A Prayer Of Salvation (2 Viewers)

[dkp993]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

As I understand it, it's seen as the word of God. It's a vision John had that was given to him by God / Jesus.

I was responding to @Captain Cranks who said "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion." I think Christians who believe the Bible are in the same camp that the things described in Revelation have never literally occurred.

Sure, they never occurred, but if God provided the vision then it must be something that will occur?

Here's my dilemma, how do we decide what's literal and what's not? Revelation isn't literal, but rising from the dead is? Nephilim and giants are too out there to be included, but all of Jesus' miracles are literal and happened.

Which is why i appreciate Paddington's takes. Did it happen or not? Why are some parts literal and others just stories? Who says, who decides? It's this convenience that the believer picks and chooses what is allegory and what isn't that is a major hang up from my vantage point.

I know this can't be answered and if it can it's just more assumptions and interpretations. To me you either accept the included works as God's word, or it strengthens Captain Cranks take that it's a collection of works not to be taken literally. Feels like wanting your cake and eating it too.

Jumping in here, but how do we (or how are we expected too) determine, 2000 years later, the validity of the difference between whether someone’s dreaming or had a “vision”. For example Paddington has claimed to had visions or spoken directly with God. How can we possibly say whether this is “real” or not*, and I can’t even fathom how we’d do that 2000 years from now.


* to be incredibly clear. I’m not claiming it is or isn’t real. And I know it’s very real for Paddington so I’m not judging that. I’m speaking about to prove it’s real for the rest of us.

 

[dkp993]

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

I believe that there are truths in all kinds of mythology, not just the stories of the bible. There are truths in the George Washington cherry tree story even if it never happened. I recently watched Death by Lightening. I believe the general portrayal of the main characters and the main events of the story even if there were all kinds of literary license in shaping a three-hour narrative.

As for the bible, many of the stories in the bible simply could not have happened as written without contradicting the same event written elsewhere. It is the Christmas season. The stories in Luke and Matthew both cannot be an accurate historical account at the same time. That assumes things that would be ordinarily nonsense like following a star have divine explanations. The bible is sprinkled with countless other examples - the genealogies of Jesus. If the criteria are that each and every one of these must be 100% factually accurate telling of history, then the bible fails miserably. And those non-believers have easy pickings to be dismissive. Of course, they will prefer to argue against someone arguing for a literal interpretation, they have endless material!

But when Matthew was setting down and writing his gospel with a copy of Mark among other sources in front of him, Matthew had no issues "fixing" Mark to serve his purposes. Luke did the same. So, if the gospel writers didn't take Mark as 100% literally accurate, why should we? And why didn't they? Because the stories, the events, etc. are not the point. The point is who is Jesus and how that helps us understand God and ourselves. So, I do believe what it actually says.

And guess what, the same point is pretty much true in those crazy non canon gospels. Jesus's character as in his absolute obedience to God and his absolute selfless love for people are everywhere. Regardless of the settings and stories or the quotes. This is what it actually says, and I believe it!

We’ve had this discussion before in this thread, as I and others have brought up the same points lurker brought up multiple times. And I absolutely appreciate yours and @dgreen’s perspective, I really do. But where it just falls apart for me is when the literal weight/fate of a human beings soul for all of eternity rest on the interpretation factor it just doesn’t seem to make sense about how this thing called life should work. It feels incredibly flawed and set up for failure.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

Can you lay out what you think it means for a text to be "the word of God"? What does that look like to you? How does it require that the texts behave? For example, why can't a dream or vision that is then written down be "the word of God"? Why can't a slight on Caesar be "the word of God"?

Yeah, so if God spoke or directly caused the vision then it's the word of God, his literal words. If it's just John having a dream and writing it down then it's a story. So to me which is it? Did God send the message to John? If he did then it's God's literal words and should be taken as such. If it's just John telling a story why bother attaching it to the word of God?

Does that make sense?

Yes, makes sense. That sounds close to a dictation theory; that God literally dictated the words to the authors. Is that your view of what is being claimed for Paul's letters and Genesis, for example? For those to be "the word of God", it would mean that God told Paul exactly what to write and God told the author of Genesis exactly what words to use to describe something that Abraham did?

BTW, I'm not sure I have a clear thought on what I think "word of God" means. I just have a bunch of things that I think it doesn't mean.

I understand your takes and it makes sense. No doubt a complicated set of ideas. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. And knowing what something isn't is just as good as knowing what it is sometimes.

My view is that all of it is the word of God from a religious standpoint. Whether the expectation for the reader is parables or literal interpretation it's all the word of God. Some it's told through stories and others a historical retelling of actual events. Unfortunately when we are left to make that decision ourselves or based on other men's interpretations we get picking and choosing and possibly the motivations of men can be self serving especially after multiple translations and retelling the stories over 1000s of years.

As i mentioned previous resurrection and Revelation don't require me to take a huge leap of faith in believability between the two. Revelation is in the Bible, resurrection is in the Bible, both are pretty fantastic stories. One is an accepted fact by Christians the other maybe just a dream. Doesn't have to be either or, but when resurrection is literal the line between what we should take literally and what we shouldn't gets mighty blurry.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We’ve had this discussion before in this thread, as I and others have brought up the same points lurker brought up multiple times. And I absolutely appreciate yours and @dgreen’s perspective, I really do. But where it just falls apart for me is when the literal weight/fate of a human beings soul for all of eternity rest on the interpretation factor it just doesn’t seem to make sense about how this thing called life should work. It feels incredibly flawed and set up for failure.

Understood. And I'm probably on "your side" when it comes to the orthodox Christian beliefs that you (and I) are doomed to eternal torture if we don't believe that Jesus died on the cross and was raised again as ransom, as atonement, as salvation, as ... for our sins. I say I believe in God. That means a belief both that God exist in some unexplainable, not really understandable fashion and that this God is good beyond any way I could describe it.

The standard orthodox Christian belief just doesn't make sense to me either if God is good. Original sin is God "passing the buck" after failing to be all knowing. All deserve hell (assuming hell is not just death) because of sin we are doomed to commit is not all loving. That the only way God could change this is via a blood sacrifice of Jesus is not all powerful. So, I'm with you here. But I embrace my heretical views.

While you can piece together the modern orthodox Christian ideas of final judgment to heaven or hell from the bible, I don't think such ideas are really biblical. But I guess that "rest on the interpretation factor" and brings us full circle back to square one.

 

[bolzano]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

Can you lay out what you think it means for a text to be "the word of God"? What does that look like to you? How does it require that the texts behave? For example, why can't a dream or vision that is then written down be "the word of God"? Why can't a slight on Caesar be "the word of God"?

Yeah, so if God spoke or directly caused the vision then it's the word of God, his literal words. If it's just John having a dream and writing it down then it's a story. So to me which is it? Did God send the message to John? If he did then it's God's literal words and should be taken as such. If it's just John telling a story why bother attaching it to the word of God?

Does that make sense?

Yes, makes sense. That sounds close to a dictation theory; that God literally dictated the words to the authors. Is that your view of what is being claimed for Paul's letters and Genesis, for example? For those to be "the word of God", it would mean that God told Paul exactly what to write and God told the author of Genesis exactly what words to use to describe something that Abraham did?

BTW, I'm not sure I have a clear thought on what I think "word of God" means. I just have a bunch of things that I think it doesn't mean.

I understand your takes and it makes sense. No doubt a complicated set of ideas. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. And knowing what something isn't is just as good as knowing what it is sometimes.

My view is that all of it is the word of God from a religious standpoint. Whether the expectation for the reader is parables or literal interpretation it's all the word of God. Some it's told through stories and others a historical retelling of actual events. Unfortunately when we are left to make that decision ourselves or based on other men's interpretations we get picking and choosing and possibly the motivations of men can be self serving especially after multiple translations and retelling the stories over 1000s of years.

As i mentioned previous resurrection and Revelation don't require me to take a huge leap of faith in believability between the two. Revelation is in the Bible, resurrection is in the Bible, both are pretty fantastic stories. One is an accepted fact by Christians the other maybe just a dream. Doesn't have to be either or, but when resurrection is literal the line between what we should take literally and what we shouldn't gets mighty blurry.

The events in the Gospels (in particular, the resurrection) are essential to Christianity, as they prove Christ’s divinity. To paraphrase Paul, if there is no resurrection, there is no faith and we’re all fools. However, that’s not true of the Old Testament stories and John’s vision from Revelations. They can be interpreted in myriad ways without changing the base of the religion, which is that Christ is the incarnation of God.

I think most Christians interpret the stories from Acts and Paul’s letters in a literal sense as well. The events and teachings contained therein are integral to the church’s historical tradition and doctrine.

Regarding the Old Testament and whether it should be taken literally, all I’m gonna say is that it’s quite relevant right now. Indeed, fundamentalist Christians are amongst the most fervent zionists and supporters of Israel’s actions in Palestine.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

Can you lay out what you think it means for a text to be "the word of God"? What does that look like to you? How does it require that the texts behave? For example, why can't a dream or vision that is then written down be "the word of God"? Why can't a slight on Caesar be "the word of God"?

Yeah, so if God spoke or directly caused the vision then it's the word of God, his literal words. If it's just John having a dream and writing it down then it's a story. So to me which is it? Did God send the message to John? If he did then it's God's literal words and should be taken as such. If it's just John telling a story why bother attaching it to the word of God?

Does that make sense?

Yes, makes sense. That sounds close to a dictation theory; that God literally dictated the words to the authors. Is that your view of what is being claimed for Paul's letters and Genesis, for example? For those to be "the word of God", it would mean that God told Paul exactly what to write and God told the author of Genesis exactly what words to use to describe something that Abraham did?

BTW, I'm not sure I have a clear thought on what I think "word of God" means. I just have a bunch of things that I think it doesn't mean.

I understand your takes and it makes sense. No doubt a complicated set of ideas. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. And knowing what something isn't is just as good as knowing what it is sometimes.

My view is that all of it is the word of God from a religious standpoint. Whether the expectation for the reader is parables or literal interpretation it's all the word of God. Some it's told through stories and others a historical retelling of actual events. Unfortunately when we are left to make that decision ourselves or based on other men's interpretations we get picking and choosing and possibly the motivations of men can be self serving especially after multiple translations and retelling the stories over 1000s of years.

As i mentioned previous resurrection and Revelation don't require me to take a huge leap of faith in believability between the two. Revelation is in the Bible, resurrection is in the Bible, both are pretty fantastic stories. One is an accepted fact by Christians the other maybe just a dream. Doesn't have to be either or, but when resurrection is literal the line between what we should take literally and what we shouldn't gets mighty blurry.

The events in the Gospels (in particular, the resurrection) are essential to Christianity, as they prove Christ’s divinity. To paraphrase Paul, if there is no resurrection, there is no faith and we’re all fools. However, that’s not true of the Old Testament stories and John’s vision from Revelations. They can be interpreted in myriad ways without changing the base of the religion, which is that Christ is the incarnation of God.

I think most Christians interpret the stories from Acts and Paul’s letters in a literal sense as well. The events and teachings contained therein are integral to the church’s historical tradition and doctrine.

Regarding the Old Testament and whether it should be taken literally, all I’m gonna say is that it’s quite relevant right now. Indeed, fundamentalist Christians are amongst the most fervent zionists and supporters of Israel’s actions in Palestine.

I saw a short doc on fundamentalist Christian support of Isreal a few years back, i think it was Vice. Seemed pretty Old Testament fosure.

Old Testament stories were never presented to me in my Catholic upbringing as optional, or open to interpretation. That might be me being young and misunderstanding, but I think most of my Christian friends and family take most of the Bible quite literally including the Old Testament.

Is that the mainstream Christian view? That the Old Testament is open to interpretation?