abductions as "literal" provided that the given editor has enough credibility and ambition.

Correct, but that is obviously a strawman since that was not my logic. Furthermore, I think most people who tell of alien abductions do want their hearers to take the accounts literally.

As to the debate over whether to take the gospels literally or not, what is the most compelling reason, extra-textual or not, that you see for rejecting them as literal?

Well, obviously, the "most compelling reason" is the fact that most of us don't observe things like the miracles of Jesus on a regular basis, if at all. I daresay that most of us haven't heard of these sorts of things outside of the Gospels, or other religious texts (or works of imaginative literature).

I agree. But surely you are not suggesting that:

A. Unexplainable phenomena never occur

or

B. Because someone has never heard of something occuring means that thing never occurs

...or are you?

Here is the larger question, in my opinion: What is lost, spiritually speaking, in letting go of the notion that the Bible---or the Book of Mormon, or any other religious text---is "literal" in the sense that the newspaper is "literal"?

That's an excellent question. First the Book of Mormon. I am not a Mormon but if the Book of Mormon were true then there is additional revelation from and about God & Jesus Christ and history in it. That in and of itself is highly beneficial. But I reject the idea that the Book of Mormon is true.

As to the Bible, we already know there is history in it, of course it's debatable as to how accurate the history is, but your question pertains to the notion of history vs myth and what is lost if the latter applies across the board. So one of the losses is history. The more important loss, of course, are the specific promises given to all who accept the gospel message.

Would your ability to conceive of a life after death really be totally compromised if it were somehow determined that the Bible absolutely, 100% was not "literal"?

Obviously not.

I ask because it seems such a dumb and arbitrary interpretive point upon which to hang one's faith. I think that if the Resurrection has any spiritual resonance and plangency, it carries such significance beyond material and practical analysis (which is what we're trying to do when we argue for the "literal-ness" of the New Testament), and that it is therefore very foolish (from a materialist rhetorical perspective) to insist that the contents of the New Testament are "literal". If you are going to live again in the next life, why do the Gospels need to be "literal"?

Simple. From the perspective of the Gospels the question is not whether you are going to live again, but where and under what circumstances. That, of course, means whether or not there is a literal hell and a literal heaven just as there is a literal earth. Anyone is free, of course, to accept or reject that but the author's intent is indeed relevant to the message.

[_Roger]

marg:

What I understand/understood Maccoby to be saying is that there were more gospels written than what is in the Bible. That the particular ones chosen were not intended for a Jewish audience.

Matthew was not intended for a Jewish audience??

That those writers had adopted previously written gospels and were familiar with Paul's letter..when they wrote their version. I don't want to say too much more on Hyam position without quoting him and reviewing his book which I don't have the time for atm.

I probably erroneously had the impression you were saying Paul got a hold of those gospels that are now in the Bible and he changed them himself.

I'm not saying that at all. All I am saying is that it appears to me as though that is what Maccoby is saying. His argument is that supporters of Paul made sure that his views came out victorious in the final "orthodox" canon. I do not deny that Paul and James viewed things differently. What I do deny is that Paul had any editorial control over the Gospels and especially the New Testament canon as a whole. Obviously Paul was long dead by the time the New Testament was compiled. Were he alive at the time he might have even been reticent to allow his own letters into the canon.

While the idea that Paul's supporters influenced the Gospels may be hypothesized, I do not think there is any support for it beyond speculation.

[_The Nehor]

Where did I ever say that you were? Your position initially was that we should accept the New Testament as "literal" on the basis of authorial intent. Then, you realized that was a poor idea and went with the genre argument. But, now I see you're back trying to salvage the "intent" assertion:

It was all one argument. That you can't see this makes this argument too far above you for me to hope you can understand what I'm saying.

Huckelberry:

On the basis of what is said in this thread I would not accept that the New Testament is factually correct, only that the writer almost desperately wanted us to think it was. My belief in the general accuracy of the Bible comes from a different source.

I would say that attempting to spin the gospels as legend is a lot like trying to fit Jesus into the 'great teacher but not divine' category. The text doesn't allow for that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where did I ever say that you were? Your position initially was that we should accept the New Testament as "literal" on the basis of authorial intent. Then, you realized that was a poor idea and went with the genre argument. But, now I see you're back trying to salvage the "intent" assertion:

It was all one argument. That you can't see this makes this argument too far above you for me to hope you can understand what I'm saying.

.

Wow, what a great response, The Nehor. Ad hominem arguments are *just* as effective as arguments based on poor reasoning! You see: your response here is pretty much a textbook illustration of why I've maintained that you never post any substance. 97% of the time your are just posting dumb jokes, or issuing threats, or making misogynistic statements. The other 3% consists of you trying to be substantive, such as on this thread, and failing pretty miserably because you are A) naïve; B) a clumsy thinker; and C) a poor, inarticulate writer. But, by all means: go right ahead insisting that you can read the New Testament authors' minds.

[_The Nehor]

Wow, what a great response, The Nehor. Ad hominem arguments are *just* as effective as arguments based on poor reasoning! You see: your response here is pretty much a textbook illustration of why I've maintained that you never post any substance. 97% of the time your are just posting dumb jokes, or issuing threats, or making misogynistic statements. The other 3% consists of you trying to be substantive, such as on this thread, and failing pretty miserably because you are A) naïve; B) a clumsy thinker; and C) a poor, inarticulate writer. But, by all means: go right ahead insisting that you can read the New Testament authors' minds.

I suspect that even here more people agree with me then with your clumsy use of the Intentional fallacy and deliberate misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Anyone interested, please feel free to chip in.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why? I don't think I follow your logic here. I'm not sure how or why editorial control should equal "take this text as literal truth." I'm sure the folks at Norton don't expect us to take, say, Hardy's Jude the Obscure as "literal truth," nor Paradise Lost.

Paul is asking people to change their way of life and place faith in the alleged resurrection of a contemporary, poverty stricken Jew and then be prepared even to die if necessary for the promised benefits of such faith... and you want me to think that his intent was to ask people to do this while not at the same time expecting them to take the basis of that faith literally?

In the end, does it matter whether they take it literally or not, so long as they have faith and change their lives?

My argument is not that the Gospels cannot, absolutely, 100%, under no circumstances be taken literally. My argument is that it just isn't rational/logical to *insist* that they must be, or even to insist that the authors wanted them to be taken 100% literally.

All of this boils down to very basic literary and interpretive theory:

For you maybe. You see it as nothing more than a text.

Lol. Is there ever such a thing as "just a text"? Methinks not.

I think Paul saw things differently than you do and I think his intended audience did too.

You are welcome to think that. Do you have positive, irrefutable evidence that that's the case, though? No. You don't.

No. I'm saying that based on your logic as follows:

How do you mean? Wasn't "the Jesus story," as we know it today, written/assembled after Paul's death?

...and that of the author cited by marg (see my post above), that it is rational to conclude that Paul's intent in editing the Gospels would have been for his audience to take them literally.

I, however, do not believe that Paul edited the Gospels.

Then why are we arguing about this? I haven't read the book Marg mentioned.

By that logic, we should treat accounts of alien abductions as "literal" provided that the given editor has enough credibility and ambition.

Correct, but that is obviously a strawman since that was not my logic. Furthermore, I think most people who tell of alien abductions do want their hearers to take the accounts literally.

But, as I've been laboring to make clear: [i]intent is completely beside the point[/i.] It *does not matter* if the author/teller "wants their hearers to take the accounts literally." That does not mean that we should; authorial intention has, in the end, no controlling effect on a text's meaning. The basis for treating the Gospels as "literal," among a few of the posters on this thread, is authorial intent. And, as I've pointed out, that is not a good enough reason to treat *any* text as "literal." You need a better, more logical reason.

Well, obviously, the "most compelling reason" is the fact that most of us don't observe things like the miracles of Jesus on a regular basis, if at all. I daresay that most of us haven't heard of these sorts of things outside of the Gospels, or other religious texts (or works of imaginative literature).

I agree. But surely you are not suggesting that:

A. Unexplainable phenomena never occur

or

B. Because someone has never heard of something occuring means that thing never occurs

...or are you?

No... I wasn't suggesting that.

Here is the larger question, in my opinion: What is lost, spiritually speaking, in letting go of the notion that the Bible---or the Book of Mormon, or any other religious text---is "literal" in the sense that the newspaper is "literal"?

That's an excellent question. First the Book of Mormon. I am not a Mormon but if the Book of Mormon were true then there is additional revelation from and about God & Jesus Christ and history in it. That in and of itself is highly beneficial. But I reject the idea that the Book of Mormon is true.

As to the Bible, we already know there is history in it, of course it's debatable as to how accurate the history is, but your question pertains to the notion of history vs myth and what is lost if the latter applies across the board. So one of the losses is history. The more important loss, of course, are the specific promises given to all who accept the gospel message.

How do you figure? If the Biblical stories are primarily symbolic and nature, and did not "literally" happen, and yet, so long as you accept the message, you still go on to heaven.... What is lost?

I ask because it seems such a dumb and arbitrary interpretive point upon which to hang one's faith. I think that if the Resurrection has any spiritual resonance and plangency, it carries such significance beyond material and practical analysis (which is what we're trying to do when we argue for the "literal-ness" of the New Testament), and that it is therefore very foolish (from a materialist rhetorical perspective) to insist that the contents of the New Testament are "literal". If you are going to live again in the next life, why do the Gospels need to be "literal"?

Simple. From the perspective of the Gospels the question is not whether you are going to live again, but where and under what circumstances. That, of course, means whether or not there is a literal hell and a literal heaven just as there is a literal earth.

Fair enough, but a "literal" heaven and hell does not necessarily mean that all of the events described in the Gospel have to have "literally" occurred.

Anyone is free, of course, to accept or reject that but the author's intent is indeed relevant to the message.

Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant to the message's final meaning.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, what a great response, The Nehor. Ad hominem arguments are *just* as effective as arguments based on poor reasoning! You see: your response here is pretty much a textbook illustration of why I've maintained that you never post any substance. 97% of the time your are just posting dumb jokes, or issuing threats, or making misogynistic statements. The other 3% consists of you trying to be substantive, such as on this thread, and failing pretty miserably because you are A) naïve; B) a clumsy thinker; and C) a poor, inarticulate writer. But, by all means: go right ahead insisting that you can read the New Testament authors' minds.

I suspect that even here more people agree with me then with your clumsy use of the Intentional fallacy and deliberate misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Anyone interested, please feel free to chip in.

Oooo! Your argument just gets better and better! Now we've got guesses about what other posters think, a misuse of the word "then," more misunderstanding of the Intentional Fallacy (feel free to clarify what you meant when you said it should only be applied to certain "texts"; I'm betting that you either can't or won't do it), use of the old Mopologetic "you're deliberately misunderstanding me!" mind-reading game, and, finally, a desperate plea for help from other posters. You really got in over your head here, The Nehor. You may as well stick to drive-by posts, crappy jokes, and faux campaigns for MADmoderatorship. I probably should go ahead and place a wager on whether or not you'll be needing a break from the board anytime soon.