Divine Commands, Holy Texts and the Vexed Question of Exegesis

[RubiconDecision]

I find it shocking that an intellectual would equate reading something in English that's a translation, then drawing conclusions by out-of-context sentences. Sure, a 12 year old can read Nietzsche, but do they understand it using that methodology?

How weird. Every Muslim must be cringing if that's considered normal for studying the Quran.

[PointOfViewGun]

A Muslim trying to teach me about the Bible and how Christianism works.. do you even own a copy of the Bible at least? This simplification is ridiculous, similiar to saying arabic doesn't matter when understanding Quran. Actually, older versions of Bible are also in Hebrew and Aramaic, it got translated to Latin and Greek because such were the mainstream languages of Roman Empire at the time. Latin and Greek Bibles were done out of anti-elitism, which 2 millenia after appears as ironic, but such was the case.

There's a middle ground between an almost decade of study to liturgy and reading it as if it a tablooid (most people in modern world do read it as a tablooid). If you just apply basic reading, even if above tablooid level, you won't get anywhere with the Bible. However if you dedicate yourself reflecting upon the texts and symbology, maybe you will reach something Truthful. Some passages are not in agreement. Even today many Bible enthusiasts can't reach a consensus on who is the Whore of Babylon for example, or whether signs of End of Times (Or end of history, in XIX century language) aproaching, should they come, will be noticeable or not.

However there is some truth in excessive power of clergy, Jesus became notorious with the pharisees, the hebrew rabbis of his time for disagreement and defyiance of Israeli authority, and also ended up crucified for defying Roman Authority and Roman religious order (for example, for actively denying the Roman Emperors were God-Men)

Given Bible is a compilation of several books, not just one, some of them having millenia in years between their writing (book of job is almost 3000 years old), and on how the latter part (New Testament) breaks away and reformulates contracts on earlier-mid parts (Old Testament), it becomes obvious the message of the compilation of books known as the Bible isn't by any means to be understood by giving it a slight literal read. I mean the end of the book openly breaks away from covenants of the first.

Knowing Arabic, indeed, doesn't really matter for reading the Quran. We live in a wonderful age of information, and easy access to it. I don't have to know Arabic to understand what Quran says. Sure, sometimes meanings can be different and a direct translation doesn't do justice. For such cases, we have many resources to use. I do that often. When we talk about verses from Quran and I point out a problem in the translation I can provide substance to back it up. What I'm faced with so far here is an endless talk of how hard it is to understand the Bible.

If I said that "you're reading that wrong" I'd provide why it is so and how it is so. Arguments. Explanations.

I find it shocking that an intellectual would equate reading something in English that's a translation, then drawing conclusions by out-of-context sentences. Sure, a 12 year old can read Nietzsche, but do they understand it using that methodology?

How weird. Every Muslim must be cringing if that's considered normal for studying the Quran.

If a 12 year old read Nietzsche and made wrong assertions about it I'd try to explain to him what Nietzsche means in his particular statements. I wouldn't go on and on about how she can't just read Nietzsche like a normal person... I'm starting to wonder if you guys are trolling at this point. Or you are just completely unable to explain the verse in question.

[RubiconDecision]

Face it Setekh, your post is rude, reductionist, and intellectually dishonest versus the standards of every one of your posts about the Quran and interpretation.

[PointOfViewGun]

Face it Setekh, your post is rude, reductionist, and intellectually dishonest versus the standards of every one of your posts about the Quran and interpretation.

Still no explanation whatsoever on the actual topic.

[RubiconDecision]

Still no explanation whatsoever on the actual topic.

I already did in the spoiler in this post.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14811285
And ironically your posts replicate the Pharisees.

Now your posts aim at ignorance by ignoring the complexity of the Bible yet you demand higher analysis of the Quran.

What a terrible waste of time. You're trolling.

If your posts were the only examples of Muslims, it would be understandable why the Crusades happened...versus the reality of the actual honor found in Islam and emulated by Muslims.

Your posts instead of paving the way to understanding, are intentionally harmful.

[PointOfViewGun]

I already did in the spoiler in this post.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14811285
And ironically your posts replicate the Pharisees.

Now your posts aim at ignorance by ignoring the complexity of the Bible yet you demand higher analysis of the Quran.

What a terrible waste of time. You're trolling.

If your posts were the only examples of Muslims, it would be understandable why the Crusades happened...versus the reality of the actual honor found in Islam and emulated by Muslims.

Your posts instead of paving the way to understanding, are intentionally harmful.

If you had an actual argument you wouldn't post so much BS on attacking me personally. It's pathetic... I read the spoilers before. It didn't provide an explanation on why that verse doesn't mean what we showed it to mean.

[Sphere]

realy where i can find this in new testament?

Matthew 5:18

But let's be honest. The old law isn't followed because it is archaic and immoral, not because of textual evidence. Even the bulk of Judaism rejects it and they think the New Testament is a complete fraud.

[clone]

Matthew 5:18

But let's be honest. The old law isn't followed because it is archaic and immoral, not because of textual evidence. Even the bulk of Judaism rejects it and they think the New Testament is a complete fraud.

you know that this is symbolically right. the same way when jesus says something like this " if you have to choose between sin and pluck your eye,choose the second" ,he doesnt mean it literally

[Sphere]

you know that this is symbolically right. the same way when jesus says something like this " if you have to choose between sin and pluck your eye,choose the second" ,he doesnt mean it literally

Whatever gets you through the day.

Read it in context. It's pretty explicit. The old laws are still laws, no matter how minor. Indeed, what Jesus is adding to the laws is thought crime; e.g. thinking about adultery it is the same as committing adultery, hating your enemy is the same as hurting them etc.

Everyone hangs their hat on the Sermon on the Mound tossing away the old nasty stuff in the old testament, but it prefaced by explicitly saying that the old law isn't going away. That really is an invention by Paul who is having trouble getting converts to slice up their dicks in order to become Christian.

The Fulfillment of the Law17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Murder

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]
Eye for Eye

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[clone]

Whatever gets you through the day.

Read it in context. It's pretty explicit. The old laws are still laws, no matter how minor. Indeed, what Jesus is adding to the laws is thought crime; e.g. thinking about adultery it is the same as committing adultery, hating your enemy is the same as hurting them etc.
.

last time i checked when the bandit believed in jesus in the cross jesus answered to him that he would go to heaven not that will lose his eye because he sinned or something. the same thing with the roman pagan centurion

lets give another example of this phenomenon.
when the rich guy goes to jesus and asks him how to go to heaven ,jesus answers to him "give all your money to the poor"
when the tax collector went to jesus and told him that he cheated his clients and he copensated them giving them back what money he stole from
them pluss some more jesus didnt gave the same answer as he did with the rich guy

[RubiconDecision]

There are 613 commandments, but luckily Christians are not under most of them. That's a very long topic of an entire month's duration to demonstrate from the Bible.

https://carm.org/are-christians-under-the-law

Are Christians under the Law?

by Matt Slick
No, Christians are not under the Law. To be under the Law means that a person is under the power and authority of the Law to judge and condemn anyone who breaks the Law. Take a look at these verses that talk about being under the Law.

• Rom. 2:12, "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law," (ἐν νόμῳ, en nomo, literally "in law").
• Gal. 3:23, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally "under law").
• Gal. 4:5, "in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally "under law").

As you can see, to be under the Law means you will be judged by the Law. In the Old Testament Law found in Deuteronomy 27:26 it says, "‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’" So, to be under the Law means you have to keep it all. In Galatians 3:10, Paul said, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'” That is what it means to be under the Law.
But, as I said above, Christians are not under the Law. In other words, Christians are not obligated to keep the Law so as to be saved from God's righteous judgment, so they don't go to Hell.

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

Christians are freed from having to please God and be saved by keeping the Law of God. We are not under the Law. We are not under its authority. It has no power over us.
Why are Christians not under the Law?

Christians are not under the Law because they have died to the Law. They have died with Christ, and those who have died are not bound by the Law.

• Rom. 4:15, "for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation."
• Rom. 6:6, "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin."
• Rom. 6:8, "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him."
• Rom. 7:4, "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God."
• Rom. 7:6, "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

So, Christians have died with Christ. They are identified with Christ so closely that it can be said that when Christ died that they died with Him. Since Christians have died with Him, they are no longer under the Law because he who has died is freed from the Law (Rom. 7:6). That is why Christians are not obligated to keep the Law of God in order to be saved from God's righteous judgment. Christians are saved from that requirement and penalty.

This deals with being saved by Grace as a result of Christ's Atonement. IF we were under the Law, who could be saved?

That doesn't mean the Law has passed away. Messianic Jews try to do both (mostly).

If you're not saved, then you are under the Law, which should make nonbelievers shudder.

[fkizz]

We live in a wonderful age of information, and easy access to it.

Knowledge and Information can be different things, mainly given campaigns of disinformation that have been popular since at least the Cold War.

What I'm faced with so far here is an endless talk of how hard it is to understand the Bible.

The biggest obstacle in understanding Bible, is feeling of self importance. The books of the Bible weren't written with "easy reading" in mind. The span of millenia can give birth to some misunderstandments.

For example, the famous giving the other cheek. In Jesus time, giving the other cheek was 1) not attacking by kneejerk and 2) the second slap would be an invitation for an honor dispute. It doesn't necessarily mean submission and surrender, it simply means to re-check if the guy rambling on you has a problem with you, or if he simply was a troubled character who found you in his way. Developing steady nerves could avoid problems to both parties and separate a "bar fight" type of intrigue from a real grudge.
However this gets often misunderstood as "if someone attacks you let him attack even more". Given cultural customs of Jesus time that is not the case. This just one example amongst many.

In the end Jesus defied Israeli authority too much, and Roman authority too much, and the local power executives wanted him crucified. Being rejected as the Messiah by local Hebrew community, they kept waiting for the true warrior-esque messiah who would defeat the Romans, and many such characters did appear, only to be defeated over and over. Jesus understood Judea/Israel didn't stand a chance against Roman military machine, so resistance would have to be done in other way. Confirmating later Jesus was right in comparing military mights can be done by the inevitable official surrender of Judea to Rome in 73 AD, after Rome destroying most of Temple of Solomon in 70 AD, fact ritualistically lamented by Jews even today.

[chriscase]

I missed the part where I care about what's in these particular books.

[RubiconDecision]

I missed the part where I care about what's in these particular books.

And yet you care enough to reply to the topic.

[chriscase]

Sure. It's my fundamental response to all these arguments about ancient texts. The only reason I can see to study them is if you want to embrace the scholarship of antiquity, including the old languages and maybe dabble a bit in archaeology. One might want to learn more about how ancient people lived and what they thought.

But then there is this whole other thing going on in the conversation where people are arguing about the meaning of texts as if the texts are a supernatural cipher containing special messages from a magic man. This idea seems to me to fly in the face of the first one, and that's when I have to call a time out and say - if you guys are arguing about these old books because you think they contain supernatural messages from beyond, that's a crazy and fundamentally flawed reason to study them.

When - inevitably - the response comes that I am not entitled to this opinion because I haven't studied your favorite book enough, it becomes clear where the real disagreement is. My response is in fact the only one I am entitled to, given my disinterest in these texts. I am at least minimally competent to discuss the notion that any book is a missive from an ultra-advanced alien. I am neither qualified nor inclined to spend (waste) time speculating about what one of these books "really" means.

[fkizz]

The only reason I can see to study them is if you want to embrace the scholarship of antiquity, including the old languages and maybe dabble a bit in archaeology. One might want to learn more about how ancient people lived and what they thought.

Dude,

I am neither qualified nor inclined to spend (waste) time speculating about what one of these books "really" means.

Decide yourself already. This is an obvious doublethink. Either you want to figure the books out or not. On one times you say you don't care, on others that you care but then don't. What the heck.

[PointOfViewGun]

Knowledge and Information can be different things, mainly given campaigns of disinformation that have been popular since at least the Cold War.

The biggest obstacle in understanding Bible, is feeling of self importance. The books of the Bible weren't written with "easy reading" in mind. The span of millenia can give birth to some misunderstandments.

For example, the famous giving the other cheek. In Jesus time, giving the other cheek was 1) not attacking by kneejerk and 2) the second slap would be an invitation for an honor dispute. It doesn't necessarily mean submission and surrender, it simply means to re-check if the guy rambling on you has a problem with you, or if he simply was a troubled character who found you in his way. Developing steady nerves could avoid problems to both parties and separate a "bar fight" type of intrigue from a real grudge.
However this gets often misunderstood as "if someone attacks you let him attack even more". Given cultural customs of Jesus time that is not the case. This just one example amongst many.

In the end Jesus defied Israeli authority too much, and Roman authority too much, and the local power executives wanted him crucified. Being rejected as the Messiah by local Hebrew community, they kept waiting for the true warrior-esque messiah who would defeat the Romans, and many such characters did appear, only to be defeated over and over. Jesus understood Judea/Israel didn't stand a chance against Roman military machine, so resistance would have to be done in other way. Confirmating later Jesus was right in comparing military mights can be done by the inevitable official surrender of Judea to Rome in 73 AD, after Rome destroying most of Temple of Solomon in 70 AD, fact ritualistically lamented by Jews even today.

Turning the other cheek doesn't have a different meaning today as well. Your example fails to make a point. I don't really care whether the Bible was written for easy reading or for something else. That doesn't mean it's free from basic logic and reason. I don't see any of that here. Why don't you give it a try for the particular verse this thread is based on?

[chriscase]

Dude,


Decide yourself already. This is an obvious doublethink. Either you want to figure the books out or not. On one times you say you don't care, on others that you care but then don't. What the heck.

It's not really that complicated. What theists mean by "figure it out" is generally to understand the purpose of some supposed deity in "creating" the book. To me this is nonsense.

As an academic study I don't have anything against ancient literature, it's just not that high on my list.

[fkizz]

Turning the other cheek doesn't have a different meaning today as well. Your example fails to make a point.

Wishful thinking on your part. Many people DO confuse other cheek with passivity in face of a challenge.

I don't really care whether the Bible was written for easy reading or for something else.

Well there you go. If you openly don't care about the Bible or how it was made, or how it is to be read, why are you wasting your time with it?

It's not really that complicated. What theists mean by "figure it out" is generally to understand the purpose of some supposed deity in "creating" the book. To me this is nonsense.

Well it should be non-sense, holy books were written by humans divinely inspired or so it goes, not by the creator himself. Do your homework.

As an academic study I don't have anything against ancient literature, it's just not that high on my list.

Well Okay, nobody forces you to appear recurrently on threads and forum sections you claim ad infinitum to not be interested about, but you insist on doing such because "rational behaviour".

[chriscase]

Well it should be non-sense, holy books were written by humans divinely inspired or so it goes, not by the creator himself. Do your homework.

Because injecting "inspired by" into that claim makes it so much less preposterous. Perhaps if you can lure others into reading your book it will help obfuscate that sneaking suspicion that it's all a colossal waste of time.