Liberal / non-literal intepretation of bible impossible...

Post Reply New Topic

I've realised ,belatedly as usual, that I don't either!! !

Wrong... man you're ignorant. You're accusing Paul of being mistaken in his teaching, THAT is your position. you're compartmentalizing and hiding behind obtuse language. My argument is sound.

If christ is real, and what he said is real (as is recorded in the bible) then your position is untenable. What did christ die for if the bible is a book of myths and stories? He didn't die for anything or anybody apparently.

Last edited by ZakFiend on 07 Oct 2007, 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Was christ real? yes or no?
Was what he said (as recorded in the bible) real yes or no?
Is sin real? yes or no?

Answer those first before posting longwinded diatribes about nothing.

The point of this topic is whether liberal christian views are untenable with logic, rationality and biblical teaching.

I haven't read this thread, but I want to say that I agree in a sense that a modern literal interpretation of the Bible wouldn't be too liberal, as how originally was written, if someone follows the original concept of the Bible, they would have to take the customs, lifestyle and belief system as exactly was 2,000 years ago, I believe even conservative christians don't follow that 100%. Otherwise they would be even worse than what they already are today, very similar to extremist muslims in the middle east I believe.

However, there are several interpretations of the Bible from different christian sects, so I can say that an "accurate" literal interpretation is lost somehow because of that, within modern christian religion.

Liberal christians must have a liberal interpretation of the Bible, they believe that Jesus himself was liberal, and he was condemned by the Pharisees which they were conservatives.

He died to publicise the myths and stories. The most talked-about advertising stunt in the history of humanity.
Except that , like with some of the best ads , lots of people forget what the ad was for , and just love the ad ! !!

Of course they're incompatible with logic , rationality etc.

Everyone knows that!

But then, except for extremists, religious beliefs are not about being logical, in fact they are about escaping the strait jacket of rationality, either because this is comforting , or because it expresses that which is most human ; the freedom to think/believe anything you want ! !!.

Disturbing the status quo.

Can we keep the thread ON TOPIC? He claimed to die for others, and for specific reasons recorded in the bible... your answer is quite irrelevant.

I am "accusing" Paul of being a fallible human being, like you and I.



When Christ died, the Gospels were not yet written, and Paul had not recorded his epistles.

Cheers,

Mark

Unlikely, given this forum.




Fah. You were ASKING why he died. 'Twas
a perfectly reasonable answer, and the clearly
correct one, from a historical (not histrionic, as
your reply) point of view. As to any delusions
or fantasies you might have, I'm sure that they
will persist, even in the light of facts.

I'm with Calandale. I think he died because he pissed off various Roman and Sanhedrin power structures. The Romans were afraid he might be a zealot, the Sandhedrin didn't like him challenging their authority by throwing money lenders out of the temple, or healing the sick and developing a following.

To come in after the fact and say that A) he was the Messiah, but ... B) you didn't see the actual uplifting of the Kingdom of Israel because ... C) he was a new kind of spiritual messiah, not the kind that you thought the Old Testament promised .... is an example of post-facto logic. Because if it was a literal fulfillment of the prophesies, there would be no need for faith. Which is to say belief in something that you can't prove. So stop trying. You can't.

Then you're accusing god (as according to the bible) and christ of lying

Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).



Which means NOTHING, if you're accusing paul of having his teaching WRONG then their is NO POINT in believing or following christianity. Paul according to the gospels was invested with the power of god, he claimed HIS WORDS WERE NOT HIS OWN BUT GODS... so if paul is "fallible" yet every word he spoke he claims was from god... you're accusing god of being fallible.

A logically untenable position.


Paul:

“How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen, and if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain.... If Christ be not raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins!”21

Then there is the problem that if Christ really was wrong in His teaching about the Old Testament, how can we be sure of anything else He taught? He backed up His claim to be the Son of God with a quotation from the Psalms, saying as He did so, “And the Scripture cannot be broken!”22 If He was wrong about Scripture, how do we know that He was not wrong about being Son of God?

He said that resurrection and eternal life could be relied upon because of what the book of Exodus said.23 If He was wrong about the book of Exodus, how do we know that He was not wrong about eternal life?

Lots of Bible-believing theologians have asked this kind of question.24 But so far as I know, nobody has ever given them a reasonable answer.

It is not surprising there has been a steady drift away from this “half and half” position. The drift has mainly been in the direction of complete unbelief, but quite a number of scholars have moved in the opposite direction towards complete belief. There may be some difficulties connected with wholehearted belief. But there are far greater problems facing those who try to believe only parts of the Bible. There is an increasing awareness of this fact among thinking Christians today.

You are obviously entitled to your point of view. However, since I do not assume that Paul reliably spoke for God (at least no more than others), and since I do not believe that the Bible exists as a unitary document, I would have to disagree with you. I am not accusing Christ of lying. I am disagreeing with Paul. As you must know, Christ and Paul never met (excluding Paul's visionary claim).



If indeed he did say that, he was referring to the Tanakh (and possibly to various Apocryphal texts). He could not have been addressing the New Testament, since it had not yet been compiled.



As I said, you are entitled to your point of view. Anyway, the modern Protestant idea of verbal inerrancy is nowhere taught in any of the books compiled into the various biblical canons. I can believe that someone is inspired without assuming that everything that person says is perfect.



My position is completely logical given my assumptions. For one thing, I am not a Christian.

Cheers,

Mark

Man you are the most biblically ignorant person I have ever met, no wonder you are 'not a christian'

Hebrews 6:18, which says that it is impossible for God to lie, or Titus 1:2, which says that God can not lie.

Number 23:19 says, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"

Being inconsistent, is lying.



Why did you even participate if you are not christian? You have added NOTHING to the discussion but your own confused thinking, and it's quite obvious you've never read the bible itself and studied it from a religious perspective. Thereby disqualifying you.