This question springs from Honi's post on the Honor Commandment. What specific teachings of the Bible are the direct result of the social/cultural context of the time? Which no longer are applicable? Which are universal across cultures and epochs?
+++++++++++++
12-30-05, 11:40 PM
Mike121
Wow, that’s a broad question, Juan. IMO a great deal of what is written in the Bible must be read and understood within the context of the culture and times. One would have to go book by book, passage by passage to sift through what is contextual to the culture and all of the subsequent nuances woven in to the text.

Off the top, I’d say that much (but not all) of the book of Proverbs, the first half of Ecclesiastes and some of Jesus’ teachings, the Sermon on the Mount and some parables, perhaps fit the bill of ‘timeless truths’ (universal across cultures and epochs) .

Which are no longer applicable? Remember the notable “Stone a Rebellious Son” discussion? That would be a good example. In the NT, Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth are directed at a cosmopolitan group made up of converted Jews and converted pagans of various flavors. Some of the problems he addresses within that church arose from that particular setting and context and are no longer germane.

IMO the entire Bible has to be placed in the context of a human narrative that spanned a particular era. We don’t live in that era or context but in one that is a world apart in many ways. There are some ideas and questions that seem to transcend time and culture and they tend to be the sort of broad, overarching ideas and questions that are common to the human experience regardless of the religious or philosophical underpinnings of any culture.

12-31-05, 12:01 AM
juanruiz
Thanks for posting, Mike. Your absence here has been felt. And, yes, who can forget the "Stone a Rebellious Son" thread; perhaps the best one to appear on Jeeves Religious Board. As I said, the query comes out of the discussion on Honi's post, but also in the light of the whole debate over literal interpretation of the Bible. Would a parent now actually stone a rebellious son, and claim Biblical justification? I guess there there may be someone out there. Same is true for other topics such as polygamy, blood transfusion, and the like.

12-31-05, 04:33 AM
Denis
There´s the law conscience and the Grace conscience. The Grace conscience was brought by Jesus.
Jesus came to bring mercy to all the people who accept and believe in Him , in His passion.
He brought the Grace that cover the law in our hearts.
Jesus save us from the law destiny.

Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

01-01-06, 01:36 AM
Mike121

quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz:
Thanks for posting, Mike. Your absence here has been felt.



Thanks, Juan. Nice to be missed.

quote:
As I said, the query comes out of the discussion on Honi's post, but also in the light of the whole debate over literal interpretation of the Bible.



That debate does rage on, doesn’t it? I try to be sympathetic to the literalists as I was once one of them. But lately I find little in common with them as it seems clear to me that context and literary style ought to be taken into serious consideration. I mean, was there really just one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) in the beginning who encountered a talking snake? Or, are we dealing with an allegory? (I think we are.) What is more important? The meaning of the story, or whether God can make a snake that talks? Should we write graffiti on the freeway overpass, or jump off of it?

Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know. ~ Rufus T. Firefly

01-01-06, 11:03 AM
juanruiz

quote:
That debate does rage on, doesn’t it?



Yes, it does. For centuries, both Jewish and Christian Biblical exegetes realized there were a number of ways to interpret Scripture, a literal reading being but one option. I wonder where this insistence on literalism-only has its beginning?

01-01-06, 10:30 PM
Insaf
I beleive some of the scientific inaccuracies can no longer be used(for preaching/convincing) in the current era. For example accoriding to Book of Genesis, moon has its own light and that is said to be greater than that of stars(other than sun). And even Sun doesnt seem to be considered as star.


Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night : he made the stars also.


As this chapter deals with the creation of the universe, meaning should be considered as literal meaning.

01-01-06, 11:10 PM
Mike121

quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz:
Yes, it does. For centuries, both Jewish and Christian Biblical exegetes realized there were a number of ways to interpret Scripture, a literal reading being but one option. I wonder where this insistence on literalism-only has its beginning?



Good question. In my reading opinions vary. Some believe that it was Galileo’s challenge to the current cosmological view that caused a sudden interest in interpretation. Luther was big on literal interpretation in that he promoted sensus literalis and sensus historicus as theologically relevant and was well respected in his day, so I think he had some influence although I think his position is misunderstood. Guys like Knox and Calvin followed in his footsteps and kept the torch burning.

Hermeneutics is a subjective endeavor colored with ideas like “spiritual discernment” and doesn’t lend itself to benchmarking or objective codification beyond a very broad boundary. By the same token, religious belief and theology is, in my opinion, a personal endeavor. It’s not supposed to be objective nor can it be by its very nature. Our individual ideas about life; why we’re here and what we’re supposed to think and do is a matter of personal narrative; a story we tell ourselves about who we are, and does God exist, and what we should believe and think and why. Our narratives can and do influence one another, but they cannot and should not supplant one another. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” [soapbox] [/soapbox]

Hope you and yours had a nice holiday. And BTW, how is your daughter? Last I remember she was getting married.

Regards,
Mikey

Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know. ~ Rufus T. Firefly

01-01-06, 11:26 PM
juanruiz

quote:
Hope you and yours had a nice holiday. And BTW, how is your daughter? Last I remember she was getting married.



Hey, Mike! Great response as always. Had a very nice Holiday Season, thank you. Hope you did too. Has it been that long? She's been married 3 1/2 years now. Great to see you here; we've dangled on so many past threads together, your participation here just seems right. Hope also that your business is going really well. Remember when you did the clean and jerk on tsaeb? Big Grin

01-02-06, 12:26 AM
Mike121

quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz:

quote:
Hope you and yours had a nice holiday. And BTW, how is your daughter? Last I remember she was getting married.



Hey, Mike! Great response as always. Had a very nice Holiday Season, thank you. Hope you did too. Has it been that long? She's been married 3 1/2 years now. Great to see you here; we've dangled on so many past threads together, your participation here just seems right. Hope also that your business is going really well. Remember when you did the clean and jerk on tsaeb? Big Grin



Thanks, Juan!

Gosh! 3 ½ years??? Crap!! Where has the time gone? How embarrassing! Still, I’m glad to hear your family is doing well. We’re well and the business is growing slowly but surely, and thanks for asking. (I’ll send you a personal email.)

Thanks so much for the warm reception. And, yeah, I remember the ‘clean and jerk’ thing with tsaeb. Seems like yesterday when I think of it.

All my best,
Mikey

01-02-06, 07:05 AM
tsaeb
What "clean and jerk" thing? All I remember is Mike121 threatening to pick me up like a dumbbell (I was to be the dumbbell to him) and worse: accusing me of drowning in the mire (he must have been down in the dumps himself that day).

Oh, Mikey, while religion is an individual thing, truths can be arrived at. Just because this hasn't been all that convincingly shown yet, don't think that it won't happen. Do you have any ideas as to what it would take to convincingly show Biblical truth?

01-02-06, 01:05 PM
Mike121

quote:
Originally posted by tsaeb:
Do you have any ideas as to what it would take to convincingly show Biblical truth?



Truth about what, specifically? I don’t think I understand your question.

01-02-06, 02:06 PM
juanruiz
Yes, tsaeb, it depends which truths you have in mind:

That a virgin gave birth to a god?
That a man rose from the dead?
That four horsemen are going to be riding around dispensing misery?

Heck, archeology hasn't even shown Israel was a great kingdom under a guy named David.

01-02-06, 10:54 PM
Mike121

quote:
Originally posted by Insaf:
I beleive some of the scientific inaccuracies can no longer be used(for preaching/convincing) in the current era. For example accoriding to Book of Genesis, moon has its own light and that is said to be greater than that of stars(other than sun). And even Sun doesnt seem to be considered as star.


Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night : he made the stars also.


As this chapter deals with the creation of the universe, meaning should be considered as literal meaning.



Huh??? Sorry, Insaf, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that we should take the creation account literally?

01-02-06, 11:31 PM
juanruiz

quote:
Do you have any ideas as to what it would take to convincingly show Biblical truth?



To follow up on your question, yes, evidence from the outside historical record. For example, I believe that Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist existed. I believe that pharisees and saduccees were major Jerusalem Jewish groups (though not as characterized in the Gospels).

01-02-06, 11:49 PM
Mike121

quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz:
To follow up on your question, yes, evidence from the outside historical record. For example, I believe that Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist existed. I believe that pharisees and saduccees were major Jerusalem Jewish groups (though not as characterized in the Gospels).



Now you’ve got me curious, Juan. What could exist “outside historical record”? If, as tsaeb suggests, there is some truth to the biblical text, what proof could be provided that is not historical in nature? I probably don’t understand what you’re asking.

01-03-06, 03:57 AM
tsaeb
Mike121: Juanruiz did throw me, too, with his "outside historical record," but, then, I reread, "the outside historical record." So I think that juanruiz is advocating including the historical record.

What I have in mind is demonstrations of what specific long-held truths, be they true or false, convincingly are, that is, true or false. I think that putting such convincing demonstrations in historical perspective would then be a job for scholars from all kinds of fields, because the demonstrations would be some Biblical and some worldly.

Outside the historical record would be, first of all, any book which very strongly demonstrates something convincing about the Bible in an original way. This is my thing but yet to be further developed, particularly by including much mathematics to the designs on paper of mental visions. To be taken as prophecy, it would also have to look like God is doing a new thing.

01-03-06, 08:34 AM
juanruiz
As tsaeb inferred, I meant any material corroborated by outside sources, such as Josephus.
01-03-06, 02:15 PM
juanruiz

quote:
What I have in mind is demonstrations of what specific long-held truths, be they true or false, convincingly are, that is, true or false.


I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what you mean by this. What truths?: philosophical? moral? theological? historical?

01-04-06, 04:40 AM
tsaeb
juanruiz: One example would be much of the rapture theory: Jesus will materialize, Jesus will fly in, saints will fly out. . . . Another example would be Jesus is the only way to salvation. These are long-held beliefs which are mere speculations thought to be true, but either their truth or falsity must be--and, I believe, can be--shown convincingly to be definitely true or false. The DaVinci Code is an example of speculation, trying to pass for true interpretation, which almost took a strong hold but which has lost its grip. Do you think that such notions can be shown convincingly to be definitely true or false? That's some task, eh? We may get strong persuasion even strong demonstration, but whether we get something statistically significant depends on what those who decide statistical significance have to say. I think that we are definitely in for some exciting days ahead.

01-04-06, 12:50 PM
juanruiz
Conditioned By Culture?
The Rapture and salvation topics are matters of faith, not truth. They are unproveable. You can say, "Well, they're in the Bible." But that doesn't mean much of anything. The DaVinci Code was fiction; too bad so many didn't realize that.

01-04-06, 08:58 PM
philalethist
Rapture ¿
Is not of the word. It is written to beware lest you are begiled from the simplicity which is in the word. The only thing I would find exciting is that if people were to get their head on straight and start looking for the realities in faith which comes by hearing and that hearing by the word. as in Romans ten-seventeen.

01-06-06, 06:34 AM
tsaeb
philalethist: Agreed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,