When is a myth not a myth?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

cardw said:

Certainly Hitler adapted many theories and justifications for his attack of the Jewish people. Are you saying that Luther had no influence on the direction that Hitler took on this issue? I find it hard to believe, when Hitler found much to admire in Luther's antisemitism..

---

Forget Luther, what about Christ?

• John 8:44 You [context: the Jews] belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Does this truth give license to murder Jews in the name of Christ?

Depends on your view of God, doesn't it?

The disciples, who were Jews, apparently had the same malice towards the Gentiles:

• Luke 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this [i.e., that the Samaritans wouldn't receive Christ] they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them".

False Christianity creates a god with fallen, human attributes. This type of god can be you best buddy, but cross him and you'll see his cruel wrath. But if you want to know the Father look at His Son. That's why Jesus said,

• "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father". [John 14:9]

When you look at Christ's life you can't condone violence of any sort. No vengeance, no eye for an eye...no rendering evil to evil to anyone.

Instead, in "the gospel", you see a God/man who preferred eternal death rather than for His enemies to parish. The cross proves that God loves His enemies more than Himself....

Rob

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

• "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father". [John 14:9]

When you look at Christ's life you can't condone violence of any sort. No vengeance, no eye for an eye...no rendering evil to evil to anyone.

Instead, in "the gospel", you see a God/man who preferred eternal death rather than for His enemies to parish. The cross proves that God loves His enemies more than Himself....

Rob

---

Robert,

Many times I have disagreed with your theology concerning Jesus' purposes re: rules and regulations. Your view in this post gives me pause to consider.

[:"red"] And He said, This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.

After this, many of His disciples drew back (returned to their old associations) and no longer accompanied Him.

Jesus said to the Twelve, Will you also go away? [And do you too desire to leave Me?]

Simon Peter answered, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words (the message) of eternal life.

And we have learned to believe and trust, and [more] we have come to know [surely] that You are the Holy One of God, the Christ (the Anointed One), the Son of the living God.[/] John 6:65-69 AMP parenthesis, brackets theirs

[:"red"] "Realizing this man's understanding, Jesus said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God."

[/] Mark 12:34 NLT

I add only these three postscripts.

[:"red"] "But I am not surprised! Even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light." [/]

2 Cor 11:14 NLT

[:"red"] "And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war,

and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. " [/] Rev 12:7-9 NASB

[:"red"] "And I saw another sign in the heaven, great and wonderful, seven messengers having the seven last plagues, because in these was completed the wrath of God.." [/] Rev 15:1 YLT

Keep the faith!!

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

There is also another aspect to this question. Every authorative part of Scripture must be applied to one's life if it is to have meaning. In my example above, I, as a SDA am likely to apply that passage to the 7th day of the week. While another person will likely apply it to the 1st day of the week. Both of us may claim to that that passage as normative, or as authority. Yet, we will likely have a different application.

---

Which leads us back to Romans 14 while allowing God to be the judge.

[:"red"] "Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand....Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." [/] Rom 14:4,5 NASB

Apply the principle and the consequences of application will reveal the individuals integrity, not necessarily the ideal determination of the truth, IMHO.

[cardw]

Before I move too far off the myth topic, I would like to present an idea.

It is quite clear that we created a mythic status for both Martin Luther and John Calvin. Martin Luther is called the father of the reformation. And it is quite evident, particularly in John Calvin's case, that their theology did not prevent them from doing some pretty evil things. They are real people but the myth created around both of them presents a person or persons that didn't really exist. John Calvin was a butcher and torturer by his own admission. He did it in the name of God and kept meticulous records. Martin Luther burned women at the stake for being so called witches. He wrote anti-semitic literature that called for the killing of Jews and the destruction of their synagogs.

If this mystification of these two men can happen in the short time after their lives ended, why is so hard to see that the same thing has happened with the Bible? How likely is it that God would choose to use such an unreliable method to relay truth? When you look at how the Bible has come through a couple thousand years or more of culture. It has come through oral traditions and several written languages. It has had many authors and editors. How likely is it that we have the actual literal truth?

I have nothing against the Bible itself. It is wisdom literature, but it certainly cannot be seen as the literal actual truth about anything. That may be hard to imagine for some people, but I believe that a restoration of mystery is healthy. It provides a buffer against those who would take some imagined mandate from God to kill all those they believed God disapproved of based on god's example in the Old Testament.

I think this attitude is well represented among those who hold a literal view of the Bible within this forum. If this is not evidence enough, then it is unlikely that any amount of evidence would be enough.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It has come through oral traditions and several written languages. It has had many authors and editors. How likely is it that we have the actual literal truth?

---

That's pretty standard 19th century theology. However, 20th century archaeology, for example, the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls", the clay tablets of Ebla, the records of Ugarit, and many others, have pretty much disproved it.

The text of Isaiah, for example, at Qumran is essentially identical to those used for translations since before the KJV. So, the fidelity of the text is really no longer seriously questioned by conscientious scholars. The meaning of the text is more difficult, just as the meaning of a contemporary text is more difficult than it's mere content. But the accuracy of such details as the instruments played in Daniel 3, or the existence of Belshazzar--both doubted by 19th century skeptical theologians--has now been established.

The longer the archaeologists dig, the more they establish the accuracy of the Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

Cardw speaks about the myth that surrounds Martin Luther. He is correct in what he says. But, I will point out that while the myth surroungs Luther, among some people the reaity remains. It remains in the nubmerour works written by historians who have documented the reality. I suggest that it is that documentation, readily available to the average Joe, that is what has given Cardw the source that he depends upon for his conslusions and comments about Luther.

NOTE: The same may be said about John Calvin.

I do not have anything against those who examine the Bible from a literary standpoint. Such can be a helpful source of knowledge and information. Also, such does not automaticly detract from the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Yes, as some use it, it may. But, that is the application, and not fundamental to the method.

Cardw asks how likely it is that the Bible is actual, literal truth. I guess that the question behind this relates to the authority of the Bible.

Foundational to his question is the issue as to what is meant by a "literal" Bible. Can one state the Bible is literal and still see figures of speach, metaphores, and other such literary devices?

Another question relates to it historicity. Did the Children of Isreal build Ramses, or did they not? On a modern level, which applies to this question, did the Dutch found New York, as children's history books tell us? [NOTE: The Dutch founded New Amsterdam which in modern times is called New York.]

Let me get on a soap box again. Here is a helpful book for people who want to learn something about the Bible, and its usage:

Gugliotto, Lee J. HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDY, 2000, Review & Herald, 464 pages, paper and hard cover.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

It has come through oral traditions and several written languages. It has had many authors and editors. How likely is it that we have the actual literal truth?

---

Quote:

---

However, 20th century archaeology, for example, the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls", the clay tablets of Ebla, the records of Ugarit, and many others, have pretty much disproved it.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

Quote:

---

According to carbon dating and textual analysis, the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD.

---

Ebla tablets :

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Ebla_Mardikh.html

Quote:

---

The Ebla texts include many Semitic names which recall those of the Old Testament but extravagant claims of a cult of Yahweh at Ebla and of texts mentioning the biblical patriarchs, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood story are without foundation .....

---

Cardw points out the OT documents originated over thousands of years with their written capture in the form we know them largely taking place circa BC500-400.

Ed replies that copies of these BC500-400 written documents made circa BC200-AD100 disprove this view.

Ed is talking nonsense.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Bevin is pursuing his usual straw men, refuting arguments never put forth.

BTW relying on wikipedia, especially on such matters, is not wise.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It has come through oral traditions and several written languages. It has had many authors and editors. How likely is it that we have the actual literal truth?

---

That's pretty standard 19th century theology.

---

You dismiss with some label that may or may not be true and may or may not have any bearing the truth. Just because something is standard does not mean its not true. And just because you say its standard doesn't mean its standard. This is not a way to find truth. This is a great way to create a myth.

Quote:

---

The text of Isaiah, for example, at Qumran is essentially identical to those used for translations since before the KJV. So, the fidelity of the text is really no longer seriously questioned by conscientious scholars. The meaning of the text is more difficult, just as the meaning of a contemporary text is more difficult than it's mere content. But the accuracy of such details as the instruments played in Daniel 3, or the existence of Belshazzar--both doubted by 19th century skeptical theologians--has now been established.

---

Just because one book or one meaning is passed down does not qualify every detail of the Bible to be literally true. If Nazi Germany had come to rule the world, Martin Luther would have been considered a great writer of truth and the methods he advocated for destroying those in opposition to Christianity, or methods like his, would have been considered scripturally supported. What would tell us, if we were indoctrinated into that belief system, that Martin Luther was wrong?

Take an example from the Bible. Moses had some people come up to him and ask what should be done to a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Moses didn't know and so it is reported that he asked God. God then told him to have the people stone the man to death.

Now this has been written down by a person who thought that is what God wanted done or Moses reported God wanted or the writer altered or made up the story to support his position.

How likely is it that God would stone a person for gathering wood? Even more remote is this question. How likely is it that God would instruct people to perform an act of violence and killing for what some would not even consider an infraction. And if it is an infraction, it is hardly worthy of death.

Just as in the case of Hitler, who instructed people he considered evil to be killed, God supposedly instructed people He considered evil to be killed. In one case it was race and religion, in the other case it was gathering sticks and religion.

It makes no moral or logical sense to me to endorse either of these ideas. Why can't we see that the Bible is a very human document. I don't see Jesus leaving us with any of His writings. I do see Him leaving us with a Spirit. In both of these examples my spirit tells me its not a good idea to kill people who disagree with my religious views.

[bevin]

ROFLOL

Quote:

---

BTW relying on wikipedia, especially on such matters, is not wise.

---

and yet, sigh, the specific facts I quoted from the Wikipedia correct.

My argument above is 100% solid. If my statements are false, show that they are false. Don't just throw insults.

/Bevin

[there buster]

bevin, I did not throw any insults. I questioned your argument and your source, not your intelligence or your character. I assumed you could tell the difference. My bad.

And whether those facts were correct or not, they were irrelevant to the point I was making. You jumped to the wrong conclusion about what evidence I was using from Ebla, just as one example.

Because I was not making any arguments about cultic practices, your argument was a straw man.

I won't comment on what you're throwing.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

How likely is it that God would stone a person for gathering wood?

---

On what basis would you propose to make a conclusion one way or the other?

[Derrell M]

Quote:

---

How likely is it that God would stone a person for gathering wood? Even more remote is this question. How likely is it that God would instruct people to perform an act of violence and killing for what some would not even consider an infraction. And if it is an infraction, it is hardly worthy of death.

---

You've hit on a matter that puzzles me: the disparity between the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus.

1. OT - The five books of Moses contain over six hundred laws. Many of them contain death as the prescribed punishment for infraction. God is credited with giving those laws and ordering the punishments. That God made it clear that the law superceded the value of human life.

NT - Jesus saved a woman who was about to be put to death in the manner ordered by the God of the OT (himself?) He also made it clear that the value of human life supeceded the law.

2. OT - God commanded his people on many occassions to kill and destroy everyone, including infants, when they dealt with unbelieving gentiles.

NT - Jesus said that it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea rather than hurt a child, he featured a preference for kind unbelievers over arrogant or disconnected believers, and he wouldn't let the disciples bring fire down on rude gentiles.

In short, the Old Testament God featured death and vengeance, and the New Testament God was 180 degrees different. He seemed to abhore the type of action and philosophy that defined the OT God. Jesus had a special love and tolerance for those who hated him. God loved and cared for those who loved and cared for him, but turned in a white hot fury on those who didn't. Jesus stopped deaths from taking place and never once gave any reason why a person should be killed.

The disparity between the characters of Jesus and God as depicted in the Bible are so great, it wouldn't be difficult for a person to consider them antagonists.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How likely is it that God would stone a person for gathering wood?

---

On what basis would you propose to make a conclusion one way or the other?

---

I could ask you the same thing. On what basis would you know? Because the Bible says so?

On the other hand if I asked a 9 year old if I should stone the man across the street to death for gathering sticks in his front yard on Saturday I don't think the 9 year old would have to think too long about that.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, which of our basic freedoms has been abridged by the 700 club?

---

I did not use the term abridged, but you can judge for yourself the freedoms they would like to attack. Note his call that only Christians or Jews can be in public office in the United States.

Don't watch this video if you are easily offended.

Pat Robertson's attack on a number of things video

[Paul Beach]

Margaret Gray responds.

The above utilization of the Hitlerian example may automatically invoke Godwin's law.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one (virtual certainty)."

As a forum discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a Nazi comparison.

When Godwin's law is applied, the person who has referenced Hitler to support an argument on a topic not directly related to WWII or the Holocaust loses the argument and the thread may be terminated.

For more information on this online legislation visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Bravus]

Ooo, wikipedia! <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Incidentally, although I don't think Wikipedia is definitive on everything, I do find it a handy resource, particularly as a place to start looking for more definitive resources and over-all debates.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

When Godwin's law is applied, the person who has referenced Hitler to support an argument on a topic not directly related to WWII or the Holocaust loses the argument and the thread may be terminated.

---

Guy's corollary

If a Usenet discussion mentions Godwin's law as a conterrebuttal to a mention of Hitler/Nazis, then the probability of Godwin's law being disputed is equal to 1.

Quote:

---

Many people have extended Godwin's law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because the nature of these events is such that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide, ethnic cleansing, barbaric medical tests or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.

---

In this case we are comparing God to Hitler. According to the Old Testament, God instructed the Israelites to initiate an ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites, including their animals. That seems, to me, to be a direct comparison.

If this picture of God is not a myth, the implications are rather disturbing.

[Bravus]

Christians are notoriously reluctant to face the fact that a literal reading of Scripture depicts an actively genocidal God.

[aldona]

...and that following it just as literally, results in an actively genocidal Christian religion.

aldona

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Christians are notoriously reluctant to face the fact that

a literal

reading of Scripture depicts an actively genocidal God.

---

Buy this:

Light on the DARK side of God

[Neil D]

Interjecting something to this discussion.....In Regards to the question-

When is a myth not a myth?

I would have to say that when I use WD40 on my knees and they stop squeeking....then is when a myth is NOT a myth....

Ok, you can continue.....

[Raphael]

When is a myth not a myth?

When UFOs land at your respective airports and appear on Oprah talk shows.

When its decided to be convincing to the point of the incapacity to doubt.

When faith strengthens and destroys unbelief.

When earths gone and heavens welcomed and all things are free of obscurity.

I would love to add more but kind of weighed with body aches due to too many morning walks.

Haleluyah,

Raphael

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How likely is it that God would stone a person for gathering wood?

---

On what basis would you propose to make a conclusion one way or the other?

---

I could ask you the same thing. On what basis would you know? Because the Bible says so?

On the other hand if I asked a 9 year old if I should stone the man across the street to death for gathering sticks in his front yard on Saturday I don't think the 9 year old would have to think too long about that.

---

You posed the original question. It implies that "it is not at all likely" that God would do that. But upon what basis would you come to that conclusion?

I made no claims about what God would or would not do. So it is up to you to provide the grounds for your conclusion.

If you reject the Bible as evidence of what God would and would not do, then where else would you suggest we go? I'm quite open to exploring other possibilities. There are only two real options: Sacred (revealed)theology and Natural theology.When I say "revealed," I include any text that claims to be revealed through a supernatural source.

Be assured, though. As one who has taught many 9YO's through the years, I would not go to them for theological advice.

Both your implied conclusion and your evidentiary claim makes it appear that you might. That is a mistake in several ways. There is a time to put away childish things.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I made no claims about what God would or would not do. So it is up to you to provide the grounds for your conclusion.

---

Well, trying to place any rational moral system in place to justify stoning a man for gathering wood qualifies, in my mind, for trying to make sense of nonsense.

Quote:

---

If you reject the Bible as evidence of what God would and would not do, then where else would you suggest we go? I'm quite open to exploring other possibilities. There are only two real options: Sacred (revealed)theology and Natural theology.When I say "revealed," I include any text that claims to be revealed through a supernatural source.

---

This assumes that we can predict what God is going to do based on some human understanding or that God can be contained within some type of human rational system. I don't think we can comprehend the mind of God and if we place the Bible as some type of explanation of the mind of God we are making an image of God, which is idol worship.

Quote:

---

Be assured, though. As one who has taught many 9YO's through the years, I would not go to them for theological advice.

---

Not stoning the man across the street for gathering wood on Saturday is a very basic moral decision. To even debate it or justify it borders on lunacy.

Quote:

---

Both your implied conclusion and your evidentiary claim makes it appear that you might. That is a mistake in several ways. There is a time to put away childish things.

---

I happen to believe its childish to believe that words can contain the mind of God. Maybe its time for you to put away the childish notion that we have to make sense out of a God who orders genocide. Its seems very very improbable that genocide would be the only solution open to an all powerful God. To me its laughable to even take this notion seriously. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned to hold the Bible as the ultimate authority on God. So much so, that if God came down here and did something unBiblical, we would condemn God.