Ted and Jester thread....

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Jester

Ted, I am often confused about which parts of the bible you accept as truth and which parts you reject outright because of so called 'inconsistancies' in interpretation or manuscripts. I was wondering if you could delete the books of the bible from this list below that you believe are not historically accurate, or contain myth, or fairytails?

Thanks!

By setting the question at such a coarse level you admit to only one possible answer so that come under the category of a trick question.

Every book of the Bible contains truth and parable - so to answer the question in the way it is framed is to ignore the truth that you both acknowledge the Bible to contain.

Why not reverse the question and ask Ted which books he accepts contain truth?

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

By setting the question at such a coarse level you admit to only one possible answer so that come under the category of a trick question.

Every book of the Bible contains truth and parable - so to answer the question in the way it is framed is to ignore the truth that you both acknowledge the Bible to contain.

Why not reverse the question and ask Ted which books he accepts contain truth?

I don't mean it as a trick question, Ted and I have often struggled with this issue on other threads and the issue gets sidetracked because it does not fit in the topic at hand. I was hoping to pick up where we left off but I could not find the last post regarding this issue. To the best of my recollection it was asked in similar fashion by me.

My intention is to try to narrow down what he means by myth, and 'inconsistancies; which he has mentioned before as to why he rejects large portions of scripture. I agree 'delete' may not have been the best way to ask, How about we change it to highlight or bold?

I will go back and change 'delete' to 'highlight' or 'bold'.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Ted]

jester

No problem. Damned power interruption. I had almost completed a lengthy post when the lights flickered.

There is no book in the Bible that I reject. Truth can be presented in many ways; historical accuracy, myth, legend, poetry etc. The problem with using the term myth today results from the enlightenment. Folks came to believe that if it was not historical it was not true. If one couldn't prove it physically and rationally it was simply a lie. This approach, however, ignores a large part of human experience and the attendant feelings. These are every bit a real as a stone or water. However, they cannot be tested.

What I resent, and I suspect you do as well, is people trying to tell me what I've experienced. How do they know? Only I know what I experienced. The same holds true for yours.

Myth as understood by theologians, philosophers and Bible scholars is a story created to present a truth. So if we look at the creation stories the truths presented are; God created all that is. How? We don't know since no one was there. He also created man in his image. Does this mean God has arms and legs as we do? Since God is spirit does it mean that we were created as spiritual beings?

The Bible was written in an ancient Hebrew style called midrash. It has a narrower meaning today. In ancient times it was both a style of interpretation and writing. A newer experience or feeling was defined in terms of a past experience or feeling. For example Joshua walked across the Jordan on dry land reflects the most important myth in Hebrew history, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land. This is an indication of how important that story is to them.

The story of the Exodus is seen as a myth because there is not one shred of evidence that it happened as written. It may have come out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. So than one must ask, "What is it saying to us and what did it say to the Hebrews. A lot of analysis could go into this but I will point out a few. It is written to prove that God saves His people. What does He save them from?--enemies, slavery or bondage found in the personal lives of each of us,(one might call it a sin or the human condition, depression and so on. In other words it is every persons story. At some time or another we are subjected to persecution, whether religious or otherwise, slavery to our own thought processes or our behaviours etc. One could find dozens of other truths presented therein.

It is this that makes it a universal story. It makes it everyone's story not just the story of a local tribe.

One could say that the Bible present the more than history. It has a much broader presentation of truth that was thought after the reformation. There are some historical points made but very few. However, the Bible presents more than profound truths "that shall be to all people."

Our experiences of divine reality are not in any way analyzable with rationalism. In fact rationalism becomes a tyranny. Thus I never engage in a discussion on the existence of God. For me that is beyond question. My experiences, as yours, have proven to me the reality of divinity.

All of the Bible presents truth. We simply need the Guidance of the Holy Spirit with some effort on our part to see what the human race is being told. It is not the inerrant word of God but because God does speak to each of us through the Bible it becomes the word of God. This is what makes the Christian faith a living, developing faith.

I hope this answers your questions. If not ask further.

Shalom
Ted

[Ted]

I'll have to get to the other threads later. Our condo discussion group is meeting in a very few minutes. There are a few atheists there but we do enjoy our discussions. There are also some Christians there. Got to keep the brain working to ward off dementia and Alzheimer's. So far so good.

Shalom
Ted

[Ted]

rjwould

That would be nice but I doubt it will happen. But then things do happen. ??????

Shalom
Ted

Ted: There is no book in the Bible that I reject. Truth can be presented in many ways; historical accuracy, myth, legend, poetry etc. The problem with using the term myth today results from the enlightenment. Folks came to believe that if it was not historical it was not true. If one couldn't prove it physically and rationally it was simply a lie. This approach, however, ignores a large part of human experience and the attendant feelings. These are every bit a real as a stone or water. However, they cannot be tested.

I agree, a concept can be presented in many ways other than using an historical fact or retelling an historical occurance, but, that concept is weaker than when it comes from a truthful occurance.

I'll give you an example from my own life, years ago, and I mean years ago, my grandfather told me some stories based on folklore, these were early american pioneer stories about life on the frontier in the 1770's. Amazing stories of bravery and the good old fashioned hickory backbone of the American spirit. I believed them, totally, and those stories shaped my life outlook. I became the young frontiersmen/trapper in his stories and lived my rural life in 1970's with that spirit. As I grew older in my young teens I realized my grampa never presented them as 'truth', they were always just stories for entertainment sake, that also taught a moral lesson. They were good stories, and they helped, but the reality was for me inside that I no longer believed them to the degree I did before and the ferver of the characters lives simply became nothing more than a fairytale, not real, and certainly not worth basing my life after.

The history I learned along side of those was the very specific stories of the Bible. Those were real men and women who lived under Gods direction that were shown directly by God how to live.

If Adam, as you say, is not a real person, but a fictitious character in an explaination about how generic 'mankind' came into being, then all it is, is a lie, not truth, but a lie. Why would God who claims to be truth use a lie to make his point? Why start off telling mankind they were created by him and not tell them some specifcs? It just doesnt make logical sense, when God has the perfect ability to recall all things that previously occured perfectly?

It is not logical, and from what I read about God, his character and attributes, and my experience with him personally is that he uses truth an a regular basis and does not lie at all. For Genisis and most of the old testament to be 'myth' is just not consistant with God being perfect.

What I resent, and I suspect you do as well, is people trying to tell me what I've experienced. How do they know? Only I know what I experienced. The same holds true for yours.

All my life I have run across folks that chose not to believe the bible is the truth historically. I have been ridiculed, laughed at, told I'll never experience the real world if I'm stopped up in the past. I been told before that the bible has no power to change anyone, I've lost friends becasue I wont side step thier sin and let them make excuses for thier actions. Ive been told so many times that Im wrong, that it dont really bother me any more, cause I can look back and see the times in my life when I followed the biblical advice as truth and had all things work out for my betterment, than if I had compromised and went against the truth as presented in scripture. For me, keeping the bible as truth has helped me live it out in my real life. I wont apologize for that to anyone. I dont think I resent anyone anymore. Oh things people say still bother me at times I wouldnt be human otherwise. But for me I've just learned that Its better not to get in their faces with it, If I'm around when someone takes into calamity, especially someone who had asked my advice and then rejected it, some how our faces meet up and with the looks and sometimes verbalizing I know for certain that God had impressed upon thier heart that they should have listened and followed the turth as presented in scripture.

Myth as understood by theologians, philosophers and Bible scholars is a story created to present a truth. So if we look at the creation stories the truths presented are; God created all that is. How? We don't know since no one was there. He also created man in his image. Does this mean God has arms and legs as we do? Since God is spirit does it mean that we were created as spiritual beings?

I see analogies in the bible, I see parables as well, I see metaphoric language too, but I see by either the context or the verbage that it expressly states that it is metaphor, or 'like unto', or a parable spoken in the section of scripture, when that happens the rest of the context clearly explains what it is that is meant by what it says.

The Bible was written in an ancient Hebrew style called midrash. It has a narrower meaning today. In ancient times it was both a style of interpretation and writing. A newer experience or feeling was defined in terms of a past experience or feeling. For example Joshua walked across the Jordan on dry land reflects the most important myth in Hebrew history, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land. This is an indication of how important that story is to them.

Never would I ever ever question that the great Warrior and Leader Joshua did not actually step unto dry river bed when he literally crossed the red sea and later the river Jordan with all of Israel passing the same way. It was a miracle, noised abroad and it made the inhabitants of the territory fear the God of the Israelites.

The story of the Exodus is seen as a myth because there is not one shred of evidence that it happened as written. It may have come out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. So than one must ask, "What is it saying to us and what did it say to the Hebrews. A lot of analysis could go into this but I will point out a few. It is written to prove that God saves His people. What does He save them from?--enemies, slavery or bondage found in the personal lives of each of us,(one might call it a sin or the human condition, depression and so on. In other words it is every persons story. At some time or another we are subjected to persecution, whether religious or otherwise, slavery to our own thought processes or our behaviours etc. One could find dozens of other truths presented therein.

It is this that makes it a universal story. It makes it everyone's story not just the story of a local tribe.

If the Exodus did not happen as recorded then I cannot believe that God could or would deliver me from any enemy whatsoever. Dont you see, if God did not allow this to happen in reality then how can I trust him to do it to me? It becomes just a great frontiersman story told to me by my grandfather, it can teach a concept but it lacks the ability for the concept to take root as truth in my heart.

One could say that the Bible present the more than history. It has a much broader presentation of truth that was thought after the reformation. There are some historical points made but very few. However, the Bible presents more than profound truths "that shall be to all people."

Our experiences of divine reality are not in any way analyzable with rationalism. In fact rationalism becomes a tyranny. Thus I never engage in a discussion on the existence of God. For me that is beyond question. My experiences, as yours, have proven to me the reality of divinity.

All of the Bible presents truth. We simply need the Guidance of the Holy Spirit with some effort on our part to see what the human race is being told. It is not the inerrant word of God but because God does speak to each of us through the Bible it becomes the word of God. This is what makes the Christian faith a living, developing faith.

How can something be broader than truth? I hold truth to be one of the foundations of life. The bible alone is merely a book of history, poetry, love, triumph and downfall of humanity, lawbook, religious book, etc. But the bible with belief and the Holy Spirits illumination becomes the word fo God, the deeper truths become evident, but I reject the notion that a 'broader' truth exists. To me that statement of a borader deffinition adds to the bible things that arent there. I don't want human thinking contaminating the scripture to get a 'broader' truth, to me thats a humanistic lie.

I agree, God is. Why argue any further his existance.

I hope this answers your questions. If not ask further.

I have many more questions, and I appreciate your honesty and openess. Please lets not take offense this time and end this conversation. I mean all these things more pleadingly than in defense or to counter your statements.

[Ted]

jester

Thanks for the response. No offense meant and none taken.

I do not see myth in the say way your grandfather told you stories. Myth does not present lies it presents truth.

I firmly believe that the Bible does make a difference in folks lives. I do not question that. Nor do I question your right to believe as you do. In fact millions for the past 400-500 years have followed the same line. It is not one I can accept but if others can I see no harm in it on a personal level.

As you know I have some other reservations but in this context they are not important.

If, as I contend, we cannot with our language and our conceptualization ability, in any way describe or define God than when we read the Bible there is truth far beyond what we can read or understand--"The more than.'

If you wish to move along in topic that is fine with me.

Shalom
Ted

Originally Posted by Ted

jester

Thanks for the response. No offense meant and none taken.

I do not see myth in the say way your grandfather told you stories. Myth does not present lies it presents truth.

I firmly believe that the Bible does make a difference in folks lives. I do not question that. Nor do I question your right to believe as you do. In fact millions for the past 400-500 years have followed the same line. It is not one I can accept but if others can I see no harm in it on a personal level.

As you know I have some other reservations but in this context they are not important.

If, as I contend, we cannot with our language and our conceptualization ability, in any way describe or define God than when we read the Bible there is truth far beyond what we can read or understand--"The more than.'

If you wish to move along in topic that is fine with me.

Shalom
Ted

I know you see the bible as a holy book that teaches truth, thats why I'm willing to strive with you a bit and discuss this. If you rejected it outright I'd not waste my time. I appreciate that about you.

The result of the way one belives the bible makes for differing application though and Im sure you agree. Since both of us have come from a biblical fundamentalist back ground I still hold the bible as truth and you as myth capable fo teaching truth, I am interested in your testimony of how you came to change your mind about from my stance to your current position. Why did you changed your mind?

[Ted]

jester

A good question which I shall answer shortly. I have other chores to do at the moment.

Shalom
Ted

[Ted]

jester

I generally refrain from denominational comments so I will not mention the church I was raised in except to say that it was extremely fundamentalist.

As I grew older and began to think and reason I realized that what was being preached was not being followed by a large number of people. Now I know this happens in every church so that is not the only reason.

I listened almost every Sunday to how the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians etc. were all going to hell because . . . One should look after the plank in one's own eye.

I listened every Sunday to a repent and be saved sermon. Essentially it was always the same message and I believed there was far more to Christianity then that.

I began to think about the things that were talked about and found them simply impossible to believe. I read a wide variety of fundamentalist literature and began to find it simply ludicrous. i.e. the sun does not stand still for a day. That would mean the earth itself would have to stop revolving. I began to read and see that the creation stories were simply stories. Far too many things were beyond belief. I came to believe that God does not work in such a way. He has no need to. We do not see these spectacular things today. If God doesn't change then why has this stopped. Actually these things did not happen. Evolution is another point.

At that point I decided to go to the Presbyterian church. The fundy minister cornered me one day in his car and asked how I could possibly . . ,. His comments in my mind, heart and soul were far from what I read in the Bible. As a Presbyterian I became a student minister in the Pres. church. I went to university and studied theological topics including translation and interpretation. At this point I realized that my fundy minister simply did not know what he was talking about.

To add in here an incident that I only recently found out from my father before he passed away only confirmed my earlier thoughts. This preacher, at the funeral of a child some 4 weeks old, publicly said that the child died because its parents had some unconfessed sin. This child was my sister. My mother took the hurt and pain of that horrible comment to her grave. This was not in any shape or form Christian. Where was this church when my parents needed it. Off in never never land. I have since forgiven this preacher and hope that God will have mercy on him.

Now in all of this I was in much prayer. I was looking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I received that guidance and have been thoroughly convinced that I am on the right track. I decided to become and Anglican and have subsequently realized that the practices in the Anglican communion are very close to the ancient church created by the Apostles.

My studies, which I continue to engage in both formally at the Vancouver School of Theology and informally at my own desk and my constant prayers have more than convinced me that I am indeed following in the footsteps of my Lord. This is my calling and my vocation and my church is well aware of my thoughts and they find nothing to be concerned about. In fact I am called upon not only to preach but lead discussion groups.

A somewhat long story but there it is in brief.

I would like to add that yesterday on the radio I listened to an oncologist Dr. Rob Buckman who spoke of an American lady who came to see him in Canada. She was very upset and convinced that she was dying. When questioned she said that her fundamentalist minister told her that she was suffering from breast cancer because God was punishing her and that she would die. The Dr. confirmed that yes she had breast cancer but that she was not dying. When I heard this I was furious. It was a good example of another fundy preacher who had no idea as to what he was saying.

None of this is rare. I have visited other churches and spoken to folks from others. This is a common practice in many churches including one on this island.

A closing comment. If I had not been convinced of the veracity of the Christian faith and the validity of the Bible my experiences in the fundamentalist church would have sent me to either Buddhism or atheism. However, I Knew better.

As a Christian pluralist I am at peace with God and my fellow man.

Shalom
Ted