Christians only; How literally do you take the Bible?

[Brian2]

To add to my previous post, one can elaborate an argument as follows:

God is supposed to be all-powerful. So, if He demanded an atoning sacrifice, it was because He decided to make a rule to that effect. Because there can be no metaphysical law that God is forced to abide by. By definition, it is He who makes the rules. Right?

But God is also ever-loving. Why, then, would He choose to make such a brutal and sadistic demand, when it was not necessary for Him to do so? Abelard would argue it was to show Mankind a perfect example of selfless love for Man: to give Man an example to follow.

Moral influence, in other words.

So the death does not atone for sin, it is just something that was done as an example of love?
The Bible tells us it was an atoning sacrifice, so it had to at least appear to be an atoning sacrifice or there would not be any love involved, it would be a big waste of time. The example would be just of someone dying for nothing.
Personally I think that it was an atoning sacrifice because we are told it is, and of course the influence is automatically there then.

 

[exchemist]

So the death does not atone for sin, it is just something that was done as an example of love?
The Bible tells us it was an atoning sacrifice, so it had to at least appear to be an atoning sacrifice or there would not be any love involved, it would be a big waste of time. The example would be just of someone dying for nothing.
Personally I think that it was an atoning sacrifice because we are told it is, and of course the influence is automatically there then.

Yes, but you are in effect assuming that God was in some way bound by some metaphysical law and could not find a way around it, or that God is barbaric.

The point is that such an explanation conflicts with what the bible tells us about God being (i) almighty and (ii) ever-loving. Abelard realised this and sought an explanation that resolved that conflict.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but you are in effect assuming that God was in some way bound by some metaphysical law and could not find a way around it, or that God is barbaric.

The point is that such an explanation conflicts with what the bible tells us about God being (i) almighty and (ii) ever-loving. Abelard realised this and sought an explanation that resolved that conflict.

If it was really not for atonement then that would seem to make God barbaric.
Jesus did ask if it were possible to take it away in Gethsemane.
It seems it was not possible.
I think there were a number of reasons that worked together to make the death of Jesus the best way do it and maybe the only one that ticked all the boxes in what God required.
If it was what God required then it goes beyond a metaphysical law imo

 

[exchemist]

If it was really not for atonement then that would seem to make God barbaric.
Jesus did ask if it were possible to take it away in Gethsemane.
It seems it was not possible.
I think there were a number of reasons that worked together to make the death of Jesus the best way do it and maybe the only one that ticked all the boxes in what God required.
If it was what God required then it goes beyond a metaphysical law imo

You are still not addressing the question of WHY God would "require" a sacrifice involving torture and death, when the bible - or at least the gospels - tell us that God is merciful and loving.

How do you account for that?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Genesis with Adam and Eve established the reason for Original sin. Original sin and the closing of heaven was theorized to be the reason for the suffering of Christ. Christ was sent to open the gates of heaven. At the Baptism of infants the priest washes away Original sin. I,personally, do not believe an infant can be in the state of sin. Genesis is the story of mankind being disobedient to some theoretical order from God. Would God forbid man to use or want intelligence? I was taught the Bible is the 'Inspired Word" of God; as if the human author's hands were guided by God. More recent work of Bible scholars indicate so many problems with past interpolations and it seems there were many more scribes than originally taught by the Church. I am running on, best to stop.

I'm pretty comfortable believing the whole Adam and Eve story is an analogous story about a folk memory of the switch from hunter gatherer to settled agriculture. I have no problem with the idea of original sin, but I believe that's simply part of our human nature, it's not because someone who didn't know good form bad was naughty and ate an apple.

 

[Brian2]

You are still not addressing the question of WHY God would "require" a sacrifice involving torture and death, when the bible - or at least the gospels - tell us that God is merciful and loving.

How do you account for that?

It does show God's mercy and love for us. He was willing to suffer for us. If Jesus really is God in a trinity then it is God who was willing to suffer in the Son and the Father would suffer watching it also.
The reasons would go further than humanity however. There is the angelic rebellion to consider and God had to be and be seen to be spot on in front of the angelic powers.
I would say that God could not leave Adam and Eve alive forever after the fall and part of the plan of Satan could have been to push God into an awkward position in front of the spiritual powers that be and sort of get Him to make a blunder or what appeared to be a blunder and lose more angels to the dark side. And Satan was there trying to trip up Jesus to make God look worse if He succeeded.
God had already thought about all the ins and outs and the plan of salvation was there way before the creation was started.
But does that answer why suffering was involved?
It certainly shows the seriousness of sin in God's eyes and that there had to be more than just a wave of the hand and forgiveness,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and if does satisfy justice to in God's eyes and trip up Satan who had forced this situation of a suffering and dying humanity in the first place. It does also join humanity to God as His children in Christ and by us sharing in the eternal life of Christ which was unjustly taken away and make evil in humanity a thing of the past.

 

[Brian2]

You are still not addressing the question of WHY God would "require" a sacrifice involving torture and death, when the bible - or at least the gospels - tell us that God is merciful and loving.

How do you account for that?

I have to go to bed at about 3AM here but a final thought would be that humanity had to die in it's sinful state and God had set up the sacrificial law which could not deal with that and could not be a way to change us and was a shadow of what was to come in Christ. Instead of a covering for sins in the Law, Christ was appointed as a propitiation, to take our place and at the same time to change us when we enter into Christ and receive His Spirit. The legal requirement of justice was covered the lover of God was shown and the ways of Satan were shown to be inherently wrong.
It is something that is hard to explain really but I trust that God has covered all the bases and it was necessary.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
There are some things we no doubt won't know the full story of in this life.

 

[exchemist]

I have to go to bed at about 3AM here but a final thought would be that humanity had to die in it's sinful state and God had set up the sacrificial law which could not deal with that and could not be a way to change us and was a shadow of what was to come in Christ. Instead of a covering for sins in the Law, Christ was appointed as a propitiation, to take our place and at the same time to change us when we enter into Christ and receive His Spirit. The legal requirement of justice was covered the lover of God was shown and the ways of Satan were shown to be inherently wrong.
It is something that is hard to explain really but I trust that God has covered all the bases and it was necessary.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
There are some things we no doubt won't know the full story of in this life.

All of which is a long way of saying "I don't know", really. Well that is one view, no doubt held by many. However it's the sort of thing that I believe can put thoughtful people off Christianity, as it seems to be a basic conflict about the nature of God. Why, they may reasonably ask, would a merciful God make a law that required a bloodthirsty and painful sacrifice, when He could have chosen to do things another way and simply forgive mankind for its weakness?

The moral influence theory attempts to give an answer to that, speculative though it must inevitably be. It says that without the example of Christ on the cross, Man would not have anything like such a powerful demonstration of love and selflessness, to help him in his struggle against his intrinsic moral weakness.

 

[Stonetree]

To add to my previous post, one can elaborate an argument as follows:

God is supposed to be all-powerful. So, if He demanded an atoning sacrifice, it was because He decided to make a rule to that effect. Because there can be no metaphysical law that God is forced to abide by. By definition, it is He who makes the rules. Right?

But God is also ever-loving. Why, then, would He choose to make such a brutal and sadistic demand, when it was not necessary for Him to do so? Abelard would argue it was to show Mankind a perfect example of selfless love for Man: to give Man an example to follow.

Moral influence, in other words.

Perhaps we should try thinking that was God, Himself on that cross and not a relative(Son); is He so loving that He decided to do what some of us might do for those we love, sacrifice Himself and endure human suffering and death. ( referencing the Trinity,God and Son are 'One') Just offering an alternative view on this subject.

 

[Brian2]

All of which is a long way of saying "I don't know", really. Well that is one view, no doubt held by many. However it's the sort of thing that I believe can put thoughtful people off Christianity, as it seems to be a basic conflict about the nature of God. Why, they may reasonably ask, would a merciful God make a law that required a bloodthirsty and painful sacrifice, when He could have chosen to do things another way and simply forgive mankind for its weakness?

Not really, I was saying that the answers given in the Bible do tell us why, but the full reasons no doubt go beyond what is plainly told to us.

The moral influence theory attempts to give an answer to that, speculative though it must inevitably be. It says that without the example of Christ on the cross, Man would not have anything like such a powerful demonstration of love and selflessness, to help him in his struggle against his intrinsic moral weakness.

I think there are many examples of moral heroes for us to want to emulate.
Without cross being a demonstration of God's wrath against the sins of humanity and being a demonstration of God's love for us in that He was willing to take it on Himself and without it showing God is truthful to His word of sin earning death and death being required for forgiveness, then all we have is a moral example, which in the end is still a barbaric death and still turns people away from Christianity towards something more civilised if you like.
It seems to me that the whole things of Israel and the Law was there as a witness to show the truth of God and what He was going to do, so that people could see the bigger picture and see it pointed to Jesus, the one who was prophesied about by the Jews to come for the purpose of bearing our sin and be made a sin offering. (Isa 53)
Morality is such a big thing with God, so important, and it's consequences cannot be just wiped away with a sweep of the hand. That means that really we can do whatever we want and God will just ignore it.

 

[exchemist]

Not really, I was saying that the answers given in the Bible do tell us why, but the full reasons no doubt go beyond what is plainly told to us.



I think there are many examples of moral heroes for us to want to emulate.
Without cross being a demonstration of God's wrath against the sins of humanity and being a demonstration of God's love for us in that He was willing to take it on Himself and without it showing God is truthful to His word of sin earning death and death being required for forgiveness, then all we have is a moral example, which in the end is still a barbaric death and still turns people away from Christianity towards something more civilised if you like.
It seems to me that the whole things of Israel and the Law was there as a witness to show the truth of God and what He was going to do, so that people could see the bigger picture and see it pointed to Jesus, the one who was prophesied about by the Jews to come for the purpose of bearing our sin and be made a sin offering. (Isa 53)
Morality is such a big thing with God, so important, and it's consequences cannot be just wiped away with a sweep of the hand. That means that really we can do whatever we want and God will just ignore it.

Well no, the bible does not tell us why.

 

[Brian2]

Well no, the bible does not tell us why.

Not explicitly.
There are many things done and told in the Bible for which not explicit explanation is given. We work out the whys usually.
With the atonement there is quite a bit to work with to figure out why.
For a start we are told that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. (Heb 9:22)
Maybe I don't understand just how deeply you want the question answered.
If I give you Biblical answers like Heb 9:22 and that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus took our place and bore our sins and that we cannot pay the price for our own salvation, that might help answer it on one level. But you seem to want a deeper level, one that goes further into the mind of God.
I could say that the suffering and death showed God's love for us and showed that God was no liar when He said eating the fruit would bring death, and that God hates evil and wants to end it and so would not just give everyone a pardon and eternal life without evidence that they wanted to do what is right and would not just turn around and laugh and continue to do whatever they want. That might help explain it further and why it was a good decision that God did not change His mind about..
You seem to want to go deeper, but I'm not sure how deep a "why" you are after.
Certainly paying a ransom was going to cost God something but who was being paid the ransom but the one who is the law giver and the judge and everything belongs to Him anyway.
What did not belong to Him was the life of Jesus but Jesus is God along with the Father and Jesus seems to have made His own decision and to come and die and the decision was one that would cause suffering to all of the Godhead.
I could mention Satan and the spiritual principalities and doing and appearing to do what is right and defeating Satan.
Satan seems to have been defeated with the ways of God, no stealing, lying, murder, no backflip on an earlier correct decision that sin brings death etc, just love and submission to God's will.
If God just forgave everyone then Satan could use precedent that to gain his own forgiveness,,,,,,,,,,,without any repentance. Evil would go on.
I don't know, is that deep enough?
I'm not a very deep person really.

 

[Lain]

I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?

I try to take it as I believe the author intended it. A history is a history, a parable is a parable, a poem is a poem, and so on. The "literal" sense of Scripture is the historical sense to me, and it is the most controversial. But whatever is presented as history I take it as true history, whether that be Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, the Chronicles of Israel, and so on. This is not to say that there can not be symbolic readings of history, St. Paul himself does this (he says Sarah and Hagar are symbols, but this does not mean that they also did not exist historically as written, they are both symbols and history as God is able to direct history to reveal truth), so I do it also.

Authorial intent then, in genre, is the metric I use for looking at things in the Bible.

 

[exchemist]

Not explicitly.
There are many things done and told in the Bible for which not explicit explanation is given. We work out the whys usually.
With the atonement there is quite a bit to work with to figure out why.
For a start we are told that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. (Heb 9:22)
Maybe I don't understand just how deeply you want the question answered.
If I give you Biblical answers like Heb 9:22 and that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus took our place and bore our sins and that we cannot pay the price for our own salvation, that might help answer it on one level. But you seem to want a deeper level, one that goes further into the mind of God.
I could say that the suffering and death showed God's love for us and showed that God was no liar when He said eating the fruit would bring death, and that God hates evil and wants to end it and so would not just give everyone a pardon and eternal life without evidence that they wanted to do what is right and would not just turn around and laugh and continue to do whatever they want. That might help explain it further and why it was a good decision that God did not change His mind about..
You seem to want to go deeper, but I'm not sure how deep a "why" you are after.
Certainly paying a ransom was going to cost God something but who was being paid the ransom but the one who is the law giver and the judge and everything belongs to Him anyway.
What did not belong to Him was the life of Jesus but Jesus is God along with the Father and Jesus seems to have made His own decision and to come and die and the decision was one that would cause suffering to all of the Godhead.
I could mention Satan and the spiritual principalities and doing and appearing to do what is right and defeating Satan.
Satan seems to have been defeated with the ways of God, no stealing, lying, murder, no backflip on an earlier correct decision that sin brings death etc, just love and submission to God's will.
If God just forgave everyone then Satan could use precedent that to gain his own forgiveness,,,,,,,,,,,without any repentance. Evil would go on.
I don't know, is that deep enough?
I'm not a very deep person really.

No it's really very simple and I've explained it already. Demanding a brutal blood sacrifice is at odds with what we ware taught in the New Testament about the nature of God.

 

[Windwalker]

I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief.

Why? For instance, the Bible says "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth", and Jesus acknowledges that is what it literally says, but he challenges and outright counters that by saying, "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." So while it may literally say certain things, that does not mean we should believe them and act upon them literally.

On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example.

Understanding things like the resurrection, need not be taken literally in the sense of a reanimated corpse. One can believe in the creation story for instance, without believing it to be a literal historical and scientific record of how human beings came to be on this planet. They are stories which contain deeper meanings. It's not the factualness of the story that matters, in order for the meaningfulness of them to be conveyed.

This is the nature of storytelling. The same story can be told in many different ways, with even many contradictory details, but the meaning be the same. That certainly is true even within the resurrection story itself from one gospel to the next.

What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?

"True" and "factual" are two different things. Again, true has more to do with valid meaning, and factual has little to do with meaning, but more about consistency of details. Those aren't the point in metaphors and symbols. The stories of the Bible are about meaning, not recording accurate details and facts. That was not their purpose. They were theological in nature.

But from a Christian perspective, I believe the highest and best way to read scripture is through how Jesus understood and practiced it. As pointed out, he himself did not take what was written on its pages as literally true that must be held as innerant and infallible. He directly challenged what was written and said, "but I say unto you", superseding it.

Why? Because the Bible is a collection of writings written by human beings' understandings of God through the lens of their own respective experiences and times in which they lived. The images of God contradict each other, showing both a God of violent retribution, and a God of love and distributive justice. The God Jesus taught of was the latter and not the former.

So when reading the Bible and we see the God of violence, we should side with Jesus' view as correcting that. It is the more evolved, and true view of God, as opposed to the lesser light of the law and the prophets combined.

 

[Bree]

I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?

each account and story needs to be taken in context.
Some accounts are literal, some are stories told to make a point.
You cant take it all literally but you can take it all as truth.

 

[Brian2]

No it's really very simple and I've explained it already. Demanding a brutal blood sacrifice is at odds with what we ware taught in the New Testament about the nature of God.

Not really. We are taught in the New Testament and Old Testament that God sent Jesus to be a brutal blood sacrifice to bear our sins. You must have missed it.
All you have to do now is to fit that into your "nature of God".

 

[halbhh]

I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?

What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not?

Here's the metric: true, real listening to scripture.

Christ said that His sheep will listen to Him. (John 10:27)

If I came to the Bible intending to prove or support a doctrine, and then looked up a passage or a verse or 2 or 3 to putatively support that doctrine....that would not be listening.

To listen, I stop all the voices that aren't the Word -- that means all doctrines, all teachings from my church, or yours, or my own ideas -- silence them all. Stop talking over the Teacher. And begin to truly listen.

Which means I'd inevitably then be reading from the beginning of a book, quietly listening, forgetting 100% of debates..... 100%....and instead listening, with the humble attitude I'm a student and He is the teacher, not me.

Then, if I listen, I'll learn much more from Genesis chapter 6, for instance. Something deep and profound.

Vastly more important than a mere triviality about how deep the water was in what trivial specific geographic location (that someone might uselessly argue about).

 

[sojourner]

Would these same people believe that the resurrection of Christ could not be literally true? I wonder. In that case they wouldn’t be Christians in the first place?

Some Christians don’t believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus. But most do.

 

[sojourner]

What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not?

Here's the metric: true, real listening to scripture.

Christ said that His sheep will listen to Him. (John 10:27)

If I came to the Bible intending to prove or support a doctrine, and then looked up a passage or a verse or 2 or 3 to putatively support that doctrine....that would not be listening.

To listen, I stop all the voices that aren't the Word -- that means all doctrines, all teachings from my church, or yours, or my own ideas -- silence them all. Stop talking over the Teacher. And begin to truly listen.

Which means I'd inevitably then be reading from the beginning of a book, quietly listening, forgetting 100% of debates..... 100%....and instead listening, with the humble attitude I'm a student and He is the teacher, not me.

Then, if I listen, I'll learn much more from Genesis chapter 6, for instance. Something deep and profound.

Vastly more important than a mere triviality about how deep the water was in what trivial specific geographic location (that someone might uselessly argue about).

I disagree, unless, by the term “listening,” you mean the scholastic process of exegesis. It’s through the exegetical process that critical literary analysis tells us what is representative of metaphor, allegory, myth, storytelling, and history.