ydoaPs's view on the Bible

[ydoaPs]

I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I think there is much to gain in reading the gospels how they were meant to be read-as individual documents by different authors(who may or may not have differing opinions about God just as different posters here may or may not have differing opinions about God) writing to different audiences. It really makes sense; would you try to understand what one poster here thinks by what a different poster writes? It's odd how this seems to be such a radical thing here. Reading the Bible in this manner lets us see what each author was trying to get across rather than a muddled mish-mash of opinions trying to be forced into one coherent view. A good example is the book of Matthew.

There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point.

In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies.

Other things about 7:14. The word 'virgin' is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes.

From a book by a Christian:

A danger in functional equivalency is importing too much into the target language, supplying more meaning than the original provided. An example is adding specificity lacking in the original. Many English translations did this in Isaiah 7:14 when they rendered the Hebrew word almah, meaning "a female...who has not yet borne a child,"69 as "virgin." The lack of sexual experience that is an integral part of the meaning of the English term virgin is not part of the specific meaning of the Hebrew term. That is, an almah may (Isa. 54:4) or may not have had sexual relations, since that is not the distinguishing semantic feature for the word, while virgin by definition cannot have had sexual relations.

69. John Walton, NIDOTTE 3.415-19, here 418. The LXXX renders the word as parthenos, which also indicates sexual maturity but not sexual experience or its lack.

Another example is the massacre of the innocents. There is no historical record of this event outside of Matthew. Does that alone mean it didn't happen? No. Did it happen? Probably not. Does it really matter if it happened if the gospel of Matthew is midrashic? No; what matters is the meaning.
Now, you might be wondering why I said it probably didn't happen. There are a few reasons:

• 
  1)Josephus goes through the trouble of a detailed chronicling the various atrocities of Herod. On the massacre, he is silent. It would be very unlikely for Josephus to leave it out.
  2)By human nature(especially of the people of antiquity), numbers get exaggerated(think of the fisherman recounting the prize catch of the day and the fish gets bigger with each telling). People involved tell other people and exaggerate a little bit. They tell others and exaggerate a little bit, etc. The event would likely be recorded by someone.
  3)The author of Matthew has other places that point to a tendency toward midrash.
  4)The story greatly parallels that of Moses(which is a great indicator that it's likely midrashic)

Now, the last point is really of interest, as it allows us to start to see why this story was added. To the author of Matthew, Jesus was a son of God, just like David(Psalm 2:7); he was the chosen one, just like Moses. As such, the author of Matthew makes several parallels between Jesus and Moses. The first one is the massacre of the innocents. The second is Jesus being brought out of Egypt afterward. We can see that the massacre of the innocents, like the virgin birth, are added to make Jesus special; to make him the chosen one. They may or may not be true, but they are clearly there for meaning, rather than history.

I don't really have time for any more examples tonight.

 

[follower of Christ]

Youve made some fine points...some of which are well thought out.
But let me ask you something.
Do your points change that what Matthew and other gospel writers said happened did happen ?

Just because Josephus didnt record the mass killing of infants, does that PROVE that it didnt happen ?
No.

So while your points are interesting, since they dont actually invalidate anything in scripture, those of us who trust that Gods word is historically accurate will continue to do so.
Who knows, maybe that supporting historical account is out there somewhere waiting to be found.
And when it is those who refused to believe will end up feeling foolish.

 

[ydoaPs]

Youve made some fine points...some of which are well thought out.
But let me ask you something.
Do your points change that what Matthew and other gospel writers said happened did happen ?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask.

So while your points are interesting, since they dont actually invalidate anything in scripture, those of us who trust that Gods word is historically accurate will continue to do so.
Who knows, maybe that supporting historical account is out there somewhere waiting to be found.

That is a great point. I thought I said something along those lines, but I may have left it out as I am a bit tired at the moment(long day at work with my partner out. I had to run the entire rec center alone :verysad )

And when it is those who refused to believe will end up feeling foolish.

Not necessarily. The events aren't required to be true to have the intended meaning. It's not foolish to hold out on belief in the literal veracity of events in question until substantiating evidence comes along yet hold onto beliefs about Jesus based on the meaning of said events.

 

[follower of Christ]

Not necessarily.

So you'll feel just fine after being told something for decades and rejecting it only to find out you were wrong all along ?
Myself, I'd feel a bit foolish. Maybe thats just me.

The events aren't required to be true to have the intended meaning.

Certainly are.
The intended meaning of the bible as a whole is Gods redemptive plan for mankind.
If the details of that plan are wrong, then the plan itself is also fallacious by default.
If Jesus did not literally die for mankind..if He was not the Son of the living God..then the entire plan is pretty much meaningless.

It's not foolish to hold out on belief in the literal veracity of events in question until substantiating evidence comes along yet hold onto beliefs about Jesus based on the meaning of said events.

Thats a pretty silly statement.
So we believe in the literal fact that God has a plan to save mankind but we just dont think we can trust the details of that plan.
If you cannot trust the details given in the gospels then NONE of the details can be accepted as being even remotely accurate.

If ANY of it is in error then ALL of it is subject to being false.
Sorry but thems just the facts.

And no, Im not speaking about petty issues such as copyists error.

.

 

[ydoaPs]

Not necessarily.

So you'll feel just fine after being told something for decades and rejecting it only to find out you were wrong all along ?
Myself, I'd feel a bit foolish. Maybe thats just me.

Did you feel foolish when you found out that they found the ruins of Troy? I think you might be overestimating the amount of weight put on whether or not the events in question are true.

[quote:1bqwlcx2]The events aren't required to be true to have the intended meaning.

Certainly are.
The intended meaning of the bible as a whole is Gods redemptive plan for mankind.
If the details of that plan are wrong, then the plan itself is also fallacious by default.[/quote:1bqwlcx2]
So, what about Jesus's parables? Are they meaningless if they're not true?

If Jesus did not literally die for mankind..

That depends on your brand of Christianity.

if He was not the Son of the living God..then the entire plan is pretty much meaningless.

How so? What if he was just the son of God in exactly the same way that David was? What if he was just the chosen one; the anointed one? How does that make it meaningless?

[quote:1bqwlcx2] It's not foolish to hold out on belief in the literal veracity of events in question until substantiating evidence comes along yet hold onto beliefs about Jesus based on the meaning of said events.

Thats a pretty silly statement.
So we believe in the literal fact that God has a plan to save mankind but we just dont think we can trust the details of that plan.
[/quote:1bqwlcx2]So, the story of Nazareth and the Rich Man is meaningless since it's not true?

"artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up."- V for Vendetta

Or do you disregard the entire idea behind the Jewish tradition of midrash?

If you cannot trust the details given in the gospels then NONE of the details can be accepted as being even remotely accurate.

If ANY of it is in error then ALL of it is subject to being false.

Why? What if it wasn't intended to be a literal history, but rather a collection of parables to minister truth about God?

 

[follower of Christ]

Did you feel foolish when you found out that they found the ruins of Troy?

Why would I ? I didnt insist they werent there, did I ?

I think you might be overestimating the amount of weight put on whether or not the events in question are true.

And I dont think you are taking this as serious as it is.
If ANY of the scriptures are false then ALL of them are subject to suspicion.
If the account of this slaughter is false, then the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is also subject to being just as false.

So, what about Jesus's parables? Are they meaningless if they're not true?

Not even remotely the same.
Jesus telling a story to make a point has nothing to do with causing doubt that He even existed to tell that story.
Apples and oranges, Im afraid.

 

[cyberjosh]

YdoaPs wrote the following in the other thread. Reproducing here to continue the discussion here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Textual criticism. The same way we can tell the motives of ANY text's author.

There are different hermeneutics for textual criticism, so how do you assess which person's theories are correct?

Read each book in isolation. Read it for what the author had to say. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to ask.

What I'm getting at is why and how do you determine that looking at the gospels as midrashic is valid?

The above example is one of many. If we take it as midrash, we can say that each individual work is inerrant in the meaning it portrays, but not necessarily in the 'facts' with which said meaning is presented.If it's not midrash, then there are serious problems for the inerrantists.

For example:

Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5.

Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great(4BC, but another says he was born after the census(which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area.

We are left with a 10 year discrepancy between gospels. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's.

I've made another thread for the discussion of what I think on the subject and why. I'd really rather reserve this thread for discussion of the SoF at hand and the justification thereof.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of post by ydoaPs.

 

[follower of Christ]

That depends on your brand of Christianity.

There is only one brand of Christianity, friend. And that brand is the one that believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God died and was resurrected from the dead.
Those who refuse to believe that detail arent Christians. The are make believers.

How so? What if he was just the son of God in exactly the same way that David was?

Is that what scripture says about Jesus ? That He was just a son in the same way David was ?
Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. He is not David.

What if he was just the chosen one; the anointed one? How does that make it meaningless?

Because scripture says that He IS God.
If you cannot believe THAT detail then why believe any of it ?

 

[follower of Christ]

So, the story of Nazareth and the Rich Man is meaningless since it's not true?

Now youre taking my words and twisting them.
The point in that particular instance is that the RECORD that the person Jesus DID tell that parable is accurate...it DID happen.
Youre trying to bring the accuracy and validity of scriptures into question, which has nothing to do with something being literal or not.

Or do you disregard the entire idea behind the Jewish tradition of midrash?

I dont even bother considering Jewish tradition.
Jewish tradition is one of the main things that got them into so much trouble.

 

[follower of Christ]

Why? What if it wasn't intended to be a literal history, but rather a collection of parables to minister truth about God?

Because it isnt all written AS a parable.
Much of it is written AS historical accounts.
If those accounts are false then ALL of it is subject to being just as false.

Please stop trying to bait and switch here with this parable nonsense.
We ALL know that there is a lot of allegory, parable, visions and prophecy in scripture. That has nothing to do with the HISTORICAL accounts being false.

Why even bother arguing your case if you cant quite comparing apples to oranges here ?

.

 

[ydoaPs]

That depends on your brand of Christianity.

There is only one brand of Christianity, friend.

Which one? Catholics? Baptists? Methodists? Calvinists? Mormon? Presbyterian? Wesleyan?

It reminds me of a joke:

A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, "Religion?"

The man says, "Methodist."

St. Peter looks down his list, and says, "Go to room 24, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."

Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. "Religion?"

"Presbyterian."

"Go to room 18, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."

A third man arrives at the gates. "Religion?"

"Luteran."

"Go to room 11, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."

The man says, "I can understand there being different rooms for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass room 8?"

St. Peter tells him, "Well Baptists are in room 8 and they think they're the only ones here."

[quote:3erynqxa]How so? What if he was just the son of God in exactly the same way that David was?

Is that what scripture says about Jesus ? That He was just a son in the same way David was ?
Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. He is not David.[/quote:3erynqxa]
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee."-Psalm 2:7
Israel was also called the 'son of God' a few times. The phrase doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.

[quote:3erynqxa] What if he was just the chosen one; the anointed one? How does that make it meaningless?

Because scripture says that He IS God.
If you cannot believe THAT detail then why believe any of it ?[/quote:3erynqxa]
Why not?

What do you think of the example the moderator spliced in?

 

[ydoaPs]

So, the story of Lazareth and the Rich Man is meaningless since it's not true?

Now youre taking my words and twisting them.
The point in that particular instance is that the RECORD that the person Jesus DID tell that parable is accurate...it DID happen.

Did the story Jesus told happen or not? Does it have meaning or not?

Youre trying to bring the accuracy and validity of scriptures into question, which has nothing to do with something being literal or not.

No. I'm bringing the genre into question. Historical accuracy has nothing to do with the validity of the message. Jesus taught us that with parables.

[quote:xl7oow5b]Or do you disregard the entire idea behind the Jewish tradition of midrash?

I dont even bother considering Jewish tradition.
Jewish tradition is one of the main things that got them into so much trouble.[/quote:xl7oow5b]
You do know Jesus was a Jew, right? The early Christians were Jews. How on Earth do you think you understand the message if you "don't even bother considering Jewish tradition"?

 

[ydoaPs]

Please stop trying to bait and switch here with this parable nonsense.

You can't just declare it non-sense because you don't like it. Give a reason for it being non-sense. It seems like a perfectly valid example of conveying truth by telling fiction. What's the difference?

 

[follower of Christ]

Did the story Jesus told happen or not? Does it have meaning or not?

AGAIN...the parable is ALLEGORY...it isnt MEANT to be literal.
Is this adding up or not?
The ISSUE here is whether Jesus actually lived and told that parable.

You baited this entire discussion with supposed HISTORICAL inaccuracies and now childishly are trying to use PARABLES that werent MEANT to be take literally as your ridiculous support.

 

[follower of Christ]

You do know Jesus was a Jew, right? The early Christians were Jews.

NOOO!?!?! You dont say ?!?!

I guess I need a bible lesson from you after 25 years and many thousands of hours of bible study.

How on Earth do you think you understand the message if you "don't even bother considering Jewish tradition"?

God didnt ask the Jews to create their own unbiblical, godless tradition.
I dont need to understand the JEWS to understand GODS WORD of instruction to them.

And I like how youre reaching now to any irrelevant issue you can to mask the fact that you arent able to actually present a believable case here.

Ive studied the Jews well enough. Well enough to know that their godless traditions were one primary reason they were constantly in trouble with God.

 

[follower of Christ]

You can't just declare it non-sense because you don't like it.

Certainly can.
YOU started this discussion primarily using HISTORICAL inaccuracies as your argument.
Then you run to parables that ARENT MEANT to even be historically accurate for your support.
The points you made originally were fine, but now youre getting too desperate and are becoming sloppy in presenting your case.
You ought to have stuck with details from Josephus and the like....at least that would have been a bit more acceptable than this parable nonsense.

Give a reason for it being non-sense. It seems like a perfectly valid example of conveying truth by telling fiction. What's the difference?

See above.

 

[ydoaPs]

Did the story Jesus told happen or not? Does it have meaning or not?

AGAIN...the parable is ALLEGORY...it isnt MEANT to be literal.

Neither is the birth narrative in Matthew. That's my point.

You baited this entire discussion with supposed HISTORICAL inaccuracies and now childishly are trying to use PARABLES that werent MEANT to be take literally as your ridiculous support.

You have no idea what I'm trying to say, do you?

God didnt ask the Jews to create their own unbiblical, godless tradition.

That's priceless.

 

[ydoaPs]

You can't just declare it non-sense because you don't like it.

Certainly can.
YOU started this discussion primarily using HISTORICAL inaccuracies as your argument.

What, exactly, do you think I'm arguing?

Then you run to parables that ARENT MEANT to even be historically accurate for your support.

Exactly.

The points you made originally were fine

They're the same points.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hello ydaoPs,

The above example is one of many. If we take it as midrash, we can say that each individual work is inerrant in the meaning it portrays, but not necessarily in the 'facts' with which said meaning is presented.If it's not midrash, then there are serious problems for the inerrantists.

Regarding the midrash interpretation consider what is written in this book on google books: here. Maybe we can discuss this based on what is written there.

For example:

Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5.

Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great(4BC, but another says he was born after the census(which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area.

We are left with a 10 year discrepancy between gospels. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's.

I've made another thread for the discussion of what I think on the subject and why. I'd really rather reserve this thread for discussion of the SoF at hand and the justification thereof.

I am sure that all your dates are correct, else a quick reference to Josephus could clarify the correct dates, but I will defer to a commentary I have from John MacArthur in my commentary Bible on this issue:

Comments on Luke 2:2:

Fixing a precise date for this census is problematic. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius is known to have governed Syria during A.D.6-9. A well known census was taken in Palestine in A.D. 6. Josephus records that it sparked a violent Jewish revolt (mentioned by Luke, quoting Gamliel in Acts 5:37). Quirinus was responsible for administering that census, and he also played a major role in quelling the subsequent rebellion. However, that cannot be the census Luke has in mind here because it occured about a decade after the death of Herod (see note on Matthew 2:1), much too late to fit Luke's chronology (cf. 1:5). In light of Luke's meticulous care as a historian, it would be unreasonsable to charge him with such an obvious anachronism. Indeed archaeology has vindicated Luke. A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli (in Rome) in A.D. 1764 contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who, it states, was twice governor of Syria and Phonecia during the reign of Augustus. The name of the official is not on the fragment but among his accomplishments are listed details that, as far as is known, can fit no one other than Quirinius. Thus he must have served as governor in Syria twice. He was probably military governor at the same time that history records Verus was civil governor there. With regard to the dating of the census some ancient records in Egypt mention a worldwide census ordered in 8 BC. That date is not without problems either. It is generally thought by scholars that 6 B.C. is the earliest possible date for Christ's birth. Evidently the census was ordered by Ceasar Augustus in 8 B.C. but was not actually carried out in Palestine until 2-4 years later, perhaps because of the political difficulties between Rome and Herod. Therefore, the precise year of Chirst's birth cannot be known with certainty, but it was was probably no earlier than 6 B.C. and certainly no later than 4 B.C. Luke readers familiar with the political history of that era would no doubt have been able to discern the precise date for the information he gave.

I thought you might be interested in that commentary. I whole-heartedly agree that Luke was a meticulous historian of the events he wrote about. It would be unreasonable to say otherwise.

P.S. I'm curious as to the meaning of your screen name. An acronym? Just wondering.

~Josh

 

[ydoaPs]

Regarding the midrash interpretation consider what is written in this book on google books: here. Maybe we can discuss this based on what is written there.

I'll check that out. Thank you for bringing a calm head to this subject. Many people come in with preconceived notions about the Bible and then form assumptions about what I am trying to say based on said notions.

I thought you might be interested in that commentary. I wholehartedly agree that Luke was a meticulous historian of the events he wrote about. It would be unreasonable to say otherwise.

~Josh

I'm well aware of that inscription and didn't mention it as it is rather irrelevant. It doesn't say who they are talking about and it doesn't say that both rules were in Syria. In conjunction with that, we know of no Roman census of the area prior to 6AD. And if you'd note the red bold part of my post, Rome didn't have the power to census the area until Herod's son was deposed. It is unreasonable to think the inscription is talking about Quirinius

P.S. I'm curious as to the meaning of your screen name. An acronym? Just wondering.

~Josh

Yes, it's an acronym. I've used this handle for many years now. The meaning will remain a secret