God is Imaginary
Replies
-
Let's assume that's all true. How is the general public, as laypeople with regards to ancient historical styles of writing and speaking, who have been encouraged to read the bible and think and decide for ourselves, supposed to know that?
God isn't exactly making it easy for us.
I suppose I would approach theology the same way as I would any other discipline (assuming someone is seriously interested). To learn science, we rely on science teachers or those educated in that discipline. To learn math, we rely on math scholars. To understand the human mind, we rely on psychologists or psychiatrists, etc. Not one discipline is easy for everyone to understand. Some find science easy to understand, some find math easy to understand, some find engineering easy to understand. We rely on their expertise, years of study on the subject, and we look to them for explanations. We find books written by scholars on different subjects.
For theology, we figure it out by reading the Bible within the context of the Tradition that flows to us through the centuries. That unbroken Tradition shows us how to approach the Bible since it continues to read the Bible the same way it has been read for millennia. I agree this is quite a big problem if you isolate the Bible from its historical context and have no continuity of interpretation (at least in broad outline). Since many find this difficult, if not confusing, they should seek the expertise of others who have done this.0 -
For theology, we figure it out by reading the Bible within the context of the Tradition that flows to us through the centuries. That unbroken Tradition shows us how to approach the Bible since it continues to read the Bible the same way it has been read for millennia. I agree this is quite a big problem if you isolate the Bible from its historical context and have no continuity of interpretation (at least in broad outline). Since many find this difficult, if not confusing, they should seek the expertise of others who have done this.
Yes, but which tradition? The bible has not been read the same way throughout the millennia. Interpretations have changed over the centuries, even within traditions (the catholic church of today is not the same as the catholic church of 1500 years ago). Numerous branches have spun off, each thinking they have it right. They can't all be right.0 -
Yes, but which tradition? The bible has not been read the same way throughout the millennia. Interpretations have changed over the centuries, even within traditions (the catholic church of today is not the same as the catholic church of 1500 years ago). Numerous branches have spun off, each thinking they have it right. They can't all be right.
Great question. If you look at the history of Christianity, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions go back very far, agree on the vast majority of things-- especially the most essential teachings of Christianity. I don't want to simplify things too much but the Catholic and Orthodox have always believed that the Bible was never meant to be read in isolation from the Tradition. The idea is that God knew we needed a guide to interpret the Bible and a sure way to know where to find the proper understanding of Scripture. The various forms of "Protestantism" broke away from this Tradition and that has created a great amount of confusion. Your questions highlight the need for a deep, historical Tradition that allows us to know how to properly read the Bible, at least in respect to the most important teachings. The Catholic Church, for instance, from the very beginning has believed that God continues to guide his people into a true and faithful understanding of the Bible as we pass from generation to generation the proper interpretation of the Scriptures.0 -
You are misunderstanding me. Apocalyptic was a style of speaking/writing in the first century that made use of vivid imagery to describe major political events that were given a prophetic interpretation.
In my opinion the term "Apocalyptic" is a cop out. There are an number of places in the New Testament that Jesus refers quite specifically to the timing his second coming such as Matthew 24:34 (repeated in Luke 21:32 and Mark 13:30) and Matthew 10:23. The modern Christian sidelines these by labeling them "Apocalyptic". The implication is that Jesus was not mistaken, we just don't understand what he was actually referring to. However, it is obvious that the 1st Century CE Christians believed his second coming to be imminent - 1 Corinthians 10:11, Hebrews 1:1-2, 1 John 2:18, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 Thessalonians 4:15. The writers of these texts clearly believed themselves to be in the end times.The problem that I keep seeing here is that people think Jesus’ language should be entirely understandable to 21st century readers, disregarding first-century modes of communication. This is not fair to the Bible any more than it would be fair to any other culture or era that has its own patterns of communication.0 -
Great question. If you look at the history of Christianity, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions go back very far, agree on the vast majority of things-- especially the most essential teachings of Christianity. I don't want to simplify things too much but the Catholic and Orthodox have always believed that the Bible was never meant to be read in isolation from the Tradition. The idea is that God knew we needed a guide to interpret the Bible and a sure way to know where to find the proper understanding of Scripture. The various forms of "Protestantism" broke away from this Tradition and that has created a great amount of confusion. Your questions highlight the need for a deep, historical Tradition that allows us to know how to properly read the Bible, at least in respect to the most important teachings. The Catholic Church, for instance, from the very beginning has believed that God continues to guide his people into a true and faithful understanding of the Bible as we pass from generation to generation the proper interpretation of the Scriptures.
Translation: The one you picked.0 -
In my opinion the term "Apocalyptic" is a cop out. There are an number of places in the New Testament that Jesus refers quite specifically to the timing his second coming such as Matthew 24:34 (repeated in Luke 21:32 and Mark 13:30) and Matthew 10:23. The modern Christian sidelines these by labeling them "Apocalyptic". The implication is that Jesus was not mistaken, we just don't understand what he was actually referring to. However, it is obvious that the 1st Century CE Christians believed his second coming to be imminent - 1 Corinthians 10:11, Hebrews 1:1-2, 1 John 2:18, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 Thessalonians 4:15. The writers of these texts clearly believed themselves to be in the end times.
I wish I had the time to go through Matthew 24 verse-by-verse and explain in more detail what I am trying to argue. The issue is complicated because it has to do with developing an appreciation of a style of writing that was characteristic of many of the Old Testament prophets, not usually material that is very familiar to many people. Take a look at this article as an example of the approach I’m suggesting (I don’t agree with all this article, it is just one of countless examples of the interpretive approach I’m using. Pay special attention to the citations from the Old Testament and the similarity of wording to the Olivet Discourse: http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html
One of the other issues here is that the word “coming” is used of more than one event in the New Testament. The “coming” of God has various levels of meaning and does not refer to a single event. Jesus speaks of “coming” again to his disciples in the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14). Other texts speak of a final “coming” at the end of history. Other texts speak of a “coming” in wrath or judgment, like the one you are focusing on. It is a major mistake, in my view, to assume every context is identical, even when similar wording is used (notice the Old Testament apocalyptic language is used in reference to multiple events).
Unless you have studied apocalyptic literature, it is not fair to call it a “cop out.” There are biblical scholars who spend their whole lives studying this literary genre. Knowing something about it, it makes no more sense to belittle this kind of literature than saying something like: “This whole ‘poetry’ thing is a cop out. There is no such thing as poetry, everything is literal prose.” No one would take that seriously. There is just too much data for apocalyptic as a unique style of writing to waive it away as unreal.0 -
Translation: The one you picked.
You asked. I'm a Catholic Christian, so of course I'm going to respond that way. Your reply seems unfair. "The one I picked" is the one that I find makes the most sense TO ME. I've spent decades studying, questioning, researching, reading, etc. What I'm suggesting is for YOU to look at the history of Christianity and other religions and YOU take the time (if it's really important to you) to study everything I've told you here if you don't want to rely on others' who have done so.0 -
Problem is that the existence of Christianity relies on this type of "apocalyptic" study. Without it Jesus was just another guy making unfulfilled prophesies and Christianity would have died in the 2nd Century CE.Unless you have studied apocalyptic literature, it is not fair to call it a “cop out.” There are biblical scholars who spend their whole lives studying this literary genre. Knowing something about it, it makes no more sense to belittle this kind of literature than saying something like: “This whole ‘poetry’ thing is a cop out. There is no such thing as poetry, everything is literal prose.” No one would take that seriously. There is just too much data for apocalyptic as a unique style of writing to waive it away as unreal.0 -
Problem is that the existence of Christianity relies on this type of "apocalyptic" study. Without it Jesus was just another guy making unfulfilled prophesies and Christianity would have died in the 2nd Century CE.
No, actually Jesus was predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem within a generation of his words. That actually happened. This is one of many reasons why he was not “just another guy making unfulfilled prophecies.”0 -
Again, it's back to the date of the document. Accept a pre-70CE date (as you have have to) then it's a prophesy. Since I don't believe in prophesy then a post-70CE date is acceptable. The author of the original document was simply writing about something that had already occurred. They did that to give additional weight to the part of the story that they believed that was about to happen - the second coming.No, actually Jesus was predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem within a generation of his words. That actually happened. This is one of many reasons why he was not “just another guy making unfulfilled prophecies.”0 -
Problem is that the existence of Christianity relies on this type of "apocalyptic" study. Without it Jesus was just another guy making unfulfilled prophesies and Christianity would have died in the 2nd Century CE.
No, actually Jesus was predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem within a generation of his words. That actually happened. This is one of many reasons why he was not “just another guy making unfulfilled prophecies.”
So does this mean that Nostradamus is legitimate because a number of his prophecies have occurred as well?0 -
Translation: The one you picked.
You asked. I'm a Catholic Christian, so of course I'm going to respond that way. Your reply seems unfair. "The one I picked" is the one that I find makes the most sense TO ME. I've spent decades studying, questioning, researching, reading, etc. What I'm suggesting is for YOU to look at the history of Christianity and other religions and YOU take the time (if it's really important to you) to study everything I've told you here if you don't want to rely on others' who have done so.
I wasn't trying to be unfair. It's just now we're getting into the whole "my religion is the one true relgion" area. Follow these rules, otherwise eternal hell fire.0 -
So does this mean that Nostradamus is legitimate because a number of his prophecies have occurred as well?
No, Nostradamus' "prophecies" are of a very different sort. The biblical ones have a context, Nostradamus' do not. He offered a series of random statements and people are free to apply them to anything they want. The biblical prophecies are part of a long tradition of history and prophecy and should be read in that context. If you compare the prophetic texts of the Bible with Nostradamus you will quickly find they have little in common.0 -
It's just now we're getting into the whole "my religion is the one true relgion" area. Follow these rules, otherwise eternal hell fire.
Maybe you are, but I'm not. I've never said (or typed) those words.0 -
It's just now we're getting into the whole "my religion is the one true relgion" area. Follow these rules, otherwise eternal hell fire.
Maybe you are, but I'm not. I've never said (or typed) those words.
But isn't that what the catholic church teaches?0 -
Again, it's back to the date of the document. Accept a pre-70CE date (as you have have to) then it's a prophesy. Since I don't believe in prophesy then a post-70CE date is acceptable. The author of the original document was simply writing about something that had already occurred. They did that to give additional weight to the part of the story that they believed that was about to happen - the second coming.
Most scholars that I’ve read argue that Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse is sufficiently lacking in specific details and likely written well before AD 70 that it is most probable that his account is a genuine prediction of the Temple’s destruction. Some argue that the details include in Luke’s account support a later date (in fact this is the primary reason given for a post-70 dating). I think that is wrong but, in any case, Mark’s Gospel remains pre-70 and therefore the basic language of the Olivet Discourse is prophetic.0 -
Again, it's back to the date of the document. Accept a pre-70CE date (as you have have to) then it's a prophesy. Since I don't believe in prophesy then a post-70CE date is acceptable. The author of the original document was simply writing about something that had already occurred. They did that to give additional weight to the part of the story that they believed that was about to happen - the second coming.
Most scholars that I’ve read argue that Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse is sufficiently lacking in specific details and likely written well before AD 70 that it is most probable that his account is a genuine prediction of the Temple’s destruction. Some argue that the details include in Luke’s account support a later date (in fact this is the primary reason given for a post-70 dating). I think that is wrong but, in any case, Mark’s Gospel remains pre-70 and therefore the basic language of the Olivet Discourse is prophetic.
Seems most scholars place the Gospel of Mark around 55 CE to 70 CE and see it as one of the two/three sources for the rest of the Gospels. Many see 70 CE as more reliable not only for the prophecy but also because it gives purpose to the way the author has written his account and presented Jesus as the Temple of God. This would be a salve to Jews still coming to terms with t he reality of the Temple being destroyed. This makes more sense to me.0 -
Seems most scholars place the Gospel of Mark around 55 CE to 70 CE and see it as one of the two/three sources for the rest of the Gospels. Many see 70 CE as more reliable not only for the prophecy but also because it gives purpose to the way the author has written his account and presented Jesus as the Temple of God. This would be a salve to Jews still coming to terms with t he reality of the Temple being destroyed. This makes more sense to me.
It makes sense to you because you are inclined to want as late a date as possible. The idea that it would be a “salve to Jews still coming to terms with the reality of the Temple being destroyed” is just wrong. The Gospel was written for Romans, especially Gentiles. Unlike Matthew, Mark’s Gospel does not display the kinds of Jewish sensitivities that would suggest it had a primarily Jewish audience in mind (certainly there were Jews in the Roman Church but it was clearly a mix with Gentiles). The external data (e.g., Papias) has this Gospel written in Rome by Mark based on Peter’s preaching/teaching about the life of Jesus.
Further, virtually everyone argues that Mark’s Gospel was a primary source used by Luke. Luke’s Gospel is part one of a two-volume work. The second volume is the Acts of the Apostles (see the intros to both books). The book of Acts concludes with events around AD 60-62 and we are left with an unfinished story (Paul is under house arrest in Rome awaiting trial). Acts speaks of the Temple but nowhere alludes to its destruction. Peter and Paul are primary characters in the book but their martyrdom (what a fitting conclusion that would have been to this book that highlights their witness to the Christian faith), that would take place within five years of the events described in the book, is nowhere mentioned or even alluded to. This, to my mind, is powerful internal evidence that Luke wrote his books before the destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul (ca. AD 65). Many contemporary scholars don’t like this argument but I’ve never seen a good response to it. The reasons for dating the Gospel later are based primarily on hypothetical reconstructions of the first century that make countless logical leaps and are also driven by a bias against an early date for these books (in large measure based on the supposed impossibility of predictive prophecy). If this logic is sound (and I think it fits best with all the data), Mark’s Gospel (since it was used by Luke) must be earlier than AD 65, probably 60-64 or so.0 -
It's quite simple - if the Gospel mentions the destruction of the Temple (whether or not it is dressed up as a prediction) then the date of the Gospel is post-70 CE.I think that is wrong but, in any case, Mark’s Gospel remains pre-70 and therefore the basic language of the Olivet Discourse is prophetic.0 -
It's quite simple - if the Gospel mentions the destruction of the Temple (whether or not it is dressed up as a prediction) then the date of the Gospel is post-70 CE.
The Gospel mentions the destruction of the Temple as a prophecy. Accepting your conclusion means I must accept your world-view. That’s begging the question. Why must I assume a godless, no-prophecy approach to things? You assume your conclusions before you examine the data. Didn’t someone here accuse me of something like that along the way?0 -
Because that's real life.Why must I assume a godless, no-prophecy approach to things?0 -
Because that's real life.
Well, at least you admit your bias. Since I think atheism is false, I obviously differ in how I approach this matter. I do not believe "real life" is godless.0 -
This is from the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It's part of the introduction to Matthew from the Catholic-approved "New American Bible."Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm
Even your own Church teaches the date m_a_b is defending.0 -
I see you were actually debating the date of Mark, not Matthew. Here's what the Catholic bishops say about that:Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm0
-
Translation: The one you picked.
You asked. I'm a Catholic Christian, so of course I'm going to respond that way. Your reply seems unfair. "The one I picked" is the one that I find makes the most sense TO ME. I've spent decades studying, questioning, researching, reading, etc. What I'm suggesting is for YOU to look at the history of Christianity and other religions and YOU take the time (if it's really important to you) to study everything I've told you here if you don't want to rely on others' who have done so.
Wineplease, I really didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you specifically. I'm also really glad that you're still here discussing this with us. I think it's great. I'm sure to lurkers it seems that we're ganging up on you!
It's just, the way I see it, when one starts talking about which interpretations and traditions are the right ones, by default the others are wrong. As you said before, you don't pick and choose. Doesn't that mean you'd have to believe in the rules about damnation?0 -
Because that's real life.
Well, at least you admit your bias. Since I think atheism is false, I obviously differ in how I approach this matter. I do not believe "real life" is godless.
I disagree with the idea that any of us came in with biases. We've all looked at the data and reached different conclusions, but some or all of us came to the wrong conclusion.0 -
I see you were actually debating the date of Mark, not Matthew. Here's what the Catholic bishops say about that:Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm
You're quoting an article. I think this article is factually wrong on the dating issue. This is taken from the notes included in the New American Bible, a Catholic translation. Although I am a Catholic, there is no obligation for me to accept the claims of this article. It is simply wrong to say that "traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before AD 70." What tradition? I know of no such tradition, certainly not in the early centuries. What does "shortly before" mean?
I think I gave a sound argument for an earlier dating in the observations I made about Luke's Gospel. The primary reason for choosing a later date for these Gospels is anti-supernatural and "historicist" assumptions, all of which I reject. The actual evidence, internal and external, supports an earlier date.0 -
Wineplease, I really didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you specifically. I'm also really glad that you're still here discussing this with us. I think it's great. I'm sure to lurkers it seems that we're ganging up on you!
We're cool, brunner! I'm not taking this personally. I think you've got legit questions. I hope people lurking don't look at this as me being ganged up on. I would hope they would see me replying to many points from several people. I hope they will see a respectful, mature debate. I really appreciate that it's been serious but respectful. Nothing worse than a good debate being ruined by memes, mockery, or personal attacks. I think we're doing well!0 -
Because that's real life.
Well, at least you admit your bias. Since I think atheism is false, I obviously differ in how I approach this matter. I do not believe "real life" is godless.
Conversations such as this are interesting. In this short time I've come to respect what you've got to say even though our world view is radically different. Or is it? I read somewhere (on t'internet probably) that there are an estimated 28 million gods. The only real difference between us is that you're an atheist when it comes to 27,999,999 of them whereas I believe in one less than you.
My question is, of course, if you've willfully rejected those 27,999,999 gods then how can you be sure that your one is the correct one?0 -
I'm not sure why anyone thinks:
1. The existence of G-d is scientifically provable
2. The Bible has to be scientifically true in order to be either a) true or b) useful
3. Science and reason are sufficient to resolve ethical issues
Then against, I think we Jews (and probably other tribal cultures as well) have a very different understanding of religion that Christians and Muslims do.
Yeah, I'm being a snarky jerk and running away from the argument.
Just addressing point 3, I would argue that religion is neither sufficient nor necessary to resolve ethical issues.
And I'd agree with you, but I don't think the sort of atheist who feels the need to push their beliefs onto other people has a good replacement handy. Mostly, they just strike me as being bitter about religion, which is annoying since that usually means that they are projecting their own negative experiences onto other religions that they know nothing about. Which would explain why Richard Dawkins et al. remind me so much of early Christians.0
