MDB Bible Study

[_Maksutov]

So, if Jesus was not who he claimed he was (God) and he did not die and resurrect - then the Bible and His message is completely meaningless.

Not at all. His life has meaning for us if we choose to learn from it. We can learn that rebellion against Imperial Rome was very difficult and yet, over the course of centuries, some of his followers were able to co-opt that empire and use it to dominate a large portion of territory.

More lessons follow if we see how religion is used geopolitically and in war.

God? Oh yeah, God is mentioned.

[Alf'Omega]

If Jesus is who he claimed he was (God) and he did die and resurrected - then I can't imagine anything being more important.

For sure.

And if someone told me it was going to rain so much it would flood the earth and I better get to building an ark, and I believed it, I couldn't imagine anything being more important than that, either.

So it all hinges on whether either belief is reasonable to believe, and there's nothing external to the Bible that makes either reasonable.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Mak

So, if Jesus was not who he claimed he was (God) and he did not die and resurrect - then the Bible and His message is completely meaningless.

Not at all. His life has meaning for us if we choose to learn from it. We can learn that rebellion against Imperial Rome was very difficult and yet, over the course of centuries, some of his followers were able to co-opt that empire and use it to dominate a large portion of territory.

More lessons follow if we see how religion is used geopolitically and in war.

God? Oh yeah, God is mentioned.

I agree with you.

in my opinion - Some of the enormous barriers facing Biblical Christianity today (In addition to the many atrocities that have taken place in history like you mention above - and that continue to take place today under those who use the mask of "Christianity") are things like the prosperity preachers or the TV Christians (Copeland, Dollar, Duplantis, Olsten, etc).

What I'm not sure many people understand (at least from the conversations that I have had with people) is that the great majority of Bible based Christian churches are rather small and self sufficient - They aren't on TV and are not heard about nearly as much, for obvious reasons, as the ones I list above.

[_Some Schmo]

Not at all. His life has meaning for us if we choose to learn from it.

This speaks to the utility of god belief. There's no doubt it has utility. Nobody could reasonably deny that.

For a long time, I thought the best answer to the question, Do you believe in god? was Which one?

These days, I think a better answer is Yes, I believe in god to the exact same extent that I believe in Darth Vader. When I say "Darth Vader" to just about anyone, they know the idea I'm talking about, so he certainly exists as an idea. And, of course, we can learn from Darth Vader. We can project our own ideas about his thoughts in certain situations, or contemplate his motives. We can endow him with a final judgment on his life. Entire books could be written on the subject of Darth Vader, as people study his story. (We could have an "MDB Darth Vader Study" thread).

Do I think he actually existed a long time ago in a galaxy far far away? No. That's crazy talk.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Ceebs,

I appreciate the perspective. I'd compare it to a Mormon telling us that any discussion about the historical value of the Book of Mormon must begin from the position that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet of a living God. That's asking one simply ignore vast amounts of the evidence.

If the Bible has meaning for you, cool. I find meaning in it as well. I just prefer to take the historical evidence into account to frame it. And based on such, Abraham is a legendary figure not an actual person from history. That renders many of the questions posed in the OP somewhat pointless.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hey Ceeboo, do you think Enuma Elish fortold Moses?

Asking for a friend.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again honor

Hi Ceebs,

I appreciate the perspective. I'd compare it to a Mormon telling us that any discussion about the historical value of the Book of Mormon must begin from the position that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet of a living God. That's asking one simply ignore vast amounts of the evidence.

in my opinion, with respect, comparing the historical value of Book of Mormon with the historical value of the Bible is like comparing a 757 jet with a broken wooden skateboard that has 3 wheels missing. There is literally mountains of evidence that the places, people, lands, kingdoms, wars, etc, found in the Bible are historical (Because it's been some time since I looked at both sides of the argument for a historical Abraham - I won't argue your point on that now - To be transparent with you though, as best as I can remember, I think most scholars sided on the "no proof of Abraham: side" - But the Book of Mormon has zero historical evidence. Like.......None.

If the Bible has meaning for you, cool. I find meaning in it as well.

It's not that it has meaning for me. in my opinion, it's not a self-help book, or a book about advice, or some kind of road map of life - rather I believe the Bible is God's self disclosure of himself to his creation. I understand and accept that you don't share my view.

I just prefer to take the historical evidence into account to frame it.

Just things that are about 4500 years ago - like Abraham? Why would you do that? What about all the cities, peoples, lands, Kings and archeological evidences that support the historical narrative, you don't use any of that for framing?

Abraham is a legendary figure not an actual person from history. That renders many of the questions posed in the OP somewhat pointless.

Fair enough - forget my comparison of Jesus with the OP. But please don't forget the Bible study and please continue contributing.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Ceebs,

I won't argue your point on that now - To be transparent with you though, as best as I can remember, I think most scholars sided on the "no proof of Abraham: side" - But the Book of Mormon has zero historical evidence. Like.......None.

In a sense I agree, though I think there is some issue with saying there is absolutely zero evidence for the Book of Mormon being a historical record. But however one weighs evidence it certainly doesn't meet a threshold for being convincing to me anyway.

We should also recognize that the Bible having a historical context doesn't mean the stories in the Bible are historical. To use another example, Homer's Iliad was long thought to be purely fictional and the City of Troy a fictional place. But use of the Iliad guiding archeological/adventuring exploration led to the discovery that the Turkish city of Hisarlik is in fact the site of this city and the likely location for the events of the historical Trojan war.

Now, does this mean we should start believing in Zeus? Was there a real Achilles who was immortal except for the vulnerability on his heel? Was there a Helen so beautiful she caused the war, which was set off by mischievous and vain gods?

I don't know about you, but I don't think so.

Saying the Bible can be tied to history supported by evidence is not the same as saying the stories of the Bible are historical. Most of the people in the Bible prior to King David are almost certainly mythical. King David, whatever the case may be, is a legendary figure who possibly is based on a real person. Evidence outside of the Bible matters.

If the Bible has meaning for you, cool. I find meaning in it as well.

It's not that it has meaning for me. in my opinion, it's not a self-help book, or a book about advice, or some kind of road map of life - rather I believe the Bible is God's self disclosure of himself to his creation. I understand and accept that you don't share my view.

You say this, but do you mean it?

The God in the story in the OP revealed a few key things about themselves: They're petty and demanded Abraham prove he would do anything at all that he was asked even to the point of killing his own son. Did you use the story to derive something about this figure you believe discloses something about his nature? Or did you take another religious concept regarding Jesus and overlay it onto the story to create an interpretation of who this being might be? I think it's the later.

I just prefer to take the historical evidence into account to frame it.

Just things that are about 4500 years ago - like Abraham? Why would you do that? What about all the cities, peoples, lands, Kings and archeological evidences that support the historical narrative, you don't use any of that for framing?

Again, I think one should include what the evidence suggests comprehensively when one frames the Bible stories into a context for one's own use and potential edification. For me, a big part of that is evolution based. I know, you love that. ;) To me, we modern people are the result of past competitions both between individual as well as cultures. And the persistence of any cultural artifact over centuries such as religious beliefs deserves some regard. It clearly provides something for those who are embedded in that culture that made them successful and likely outcompeted those who had other views. That doesn't justify much else beyond a certain degree of respect for it's utility, but it does mean comparisons to modern fiction are missing something fundamental in my opinion.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again honor

But however one weighs evidence it certainly doesn't meet a threshold for being convincing to me anyway.

As a believer, I absolutely agree with this. That is to say, if the entire Bible could be proven 100% true from a historical position (less the miraculous events), I would say so what! As I said in the thread upstream - If Jesus is not who he claimed he was and if he did not resurrect, then the Bible as well as Christianity is meaningless. If Jesus is who he claimed he is and if he did resurrect, then I can't imagine anything being more important.

Saying the Bible can be tied to history supported by evidence is not the same as saying the stories of the Bible are historical. Most of the people in the Bible prior to King David are almost certainly mythical. King David, whatever the case may be, is a legendary figure who possibly is based on a real person. Evidence outside of the Bible matters.

I hear you.

You say this, but do you mean it?

Yes, I mean it

The God in the story in the OP revealed a few key things about themselves:

"Themselves?" Like plural?

They're petty and demanded Abraham prove he would do anything at all that he was asked even to the point of killing his own son.

I won't try to make excuses for the plain reading of the text. I will disagree with your characterization that God is petty.

With the assumption that the God of the Bible exists (I'm only using an assumption to share my point - I am not suggesting that you need to believe said assumption) - I can't imagine a human mind wrapping our heads around such an enormously powerful being. That said, as a believer, I think the Bible clearly provides a set of some characteristics (I understand that human beings can hold differing positions on these characteristics - as you have provided "petty" that I reject and you, quite fairly, might reject some of the ones that I see reading the exact same text).

So - in my opinion - here are some of the characteristics of God that he has revealed in the Bible: Holy, He has a very long wick but not an infinitely long wick, Jealous, Intolerant,Loving, Graceful, Merciful, Righteous, Intense anger.

Did you use the story to derive something about this figure you believe discloses something about his nature? Or did you take another religious concept regarding Jesus and overlay it onto the story to create an interpretation of who this being might be? I think it's the later.

You lost me? God's nature had nothing to do with the OP.

The OP was intended to look at a possible for-shadowing of Jesus on the cross (Father/Son - Son,wood/Son,cross - Lamb/Lamb of God - Location of this event/Location of Jesus on the cross)

For me, a big part of that is evolution based. I know, you love that. ;)

I do indeed! :)

To me, we modern people are the result of past competitions both between individual as well as cultures. And the persistence of any cultural artifact over centuries such as religious beliefs deserves some regard. It clearly provides something for those who are embedded in that culture that made them successful and likely outcompeted those who had other views.

I understand your view/position.

[_huckelberry]

Ceebo, the idea of foreshadowing might be better understood as themes and ideas seen earlier which are reviewed in light of later events by later writers. It is natural for there to be repeating themes as people continue to consider the same problem.

For sacrifice the most important question is why have people all over the world felt this need for human sacrifice. When God proposes Abraham sacrifice a son he is not presenting an idea which would be seen as crazy but instead entirely natural. Abraham would want to prove himself and the sacrifice was the culturally expected way. The odd thing in the story is that God prevents the sacrifice and establishes a start of Jewish rethinking of the whole problem. People need something provided by God to relate to God. (see Jeremiah) Jesus is working with the same problem asking people to consider what it is that God is really looking for from you.