/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>537137

Read up on presuppositional apologetics, the christian worldview based on the bible as the ultimate authority over all others is the only consistent worldview.

>>537143

> Protestant detected

Read Thomas Aquinas, ya dingus. Arguing from first principles/philosophy is much more effective

>>537139

I'm coming around to believing in God again, but that still doesn't answer my questions about the Bible like

> Did the events in the OT actually happen, the way they are written?

> Did the events in the NT actually happen, the way they are written?

> Are there any errors, or inconsistencies in the Bible?

> How was the OT written?

> How was the NT written?

>>537137

Intrinsically there's nothing wrong with textual criticism, if it's operates within fair peremiders. The purpose of it is to provide an accurate data base of the earliest manuscripts and the majority text, so we can entails what the authors originally meant when they wrote their works.

Now you have to understand, when it comes to the biblical secular critics presume that supernatural doesn't and can't exist, even if it occurred, thus place every prophetic book after the fact. That is why they say the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem, because Jesus Savior prophesied the destruction of the second temple. And furthermore they placed a standard of "skeptical" criticism on the bible which if you applied to works of antiquity, they fall flat. So these dentialists are using double standards.

I did say that textual criticism can be constructive, but only when we have a conservative goal in finding what the authors really wrote and for the most part variations don't matter, the ones that do are just a handful, which they don't effect doctrine*.

I suggest reading two books on critical skepticism when it's applied to other parts of history. One "Historical Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte" and remember that this is when Bonaparte was still alive. The other book is The Abraham "Lincoln Myth; an Essay in 'higher Criticism'". Don't worry, both books are available in the public domain.

And if you're going to review Church history, may I suggest reading History of the Christian Church by Phillip Schaff on Ccel?

*There's really one variant that (possibly) effect doctrine, the doctrine that we need to fast if we want to preform an exorcism.

>>537394

Thanks anon. I've heard/read about the accuracy of the transmission of the NT, but the issue I gnaw on is that even if one accepts the necessary existence of God, that doesn't rule out the possibility that errors or inaccuracies could have been faithfully passed down, or things like the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, or the cruelty of God in the OT.

And it has always somewhat bugged me that Jews are seemingly so much more free to question/interpret the Bible/Torah than Christians.

>>537409

>that doesn't rule out the possibility that errors or inaccuracies could have been faithfully passed down

Here the issue with that objection. How do we, from a historical standpoint, address that? Certainly many of us could postulate thousands of possibilities of the transition of the biblical books, even within the days of the author's lifetime, but realistically we have to evaluate with evidence we're given and push aside wild assumptions. It's unfruitful otherwise.

>things like the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew

Uhm, the genealogy was an emphasis that Jesus Christ was a descendant of Adam, Abraham, but most of all David the king. You might be wondering why there's a difference between that genealogy from Luke. The gospel according to Luke was focusing Jesus's biography and Luke's Genealogy was from Mary side of the family starting with her husband (in those cultures, the spouses are "adopted" to the others' families).

>the cruelty of God in the OT.

The Hebrews violated their covenant(s), which the equivalent of cheating on a wedding vow. I, like everyone, would become revengeful if that occurred to me, but more importantly God always plea/allow the hebrew to return in His flock if only they'll to repent and return to Him.

>And it has always somewhat bugged me that Jews are seemingly so much more free to question/interpret the Bible/Torah than Christians.

Liberal Jews (AKA. reform jews) think most of the bible is mythology and traditional Jews believe in traditions called the midrash, which make them think that the Pentateuch itself is incomplete, etc. It also doesn't really help that modern Christian are captivated more with emotional arguments than logical ones, so that's why we rarely discuss this topic except in passing.

>>537431

> you might be wondering why there's a difference between that genealogy from Luke

Well, not quite, more about why there are four names missing, and why in Luke, we don't actually have an account of the bloodline of Mary. Mary legally entering into Joseph's family is all well and good, but it doesn't tell us whether MARY is of the blood of David. AFAIK, it is only by tradition that we know Mary to have been of the blood of David.

Luke 3:23-38 only tells us about Joseph's bloodline, as does Matthew.

>>537391

KJV-Onlyism has done huge amounts of damage to Christianity today.

OT is partly allegorical, historical, and prophetical to set the stage for the history of God, the Chosen Jewish people, and the arrival of Messiah whom would establish the New Covenant among all of man-kind.

OT/Torah is part of the ancient Jewish religion, but much of it is allegorical and takes place in what most consider "pre-history", aka we do not know that much about the era it is concerned with.

NT, and the time of Jesus happened in and around 0 AD, from perhaps 200 B.C to at least 70-170 A.D. as the Gospels were written and compiled. As Christians, we are mostly considered with established the NT as unerring, though many protestants are overly concerned with the old covenant/OT/Torah because of their modern day textual literalism.

>>537453

so anyways, the NT is well-established and considered very accurate, any "errors" with the NT I hear is mostly people missing the point of Christ's parables.

>>537409

>possibility that errors or inaccuracies could have been faithfully passed down

Don't some translations of the Bible attempt to go back to the oldest, most original manuscripts when possible? I think the 1984 version of the NIV did this.

>>537454

Ack. I was raised to believe that the Bible was 100% inerrant, so I really don't understand religion/religious belief without an unwavering faith that every jot and tittle and detail of the Bible corresponds to reality at every level of reality. Physical, psychological, social, historical, metaphysical, etc etc.

It also makes a mess of the NT though, because afaik, the NT relies upon the OT being literally true.

>>537137

The New Testament is a RECORD of what Christ did for us. The saving work happened at Cavalry, not the desks of the apostles.

>>537460

If by "literally" true, then you have to be a 6,000 year old creationist, and accept a bunch of other stuff you don't need to. The Catholic church accepts Natural Selection/Evolution for example, because there's nothing about currently known scientific processes that invalidates God or causality.

And if you accept the OT to be equal with the NT, then you have to throw out the Greek Philosophy/Thomism, and etc.

Do you believe that the KJV is inerrant? Do you believe it has more authority than the the original Hebrew and Greek versions left to us?

>>537463

KJV-onlyism? No, and I am well aware of the usual caveats Christians place on the Bible, that only the originals are considered inerrant, the need to consider author's intent, culture, original language, etc. I was raised in a Protestant house/church/school that was skeptical if not hostile towards science, so learning about evolution and the age of the earth was very upsetting to me, and made me very bitter towards organized religion for a long time.

Aristotlean-Thomism and various other Catholic thinkers have been the main catalyst to me reconsidering God, but now I am at a complete loss for how to think about Scripture and the authority of Scripture.

>>537466

>and made me very bitter towards organized religion for a long time

Welcome to the Roman Catholic Church :)

>now I am at a complete loss for how to think about Scripture and the authority of Scripture.

As a Catholic, we are governed by three pillars, rather than sola scriptura or sola fide.

The Scriptures.

The Tradition

(teachings and writings of 2000 years of apostolic succession and councils of learned men, etc)

The Magisterium

(the living, current day Church with the authority to make current, definitive statements)

Unlike Protestants, we are not at war with either science or philosophy.

>>537471

well, not false philosophy/theology anyway

>>537460

Not really. People who say this usually refer to when Jesus mentions figures or anecdotes from the Old Testament. Considering that these stories were widely understood cultural touchstones where Jesus was teaching, it makes sense that he would relate his teachings to what the people around him understood. In addition, one could understand books such as Jonah as having a mythic, archetypal truth that is seperate from considerations of literal truth. Note that this doesn't presume the stories are literally/physically 100% true or false, just that considerations of why Jesus would mention them don't rest on literality.

In addition, the atonement does require there to have been some sort of fall of man, but the Genesis account likewise can be read as allegorically and mythically true. Simply put, I am content to believe that there was a Fall, we don't know exactly what it was, but the story of Adam and Eve conveys the essential symbolic information needed to understand it.

>>537508

If Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven where he literally lives today, why do you have trouble accepting the Old Testament?

>>537566

except, it's only a modern trend where we are expected to accept the OT a literal. sure, there protestants and heretics that considered the OT literally, but those were all crazy cults, completely impossible to argue or reason with.

nothing like today, nope.

>>537566

except, it's only a modern trend where we are expected to accept the OT as literal. sure, there were protestants and heretics that considered the OT literal but those were all crazy cults, completely impossible to argue or reason with.

nothing like today, nope.

>>537566

OP is struggling with Biblical criticism. I'm making the case that the core of the New Testament doesn't rest on a 100% literal OT.

I think there are good textual and historical reasons to support the Resurrection (William Lane Craig has done good work on this), but historical and textual work on aspects of the OT (such as Exodus) has been much less friendly to a literal interpretation. I'm content to be agnostic about the literal truth of the OT while considering the message of Salvation it communicates more important.

>>537614

It's an obvious question of faith. I've done the research on the OT, and the way Christ references Jonah is non-conclusive. Pretty sure our God did it intentionally, as a matter of faith in our times.

May or may not be the first thing I ask Him, actually.

>>537614

Cautiously interested in this p.o.v.

If the OT isn't (necessarily) literally true, how then are we to read it? What is true about the OT, or in what way is it true?

I've watched (almost all) of Jordan Peterson's videos on the psychological significance of the Bible, (so I know that there is more to these stories than merely the literal) and I know that the creation account can be read as a mythical-poetic account of the creation ex nihilo in the literary style of yet contrasting the creation myths of the ancient near east, the instantaneous special creation of the soul, etc. But what about things like the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai? Abraham? The Flood? Tower of Babel? What about the prophets? The Jews have the Talmud, but how are Christians to read the OT?

> Thanks for the replies so far, I just want to make sure I'm getting the truth

>>538041

The key point to remember is that the OT is designed to point towards Christ. That is the central mode of interpretation of the OT recognised by all Christian denominations.

I would say the most important take away from the Old Testament is the narrative of man's relationship with God through the ages leading to the incarnation.

Firstly, there was a Fall of some sort in which man began to sin and lost divine grace.

Then, there was the Law which reflected the will of God, but which proved ultimately unachievable by human effort alone.

Then there were the prophets who testified to the coming of a Saviour who would redeem imperfect creation and reconcile man with God in a way that the Law alone could not.

Like I said, I am content to be agnostic about literality, which seems more applicable for some cases than others. For example, King David seems to have existed (although his kingdom was likely smaller than the Bible describes) and the historical value of descriptions of the later kingdoms of Israel and Judah is generally pretty good, so one shouldn't consider the OT as entirely unhistorical by any means.

>>537391

>Read Thomas Aquinas, ya dingus. Arguing from first principles/philosophy is much more effective

Moses presupposed the existence of God.

>>538193

> The key point to remember is that the OT is designed to point towards Christ. That is the central mode of interpretation of the OT recognised by all Christian denominations.

This is a key point of contention among Jews and Christians, yes? The Jews interpret Christological passages differently

> I would say the most important take away from the Old Testament is the narrative of man's relationship with God through the ages leading to the incarnation.

Okay

> Firstly, there was a Fall of some sort in which man began to sin and lost divine grace.

IIRC, the Catholic Church believes that one can integrate evolution into their beliefs, so long as they maintain that human souls were specially created? So far so good

> Then, there was the Law which reflected the will of God, but which proved ultimately unachievable by human effort alone.

This has always seemed strange to me. I've read many books which challenge this view of the Law/Torah, but they weren't written by Catholics.

> Then there were the prophets who testified to the coming of a Saviour who would redeem imperfect creation and reconcile man with God in a way that the Law alone could not.

Right, and again, the Jews were expecting a conquering king, but Jesus came as the suffering servant.