Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Now, I may not be a biblical scholar like Didymus over here, but I would certainly not consider the bible fantasy. I consider much of it metaphorical, but much of it I also believe.

oh... and...

TOTPD!!!!!

_________________

I think the Bible is a very important and significant work. Just as the Vedas and countless other religious documents are. Holy scriptures are intriguing documents, because of the influence they carry. Think about it, people live and die for these writings.

Given that, it's hard for me to see other people brush as just silly fantasy without appreciating it from a historical and literary viewpoint. The Christian Bible is probably one of the biggest sources of inspiration for western literature. And saying that it's one of the biggest sources of inspiration for western civilization would be a gross understatement. It's really no surprise why so many secular educational institutions make it required reading (along with other holy texts of various faiths) for people who study language or history.

Actually, some of the events in Revelation are starting to come true. For example, a new chip implant technology currently used to track clubbers' activities may one day replace UPC codes, credit cards, and even ID cards! This looks, to some Christians, like Revelation 13:17-"And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either name the name of the beast or the number representing his name." (NLT)

_________________

Well, unless RFID is Satan's other name, I think that's a pretty loose interpretation.

But then again, that's merely one interpretation. When I see an interpretation of a bible passage, I like to ask the question "what else could this have meant?" This one's giving me a little bit of trouble. Could you put it in context for me?

_________________

The events of Revelation have been coming true since St. John wrote it in the 1st Century. St. John didn't write anything at all about any chip technology at all. He was writing about the pagan religion, which required the worship of the Emperor's statue. And FYI, the name "Nero" when transcribed into Hebrew from the Greek, adds up to 666. And those Christians who refused to worship Nero were imprisoned and their property was confiscated.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe that St. John was addressing the churches of his day (albeit with lessons we in the 21st century can learn as well). Remember: LEFT BEHIND is a piece of fiction, and should not be accorded the same authority as either Scripture or history.

Lesson learned: don't buy into the latest millennialist fads. In 200 years, they'll just be replaced anyway. By then, "The Beast" will probably be Switzerland or something. Christians are not called to decipher the secrets of the universe, but to remain faithful and obedient to Christ as they wait expectantly for his return.

Plaster-Dude - there is one chief difference between LOTR and Sacred Scripture which Tolkien himself would point out: LOTR was written to be a fantasy, and the Bible was written to be history. People take the Bible seriously because the authors intended us to. Tolkien would be appalled if he knew people were taking his LOTR as seriously as some do. He certainly would be appalled that anyone equated his own writings with the Bible he loved so much.

_________________

Thanks Didymus. I knew something was fishy about that arguement. Back in St. John's day, how could anyone have predicted that there'd be chip implant thingies?

Tolkein was religious? Interesting. Tolkein was an incredible man. Being a literary and linguistic genius, having a mind for fantasy and plot, and an overall really smart guy, I'm surprised he found TIME for the Bible. But then again, Tolkein was just a remarkable person in general.

_________________

Actually, if you get your hands on a Jerusalem Bible, just take a look at the editorial staff listed. He might also be listed in the New Jerusalem Bible, too, but I'm not certain.

Yes, Tolkien was religious. In fact, many people attribute the conversion of popular writer C.S. Lewis to Christianity to conversations he had with Tolkien.

As far as Revelation goes, I do believe that some of what St. John saw was indeed prophetic, but intended primarily as a warning to the Christians who were about to undergo severe persecution at the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd.

Part of the problem is that modern Christians tend to remove Revelation from its historical context and try to understand it according to modern events. This is bad exegesis. They see Russian tanks and nuclear bombs where St. John was actually talking about Roman soldiers. That stupid LEFT BEHIND series hasn't really done much to restore good biblical eschatology, either.

_________________

Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for entertainment. Word of God it may be, but it has the dullest lingustic style of any book ever written.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

^That would depend on the translation you're using. A recent one called The Message by Eugene Peterson was translated from the Hebrew & Greek directly into casual American English.

_________________

But then again, that doesn't make reading it necessarily interesting for everyone

_________________

Ian means that Eugene Peterson uses, not just modern words, but also modern idioms. His goal was to create a translation that would connect with people, not just accurately render the text. Personally, I prefer the English Standard Version among modern translations, but whatever gets people to read it.

_________________

That should be interesting to read academically.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I regard the Old Testament as mythology, and the New Testament as historical events mangled to seem like mythology. With the exception of Revelations, which is once again flat-out mythology.

I don't trust the reliability of any of the Bible. Even the New Testament. All of the New Testament was written after Jesus died: the gospels were all written at various points between AD 70 and AD 100, and even the letters and stuff between the gospels and Revelations (which was written around AD 100) was written at least 20 years after Jesus was crucified. Over that time, Jesus's image could have changed from "wise and kind teacher who was framed as an anti-Roman conspirator and crucified" to "divine man and miracle worker who was crucified at the hands of the evil, evil Jews".

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

But it was written by men who took very seriously what they wrote, even to the point that they all suffered horrible deaths for what they wrote. Now, even Galileo recanted his cosmology when the pressure was on, even when he was right. I seriously doubt that, with the kind of pressure the early church suffered, that the apostles would stand so firmly by their writings UNLESS they were true.

And the Gospels and Revelation (a singular word, as my professor made sure we understood) were written by men who KNEW Jesus personally. Except for Luke. But although he wasn't around at the time, he did extensive research prior to writing his Gospel. Anyway, I seriously doubt that St. John or St. Matthew simply forgot about the Jesus they knew and simply made up a new one.

You claim that the Old Testament is mere myth. How can you be certain of that? What makes you so certain that it didn't really happen?

_________________

It's a belief, Didymus. Just as you believe that the stories of the Old Testament are true, he believes they are false. Tell me why you believe it is true. Because you were taught? Because you believe? Because it says so in a book? Those are about as good reasons as Jerome can give for his claim.

_________________

1. I've already given reasons why I think the New Testament is valid. Not only that, but my own spiritual experiences testify to this as well.

2. Since the New Testament is true, then Jesus really is an authority on what ought to be accepted as true, most importantly about himself, but also about the works of God throughout history.

3. Jesus accepted the Tanak as true, and seems to have expected his followers to believe it as well. When debating with his enemies and instructing disciples, he frequently cited the Tanak as authoritative.

Therefore, since Jesus accepted the Tanak, then so do I.

_________________

Well, maybe Jerome's one experiences lead him not to believe the New Testiment as true.

_________________

If that's true, he hasn't expressed that. And even so, he'd still have the evidential questions to answer. Experience is fine and dandy, but it's not everything.

_________________

But so do you. That's all I'm trying to say. You can't say: "The Bible is 100% true absolutely just because I believe it is." It could be 100% true, but that's different than saying that it IS.

_________________

Except if you had been paying attention, you'd notice that I did give reasons. I have been all along. Things like:

1. The New Testament was written by men who took its contents seriously, even to the point that they were willing to die for it (contra the argument, "It was made up by some jerks who wanted to discredit the Jews.")

2. The New Testament (particularly the Gospels) read like historical accounts that the authors intended for the readers to take seriously (contra the argument, "They're no different from THE LORD OF THE RINGS.")

3. The writers of the New Testament were, for the most part, people who knew Jesus personally. The few exceptions (most notably St. Luke) were people who were very closely associated with people who knew him personally (contra the argument, "It was all made up several decades after his death, and all the facts got mixed up.").

All of these add up to one thing: the events of the New Testament did happen just as they are described, and the New Testament can and should be considered a reliable testamony and interpretation of those events.

I refer to my own experience for this reason: I have served my God for about 12 years now, and 2 of those years have been professionally. Because of the work I have seen God do in my own life, I can testify for my part that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord of the Universe. I'm not wishy-washy about what I believe. I'm not being blown about by any new idea that comes along. I have been firmly rooted in him. If that doesn't make sense to someone, it is because that person has not been rooted that way. I mean, as much as I hate to sound like I'm attacking you, Evin, I must point out that you yourself have described yourself as shifting your own religious philosophies quite regularly, and even now you describe yourself as uncertain about whether you will continue to believe what you believe now. I can no longer imagine myself in that place; and the reason is precisely because God has been at work in my life.

I am reminded of the words of the martyr Polycarp, who before his execution declared, "I have served my Lord for 86 years. He has never done me wrong, and I will not betray him now." I do not know if I will have that kind of courage in the face of death, but I can certainly resonate with his words, because I have served my Lord for 12 years, and I do not intend to leave him now or ever.

Although I will confess that at times I have fought with him. There have been times when I did accuse him of doing me wrong, only to have him show me that I was the one who was wrong, not him. I tell you, when you can have an argument with God and come through it still confident that he cares for you, then you will know him.

No, I cannot make anyone experience what I have, nor can I make them understand. But it is precisely why neither Dr. Zaius' arguments nor Jerome's will ever convince me that I am wrong. God to me is not some far-off concept. He is a living, breathing person who is right beside me in all my life's work and struggles. You might be more successful in convincing me that I don't have a brother named Anthony than you would in convincing me that I do not know God.

But that is why I have tried to encourage you to continue your spriritual journey, Evin, because I feel that if you keep wandering through this wood of many roads, eventually you might find one that leads in the right direction. That I cannot say for sure. But I do believe that if you travelled on this road with me, I could get you to that road.

_________________

That doesn't completely leave out the possibility of falseness. For all you know, the writers of the gospels could've been nuts! There's a huge amount of arguements you can take. None of them will lead you to: "The New Testiment is absolutely, undeniably, 100% correct for sure!" No one can be that sure about anything involving distant history. I'm certainly not saying that the New Testiment is absolutely, undeniably, 100% incorrect for sure, I'm just saying that that's a possibility.

_________________

A slight variation on the Lord Liar Lunatic argument, but applied to the apostles themselves. But then here's the next step: actually read the New Testament and examine it for signs of such delusional insanity.

Here is one problem: if the NT is the creation of delusional insanity, then wouldn't it the delusions recorded be entirely different? I mean, if Sts. John, Paul, Matthew, Peter, and James were all delusional lunatics, then wouldn't there be some fairly drastic differences in the way their delusions are manifest?

I'll give you an excellent example of what I mean: the dementia ward of Lutheran Senior Services. Many of the patients there are delusional, but you will rarely find their delusions match. One might imagine that she is cooking potatoes, while another will imagine he is waiting for a train. Well, it would seem to me that, if the apostles were delusional, then there would be very little if any consistency in their writings. But there is enough consistency to convince any reader that these men, for the most part, thought alike.

So, approaching it from this angle, the Apostles = Lunatics doesn't quite add up.

While I might grant that there might be some room for conjecture, it still seems to me that the evidence points toward the accuracy of the New Testament, not away from it. In other words, there would need to be some very compelling evidence on the contrary for me to consider it.

_________________