How much of scripture is fiction?

[polonius]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

[Difflugia]

So you are suggesting that the the Simon Peter of the gospels could not possibly have been the writer of the Epistles bearing the same name because the latter represents a radical change in theology from that found in the gospel of Mark. Is that an accurate summary of your point?

If so please offer supporting texts from the epistle of Peter to prove this point.

Yes.

1Pe 1:2 Divine foreknowledge in the apparent sense of predestination.

In all of the Gospels, divine foreknowledge manifests in the sense of prophecy and allows the prophets to foretell important events. While it's unclear how God brings this about, there are circumstances that seem to argue against predestination as Paul describes it. In Mark in particular, the baptism of Jesus appears to mark the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the beginning of His Sonship. The temptation in the wilderness makes sense in Mark as the testing period of Jesus' fitness for the messianic task ahead, with Satan apparently taking on the same role that he does in Job.

1Pe 1:2 The Spirit as sanctifying agent.

Mark uses "Holy Spirit" in the sense of "power of God", seen in Isaiah 11 when "the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him" is compared with the other "Spirits" of wisdom, counsel and obedience. Mark's Holy Spirit isn't a separate entity, but is the indwelling of God's power. In Mark, "sanctification" isn't really a concept. "Sins" are evil deeds that may be forgiven but don't need to be "cleansed" as such. John's Gospel treats sin in the sense of Leviticus, where sinful acts separate human beings from the divine and must be washed away or atoned for by sacrifice. This is proper "sanctification" in the sense that, as sin is whatever separates humanity from the divine, removing or cleansing the sin, instead of just forgiving it, allows one to be reunited with the divine. Paul has a similar view, but sees sin as a part of human nature ("original sin") that must be replaced with the Christ nature ("not I, but Christ in me..."). John, Paul and Luke (in Acts) use the word "sanctify" or "sanctification". Mark and Matthew, with their concept of sins as things to be forgiven rather than cleansed, don't.

Luke, incidentally, uses a Markan idea of sin in his Gospel, but a more Pauline concept in Acts.

1Pe 1:2 "sprinkling of the blood" and 1Pe 1:18-19 Jesus as the Passover lamb

The sacrifice of Jesus in the Synoptics is the covenant sacrifice (Exodus 24) of the New Covenant, rather than the Passover lamb of John and 1 Corinthians. The lamb of 1 Peter 1 is described as "without blemish," which refers to the Passover lamb of Exodus 12. In the Synoptics, the blood of Jesus ratifies the New Covenant. In John, Paul, and 1 Peter it's a symbol of deliverance and salvation.

1Pe 3:18 Jesus suffered for the unrighteous

Neither Mark nor Matthew offers a universal salvation. Matthew's salvation is for the circumcised alone (Mt 10:5-6). Mark's salvation isn't even for all of Israel, but only for the few that are able to hear and believe the message. Mark's Jesus spoke in parables specifically so that those outside of the elect will not have the opportunity to repent and then the women ran from the tomb without telling anyone. Only the lucky ones that manage to hear Mark's Gospel have the opportunity to repent in the short time before the return of Jesus "in Power."

1Pe 3:22 Jesus returns to heaven

This whole of 18-22 is Pauline in flavor, but particularly the description of Jesus having "gone to heaven" with God, angels, authorities, and powers. In Mark, heaven is the abode of God, full stop. Angels are there as his servants, but the "authorities and powers" in heaven are completely Pauline. Then, aside from the spurious ending, Mark doesn't describe Jesus Himself as either coming from or going to heaven. The Spirit descended from God in heaven, but Jesus Himself was already here. He is then described as "risen", but rather than to heaven, presumably here on Earth, preparing to establish the "Kingdom of God" when he "returns in Power."

[JehovahsWitness]

So you are suggesting that the the Simon Peter of the gospels could not possibly have been the writer of the Epistles bearing the same name because the latter represents a radical change in theology from that found in the gospel of Mark. Is that an accurate summary of your point?

If so please offer supporting texts from the epistle of Peter to prove this point.

Yes.

1Pe 1:2 Divine foreknowledge in the apparent sense of predestination.

In all of the Gospels, divine foreknowledge manifests in the sense of prophecy and allows the prophets to foretell important events. While it's unclear how God brings this about, there are circumstances that seem to argue against predestination as Paul describes it.

It is a matter of opinion whether Paul's writing support predestination in the Calvanistic sense if predetermining every event and fate.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 142#388142

1 PETER 1:2

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,... to those chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification by the spirit, for the purpose of being obedient and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ

1 Peter 1:2 speaks of spirit anointed Christians as being chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God" but does not say if that foreknowledge was regarding a future selection ( imagine a football coach knowing in advance their would be a World Cup and "fortelling: that on this or that future date he will be choosing a team. Neither does the wrter of Peter specify whether each individual was destined to be chosen or if being chosen means one has achieved the ultimate goal. (If a runner is chosen to be part of the Olympic running team it doesn't mean he will win the race).



RELATED POSTS


Does God use his powers of foreknowledge selectively?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 314#848314


FURTHER READING : Predestination and Jehovah’s Foreknowledge
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953405

[JehovahsWitness]

1Pe 1:2 The Spirit as sanctifying agent.

Mark uses "Holy Spirit" in the sense of "power of God", seen in Isaiah 11 when "the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him" is compared with the other "Spirits" of wisdom, counsel and obedience. Mark's Holy Spirit isn't a separate entity, but is the indwelling of God's power.

1 Peter 1:2 is in no way a departure from that reflected in the gospels including that of Mark, namely that GODS SPIRIT is God's power or active force. Indeed that is how God's SPIRIT is consistently presented in both the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures.

1 PETER 1:2

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,... to those chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification by the spirit, for the purpose of being obedient and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ - NWTRB

"chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification by* the spirit" - 1 Pet 1:2
"God selected you for salvation by sanctifying you with his spirit" - 2 Thess2:13

* as in by means of

1 PETER 4:14

... you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.- ESV

JW



RELATED POSTS


What is spirit in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 560#877560

2 PETER 1:1 [TITUS 2:13 ] "God and of Jesus our Lord"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 634#935634

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

It is a matter of opinion whether Paul's writing support predestination in the Calvanistic sense if predetermining every event and fate.

I'm not sure one needs to go that far to show that Paul is clearly pointing out that it is not just God who selects those who will be vessels of mercy, but they are predetermined to be.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,

Romans 8:29]

Paul isn't suggesting that we don't have free will, but that our free will is useless if God has not revealed the kingdom to us in the first place. How does one choose a kingdom they can't see in the first place? They can only choose Christ according to their own ideas, doctrines they've been taught etc. They may believe, but they certainly can't be witnesses to what they've never seen.

Therefore it can't be by one's free "will or effort" (Romans 9:16), but God who shows mercy to whomsoever he will.

[JehovahsWitness]

In Mark, "sanctification" isn't really a concept. "Sins" are evil deeds that may be forgiven but don't need to be "cleansed" as such.

MARK 14:24

He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

MARK 10: 45

"For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.�" - Mark 10:45

NOTE Under the Mosaic law there was no provision for a human life (blood) to validate any contract or covenant. The writer of Mark was thus refering to something more than a man dying to protect others (for example a father dying to protect his children) because he reports it mentioned in connection to a covenant. This is supported by the words recorded in chapter 10. Notice the expression that Jesus (The Son of Man) "gave his life", implying sacrifice. So in Marks gospel we get a picture of a Jesus sacrificing his life to validate a (religious) covenant.

In the bible all bilateral covenants between God and humans were validated by blood sacrifices because it was the animals blood (life) that provided the legal basis for God to overlook their sins and thereafter enter into a covenant with them. Thus the mention of a blood officiated sacrifice is by definition the introduction of the notion of cleaning a person of adamic sin.




JW


RELATED POSTS

What js the religious significance of blood in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 886#909886

Why do the gospels not discuss the notion of the ransom in more detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 493#887493

Go to other posts related to LIFE, SIN and ...RANSOM

[Difflugia]

It is a matter of opinion whether Paul's writing support predestination in the Calvanistic sense if predetermining every event and fate.

1 Peter 1:2 speaks of spirit anointed Christians as being chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God" but does not say if that foreknowledge was regarding a future selection ( imagine a football coach knowing in advance their would be a World Cup and "fortelling: that on this or that future date he will be choosing a team. Neither does the wrter of Peter specify whether each individual was destined to be chosen or if being chosen means one has achieved the ultimate goal. (If a runner is chosen to be part of the Olympic running team it doesn't mean he will win the race).

I'm trying to read verses 1 and 2 that way, but I don't see it. I think your "team" analogy means something like God knowing in advance that there would be a group of elect exiles of the diaspora in specific areas, but not who they were. If that's what the author meant, why would the author mention "foreknowledge" in the first place? My reading of 1:1-2 is that it's intended to offer confidence to the hearers that they are on the "winning team" because God at least knew and perhaps orchestrated from before the creation that they would be. This also specifically recalls Romans 8:28-30, which was written for the same purpose and worded similarly.

1 Peter 1:2 is in no way a departure from that reflected in the gospels including that of Mark, namely that GODS SPIRIT is God's power or active force. Indeed that is how God's SPIRIT is consistently presented in both the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures.

So, there are two issues here. First, whether or not the Holy Spirit is presented consistently across the Gospels (and I'll add Paul) and second, if 1 Peter's presentation is consistent with that of Mark. In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God never does anything to people, but causes people to do things. This is most often in terms of prophecy, but the Spirit also caused a few people to do things (mostly in the book of Judges; by the Spirit, Othniel judged Irael, Gideon gained courage, and Jephthah made a vow to sacrifice his daughter). The only independent thing that the Spirit did in the Old Testament was to "move," "hover," or "brood" in Genesis 1:2. Mark is absolutely consistent with this. In fact, the only actions of the Spirit in Mark are to "descend ... like a dove," drive Jesus into the wilderness, allow Jesus to cast out demons (by implication in 3:22-28), and have previously caused David to write Psalm 110.

Matthew is similar, with two exceptions. One is (to me) minor and one major. First, Matthew changes Mark's "like a dove" (i.e. "in the way a dove does") to a slightly stronger phrasing that means "as if it were a dove". I don't know if it's significant, but it strikes me as odd. The major exception is that the Holy Spirit causes Mary's pregnancy. Though a single example so far, this shifts the Holy Spirit to something that can be described as independently causing material miracles.

Luke makes Matthew's minor change more explicit (as an aside, I think the author of Luke had Matthew's Gospel when he wrote his own and is one point on which I disagree with the consensus; if you want to discuss that, we can). Luke says that the Holy Spirit descended in the physical likeness of a dove.

In Acts, the Holy Spirit still works through people, but starts getting far more active. It privately gives people information, prevents people from going places and compels people to give messages to other individuals.

John's Holy Spirit is the Paraclete (Jn 14:26), which is the active helper. John also ties the Holy Spirit to Jesus (7:39). I won't belabor this one because it isn't really relevant to the Peter discussion, but John's Holy Spirit is completely different from the other Gospels or Paul.

For Paul, the Holy Spirit is something independent of the Father and is also something that indwells all Christians. In the Synoptics, the Holy Spirit is always described as the bringer of special divine power. Whenever someone is described as being "in" the Spirit or having the Spirit "upon" them, it's in order to bring about the will of God in a specific fashion (prophecy, miracles, or causing someone to behave in a specific way), while according to Paul, the Holy Spirit works through every Christian and this, indeed, is what makes one a Christian.

Now look at 1 Peter 1:1-2. The Spirit is described as providing "sanctification," a concept not even present prior to John's Gospel, in a way implied to affect all Christians as part of simply being Christian, which is a Pauline concept.

NOTE Under the Mosaic law there was no provision for a human life (blood) to validate any contract or covenant. The writer of Mark was thus refering to something more than a man dying to protect others (for example a father dying to protect his children) because he reports it mentioned in connection to a covenant. This is supported by the words recorded in chapter 10. Notice the expression that Jesus (The Son of Man) "gave his life", implying sacrifice. So in Marks gospel we get a picture of a Jesus sacrificing his life to validate a (religious) covenant.

In the bible all bilateral covenants between God and humans were validated by blood sacrifices because it was the animals blood (life) that provided the legal basis for God to overlook their sins and thereafter enter into a covenant with them. Thus the mention of a blood officiated sacrifice is by definition the introduction of the notion of cleaning a person of adamic sin.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is a matter of opinion whether Paul's writing support predestination in the Calvanistic sense if predetermining every event and fate.

1 Peter 1:2 speaks of spirit anointed Christians as being chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God" but does not say if that foreknowledge was regarding a future selection ( imagine a football coach knowing in advance their would be a World Cup and "fortelling: that on this or that future date he will be choosing a team. Neither does the wrter of Peter specify whether each individual was destined to be chosen or if being chosen means one has achieved the ultimate goal. (If a runner is chosen to be part of the Olympic running team it doesn't mean he will win the race).

I'm trying to read verses 1 and 2 that way, but I don't see it.

I don't care what you can see, the point is what one deduces from Paul or the writer of Peter is largely a matter of personal theological interpretation, it is not a science, it's not math, it's theology and in theology one can usually make convincing arguement in any direction.

Hermeneutics is hardly a solid basis for making absolute historical deductions. Your post is scattered with "I think" "my reading" ... in short your personal take on the writings, that fine, theology like art is fun for that but it's not historical method. In short, if you are going to disregard documented testimony in favor if whether the writer meant forgiveness or atonement, or whether the author believed the spirit to be a force, a person or your the ghost of aunt Cesar Augustus, that's your choice but its subjective nature is hardly a solid basis for a historical argument.



JW

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 56 by Difflugia]

Here's an interesting note I was informed of about God's spirit. The Hebrew for God's spirit is a mighty wind. The same mighty wind that brought the flood to an end. Genesis 1:2 and 8:1. Its footnoted in Tanakh but not most Bibles.

[Difflugia]

I don't care what you can see...

I know.

...the point is what one deduces from Paul or the writer of Peter is largely a matter of personal theological interpretation, it is not a science, it's not math, it's theology and in theology one can usually make convincing arguement in any direction.

I suggest that if you find any two contradictory arguments equally convincing, you probably have a bit more reading to do.

The data available in theology are certainly of lower quality than in the "hard" sciences, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any or that the subject is a free-for-all. While you are correct that anyone can make a theological argument with or without understanding the subject, that's no less true in the "hard" sciences (witness the number of creationists that claim to understand biology). For that reason, just as biology journals are peer-reviewed to ensure a minimum level of rigor, so too are there peer-reviewed theology journals. This isn't really an academic conversation and I'm not saying we need to stick to those, but neither should you make the mistake that the whole thing is groundless conjecture.

Hermeneutics is hardly a solid basis for making absolute historical deductions. Your post is scattered with "I think" "my reading" ... in short your personal take on the writings, that fine, theology like art is fun for that but it's not historical method. In short, if you are going to disregard documented testimony in favor if whether the writer meant forgiveness or atonement, or whether the author believed the spirit to be a force, a person or your the ghost of aunt Cesar Augustus, that's your choice but its subjective nature is hardly a solid basis for a historical argument.

That's why I haven't said anything like "absolute," or even "proof," which you also seem to be fond of.

In academia, not only is a certain level of humility about one's conclusions considered polite, but it is required that one clearly separate one's data from one's conclusions or opinions, no matter how certain one is of them or how educated they are. Now, I'm not a professional biblical scholar, so I'm sure I might be justifiably accused of engaging in a bit of dilletantism, but I have at least tried to engage with the scholarship when I'm aware of it. I've also tried to make clear which of my opinions are based on the educated scholarship of others and which are "personal theological interpretation."

You may or may not know that conclusions about the history of Christian thought often rely on patterns of word usage, turns of phrase, and whether either was similarly used by contemporaries. In this context, that is the historical method. What is not historical method, however, is harmonizing statements and theologies that differ, often radically so, between the various cultures and eras within Christianity and even within the Bible itself. I'm not sure what you think I'm disregarding, but I have certainly made an attempt to let you know why I disagree with you and what data are behind the disagreements, but you haven't given me the same consideration. You have dismissed not only my own conclusions, but the opinions of experts and even the text itself without offering any sort of justification aside from vague demands for "proof."

Since the pseudonymity of the Petrine epistles is one of the most certain conclusions of biblical scholarship, only you know why you picked it as the most interesting discussion to have. You're free (as you have pointed out that I am) to disregard whatever data, scholarship, or opinions you care to when coming to your conclusions. I suggest, though, that even if you see no reason to reexamine the relative level of your own biblical knowledge, you at least try to be a bit more polite, a bit less vitriolic, and at least appear a bit more humble about your responses, learned though they may be.

[polonius]

What archeological or other evidence can you offer that 2.4 million Hebrews were in Egypt at the time of the Exodus?


Were they all there but left absolutely nothing behind, not even a broken piece of Jewish pottery? No. graved,nothing

But there is evidence of the Hebrews in Canaan Following the 6 day war, Jewish archeologist even found a number of their dwelling on what had formerly been Arab held areas.