What is Biblical Christianity...

[Alexander]

I ask the question because you had made reference to "tradition" in an earlier quote.

Yes, but I was referring to extra-biblical appeals rather than the tradition itself.

May I ask what specifically you consider a "sham" in regard to Biblical Christianity?

The fact that nobody draws upon the Bible only but rather they are drawing on a host of other factors.

[Herb]

Hungry computers have been a problem for me in the past too, past in the sense that it hasn't happened it days, knock silicon

Certain writings were liberally quoted and used by the early church fathers as authoritative. The gospel of Luke, for example, was not considered authoritative because of it's later inclusion in a canon; rather, Luke was incorporated into the canon because it was already seen as authoritative. Not only did Marcion eject the whole OT (which was a canon by this point), he also ejected many writings that were seen as universally authoritative, and even edited other authoritative writings to suit his own preconceived theology. While this was not violence against the canon, it was still seen as violence against the authoritative writings of the apostles. Hope that clarifies things

Problems with this: A) Authoritative according to whom? Does this include the Sheperd of Hermas which was considered authoratative at the time? or The Gospel of Thomas or Phillip? Gnostic writings were around and spread at that time too and from what I've read of opinions, the Gospel of St. John was popular with them. The OT had been canonized offically in the last decade of the first century. Now taking into account that the same spirit of what is and isn't important or essential in the gospel should apply here also. That Marcion had a difference of opinion which shouldn't bear on his being considered a biblical Christian or not. He, had no way, via the silence, in the scriptures to determine what was and what wasn't scripture. No where in the OT or NT does a table of contents appear. What we have is a biblical Christian, Marcion, being called a non-biblical Christian by a body he would have considered non-Christian. C) The authoratative writings of the apostles are dubious as to authorship. Most certainly 2Peter, a second century writing, wasn't written by Peter or an apostle(all dead) and many of Paul's writings are questionable as to their author. We could go more into this but I fear it's straying from the subject at hand and is meant as a counter to the arguement presented at the top, not as a topic changer.

As you say, more later. The posts are becoming increasingly longer and unless there's a bit of a break, harder to follow. That and it's time to play some Canasta at a different site. Have a great night!

[Herb]

Oops one more quick posting, John 3:5 and the conversation with Nicodemus is directly talking about baptism if(disclaimer) you read Edersheim's thought on it in "The LIfe and Times of Jesus the Messiah" which alludes to the very similiar phrasing of Nicodemus and Jewish proselytes being immersed in their conversion to Judaism.

[rhinomelon]

"Is there only one way to reasonably and consistently interprete the Bible as a whole?"

"If not, then do each of the respective, reasonable and consistent interpretations of the Bible as a whole, qualify as "Biblical?"

Thanks for the thoughts, wenglund. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. And the quotes are working again

As to the questions above, when it comes to essentials, there is only one possible interpretation, such as the issue of monotheism. When it comes to non-essentials, there are several interpretations possible.

In terms of non-essential (or, too be more precise, not clearly defined) issues, there is more than one possible consistent interpretation, such as on the issue of church governance, etc.

This may not be as helpful an answer as you were looking for. Sorry. I have to get going, but I'll try to post something more specific with regard to your article later. Until then, take care

[wenglund]

"Is there only one way to reasonably and consistently interprete the Bible as a whole?"

"If not, then do each of the respective, reasonable and consistent interpretations of the Bible as a whole, qualify as "Biblical?"

Thanks for the thoughts, wenglund. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. And the quotes are working again

As to the questions above, when it comes to essentials, there is only one possible interpretation, such as the issue of monotheism. When it comes to non-essentials, there are several interpretations possible.

In terms of non-essential (or, too be more precise, not clearly defined) issues, there is more than one possible consistent interpretation, such as on the issue of church governance, etc.

This may not be as helpful an answer as you were looking for. Sorry. I have to get going, but I'll try to post something more specific with regard to your article later. Until then, take care

Hi Rhino,

Good to finally hear back from you, and I am pleased that the quote function is now working for you.

However, could you elaborate on how there can only be one interpretation of essentials, yet multiple interpretations of non-essentials.

As I understand it, the English language (at least for you and I--though the same is true for oher languages), with its multiple connotations for most every word, is being used in both cases (essentials and non-essentials). That being true, how can there possibly be only one interpretation of the one and not the other--particularly when considering the high volumn of text involved, and the lack of clarity and specificity in various instances, not to mention meanings changing or differing from culture to culture and language to language, etc.?

Were you intending to say that there is only one true interpretation of the essentials (or, in other words, one interpretation of the essentials which you and other "mainstream" Christians accept as true)?

If so, then I can accept that--though, to say that, is to saying something different from "there is only one way to interpret the essentials".

It is the latter statement that I am interested in getting your answewr to because it applies more directly to the question of what is "biblical," rather than what is "mainstream biblical".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

Hey Herb, I hope Canasta was fun Quotes aren't working again Now to your thoughts:

[Problems with this: A) Authoritative according to whom? Does this include the Sheperd of Hermas which was considered authoratative at the time? or The Gospel of Thomas or Phillip? Gnostic writings were around and spread at that time too and from what I've read of opinions, the Gospel of St. John was popular with them. The OT had been canonized offically in the last decade of the first century.]

Authoritative according to their usage by the churches, and their acceptance by the leaders of the church. As far as the Shepherd of Hermas was concerned, the authorship and its universal appeal apparently did not warrant it being canonized. The Gospel of Thomas and Philip (if I'm thinking of the same ones you are) were not written during the time of the apostles, but were at best late pious forgeries. The problem with Gnostic writings is that they conflicted with the teachings of the apostles themselves, even while they were still alive. They used a pick-and-choose method of biblical exegesis, often doing what Marcion did: editing certain manuscripts and rejecting others as they saw fit.

The big problem with Marcion is not that he had a different canon (although the differences between his and that being formulated by the church was striking), but that he cut and pasted even those books he decided to include. The author's original intent was not an issue for him; he just wanted any biblical support for has preconceived ideas. This issue isn't that Marcion wasn't treating Luke like Scripture; rather, the issue is that Marcion wasn't even treating Luke as a individual author with his own message to share. Marcion ejected that in favor of his own.

[ That Marcion had a difference of opinion which shouldn't bear on his being considered a biblical Christian or not. He, had no way, via the silence, in the scriptures to determine what was and what wasn't scripture.]

Good way to put it, I think. Marcion's canon is not what leads me to consider him "non-biblical". Rather, his interpretation of Scripture(OT)/apostolic writings differed so wildly from the plain meaning of the texts. That is the big problem here, as it pertains to this topic. If a person takes only the gospel of John, and constructs from it a theology that lines up with the entire testimony of the Bible, then they are a biblical Christian, in my opinion. On the other hand, if the person has the entire canon and still wants to make interpretations that conflict with issues the Bible is clear on, then they are not biblical. It is the interpretation, not necessarily what is being interpreted, that is the main issue here.

Marcion's interpretations were at odds with the very foundations of the Christian faith. Jesus' own words, the writings of the apostles, and the testimony of the church were all against him. To argue that Marcion's interpretation is a biblical one is to basically say that there is no such thing as Christianity, or no such thing as a true interpretation. Chaos is the result of that assertion, in my opinion.

[What we have is a biblical Christian, Marcion, being called a non-biblical Christian by a body he would have considered non-Christian.]

Marcion's conclusions were not biblical in the slightest. Clear apostolic teaching was against him on many counts. For example, the ties between Judaism and Christianity, the Jewishness of Jesus, and the explicit monotheism of the Bible. The apostles themselves would have rejected Marcion as unChristian, therefore unbiblical.

[C) The authoratative writings of the apostles are dubious as to authorship. Most certainly 2Peter, a second century writing, wasn't written by Peter or an apostle(all dead) and many of Paul's writings are questionable as to their author. We could go more into this but I fear it's straying from the subject at hand and is meant as a counter to the arguement presented at the top, not as a topic changer.]

There is much debate on the subject, of course (and that would be a whole other topic), but even the letters that are almost universally agreed upon as apostolic in their authorship would be enough to reject Marcion's interpretations as biblical. Even if I excised the disputed books, the rest would still not agree with Marcion.

[Oops one more quick posting, John 3:5 and the conversation with Nicodemus is directly talking about baptism if(disclaimer) you read Edersheim's thought on it in "The LIfe and Times of Jesus the Messiah" which alludes to the very similiar phrasing of Nicodemus and Jewish proselytes being immersed in their conversion to Judaism. ]

Good thinking. I've been looking into it as well, and find much about baptism in this passage. Of course, even those commentators that see a link between these words and baptism don't see it as teaching the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, for several different reasons. I'll try to stay away from those for the moment, however. I have enough problems with ADD as it is

Thanks for your thoughts, and sorry it took so long to get back to you. I was pretty distracted today, so I think my thoughts weren't as clear as I'd like. I'll try to be more clear later. Take care

[rhinomelon]

[However, could you elaborate on how there can only be one interpretation of essentials, yet multiple interpretations of non-essentials.]

A rule of thumb for biblical interpretation that is helpful here is that if there are issues on which there is a great volume of biblical testimony, all saying the same thing, then any verses that seem to say something contrary are obviously not being interpreted correctly. It's interpreting the minor exceptions in light of the majority testimony, in other words. If you have a box with a hundred love letters from your spouse in it, and upon reading them you find two that seem less loving, or use a phrase that could be interpreted badly, you wouldn't then conclude that your spouse did not love you. Rather, you would find a way to reconcile the two unclear references with the greater testimony of the rest of the letters.

There are issues that the Bible is quite clear on. Explicit monotheism would probably be the most apparent. There are dozens of references in both OT and NT to the fact that there is only one God. (Which, in short, is one reason that I don't see your article, as well researched and clear as it was, as a truly biblical interpretation.) There are also many references to Christ being the only way of reconciliation between man and God. These are essentials. All other verses in the Bible must be interpreted in light of the overarching testimony that there is only one God, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be reconciled to Him. There are other difficulties I see in your interpretation, and I'd be happy to discuss them with you, but I think that might be something of a tangent.

As far as the "non-essentials" go, there are multiple interpretations possible because these interpretations, for the most part, are arguments from silence. They are neither explicitly taught or rejected in the biblical testimony, but are inferred from oblique references in other passages. Since the Bible contains no injunction regarding mode of baptism, then there is no "one right answer" to that question.

To go back to the love letter analogy, if your spouse leaves no indication about the exact date she started loving you, or what kind of flowers she likes, then you can think what you want to, or try to infer it from the dating of the letters, etc. Just don't let whatever interpretation you come up with on this relatively minor issue conflict with the bedrock message she's communicating: that she indeed loves you.

I might be a little confused as to some of your other questions, so if my answer kind of missed the point, feel free to let me know how I can refine it. Thanks for your thoughts! Take care, everyone

[wenglund]

[However, could you elaborate on how there can only be one interpretation of essentials, yet multiple interpretations of non-essentials.]

A rule of thumb for biblical interpretation that is helpful here is that if there are issues on which there is a great volume of biblical testimony, all saying the same thing, then any verses that seem to say something contrary are obviously not being interpreted correctly. It's interpreting the minor exceptions in light of the majority testimony, in other words. If you have a box with a hundred love letters from your spouse in it, and upon reading them you find two that seem less loving, or use a phrase that could be interpreted badly, you wouldn't then conclude that your spouse did not love you. Rather, you would find a way to reconcile the two unclear references with the greater testimony of the rest of the letters.

There are issues that the Bible is quite clear on. Explicit monotheism would probably be the most apparent.

Were that true, then all who accept the Bible in general, and the Old Testament in particular, would be in complete agreement on that issue. There would have been unanimity among all Jews and Christian on how they view the "oneness" of God. There would have been no need for evolving creeds to address the question, since no real question would have existed. And, no need to address the "Jesus" problem, since no problem would exist. All would interprete that portion of the Bible the same---since, as you say, there is only one way to interprete it.

However, history suggest quite the opposite. Even among historical Christianity there has been a broad range of beliefs, including among monothiests. (See: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookA/Chap1.htm#christian )

Would it interest you to learn that of the scriptures which speak to the "oneness" of God versus those that speak to a multiplicity of Gods, the former are outnumbered by the later by nearly 10 to 1 ? (See http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookA/Chap1.htm )

Using your "love letter" reasoning, this would favor the multiplicity of God's interpetation, thus rendering the strict monotheistic interpretations of the "oneness" passages incorrect.

Would it interest you to learn that ratio of scriptures speaking to the non-corporal nature of God are outnumbered by those speaking to his corporal nature, is closer to 25 to 1 ? (See: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookB/Table.htm )

Again, using your "love letter" analogy, a strict belief in an amorphos God would be incorrect.

Anyway, with all due respect, I am not intending to question your beliefs about God. I am just challenging your view that there can only be one interpretation of the Bible on essential issues. That just can't possibly be the case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

Thanks for the thoughts, wenglund. And for the articles you posted, very interesting.

Were that true, then all who accept the Bible in general, and the Old Testament in particular, would be in complete agreement on that issue. There would have been unanimity among all Jews and Christian on how they view the "oneness" of God.

Not really. The divide between Christian and Jew came about mostly because the Christians believed that Jesus Christ was God, and the Jews didn't. They were both monotheistic, yes, but the Christians now had to deal with some kind of plurality within the one God, which was revealed in Christ. They couldn't grasp it, and I would dare to say that nobody will ever be able to fully grasp that mystery. This doesn't change the fact that both Jews and Christians are monotheists.

And, no need to address the "Jesus" problem, since no problem would exist.

Don't really know what you mean here, maybe you could fill that out for me?

All would interprete that portion of the Bible the same---since, as you say, there is only one way to interprete it.

If you are referring to the OT, I think that Jews and Christians did interpret it in the same way, at least with regard to monotheism.

However, history suggest quite the opposite. Even among historical Christianity there has been a broad range of beliefs, including among monothiests. (See: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookA/Chap1.htm#christian )

Two points that trouble me about this kind of thinking: First, you make the assumption that anybody who calls themselves "Christian" is therefore "Christian". In other words, the label is more important than the beliefs. This is what leads to complete anarchy, as I stated in my last post. I could just as easily say that each of the dozens of splinter groups from Joseph Smith's Restoration movement are equally valid and truthful. Basically, you are postulating no objective standard, no objective truth. All religion, all beliefs, amount to nothing in such a paradigm. You are cutting away your own foundation upon which to build, in my opinion.

Second, I found it interesting that in your article, almost all of the aberrant doctrines of God you listed were (1) deemed heretical even at the time, for many reason including lack of biblical support, and (2) have no contemporary equivalent. This suggests to me that these beliefs indeed have little or no biblical warrant, because they can't be reconciled with the biblical testimony. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses are only able to hold to their odd doctrine of God by redefining Hebrew and Greek translation, and editing their own copy of the Bible (which was Marcion's trick, by the way).

Would it interest you to learn that of the scriptures which speak to the "oneness" of God versus those that speak to a multiplicity of Gods, the former are outnumbered by the later by nearly 10 to 1 ? (See http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookA/Chap1.htm )

Another principle of biblical interpretation (along with interpreting the less clear passages by those that are clear) is taking the culture and literary qualities of the text into account. The passages that you list do not do that, in my opinion. Nowhere in the Bible is there even hinted that there is another being in existence like God, or more powerful than God. There are other issues, but this would be a tangent discussion. Maybe another thread sometime? Anyway, suffice it to say that your interpretation does not take into account poetic and figurative language (such as "standing/sitting at God's right hand", which denotes a position of power, authority, and respect in the middle eastern culture, not a literal position in time and space), nor does it take into account the verses that are so explicitly monotheistic as to be unmistakable (such as various passages in Isaiah and other books). There are explicit references to strict monotheism; the references used to promote polytheism (or bitheism or tritheism) are implicit, and can be interpreted just as well in the context of the explicit passages. I don't have to throw those passages out when I make my case for monotheism, in other words.

Would it interest you to learn that ratio of scriptures speaking to the non-corporal nature of God are outnumbered by those speaking to his corporal nature, is closer to 25 to 1 ? (See: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookB/Table.htm )

And yet even LDS scholars would not go so far as to say that the corporeality of God is really taught in the Bible. Stephen Robinson, for example, states that there are only two passages from which the corporeality of God is made clear, and both of those are found in LDS modern revelation: Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, and D&C 130:22 (if I remember right). Robinson states that if one looks at such passages you list in light of poetic language and ancient Hebrew culture and idiom, the case is far from conclusive. (To be fair, he also writes that the case for the immateriality of God is also not conclusive from the biblical text.)

The test for biblical truth is not majority vote. If it were, the LDS would be in more trouble than the rest, especially regarding more esoteric doctrines such as baptism for the dead and eternal progression. This is even taking into account LDS modern revelation; there is hardly any scriptural evidence for many of the unique doctrines and practices of the LDS church in any of the four standard works.

I am just challenging your view that there can only be one interpretation of the Bible on essential issues. That just can't possibly be the case.

I will not make a dogmatic assertion that there is only one interpretation possible of the Bible, even on essentials. That would be presuming too much intelligence on my part, and sadly, much as I would like to think otherwise, I am not omniscient. However, I will go as far as to say that there has only been one internally consistent and sensible interpretation of the Bible on these essential issues, and it is that interpretation that unites all of Christendom, regardless of denominational stands on peripheral issues. The LDS interpretation(s), in my opinion and from careful study, fall short when these interpretations are taken to their inevitable conclusions. The LDS paradigm may look good when used to interpret certain passages, but when used for other passages, it doesn't work.

A contemporary similar example: the J,E,D, & P theory used to describe how the OT was assembled works perfectly in the story of Noah; the story subdivides perfectly along the established criteria of the theory. However, there is no other place where it is as clear, and many more where the theory breaks down entirely. As such, it is rapidly losing credibility in the realm of biblical scholarship. It is seen at best as a potential explanation for certain areas, but nowhere near the "unified field theory" it was once trumpeted as.

Biblical Christianity, when faced with inferior (or "sub-Christian", as the scholars sometimes say), had to keep defining what was biblical and what was not. Personally, I think they did a remarkable job, and nothing I've seen yet undermines their conclusions in the slightest. These are vitally important issues, and it is intellectual and spiritual suicide to suggest that these issues don't matter. Biblical Christianity stakes its claim on those issues that are non-negotiable, while allowing for various interpretations on issues that are not really discussed, or portrayed as important within the Bible. And even these non-essential issues must be judged and interpreted in light of the essential foundation. For instance, if Calvinism, when taken to it's logical conclusion, ended up with two eternal and omnipotent Gods, it would be dismissed, even if the theory was internally consistent with itself.

I'm going to be quiet now. Let me ask a question, maybe to spark further discussion: Do you believe there are biblical essentials, or is it simply an interpretative free-for-all?

I hope I didn't overload you. I'll keep my next one shorter, because as Herb pointed out, this really is getting huge

Take care, everyone

[wenglund]

Thanks for the thoughts, wenglund. And for the articles you posted, very interesting.

Were that true, then all who accept the Bible in general, and the Old Testament in particular, would be in complete agreement on that issue. There would have been unanimity among all Jews and Christian on how they view the "oneness" of God.

Not really. The divide between Christian and Jew came about mostly because the Christians believed that Jesus Christ was God, and the Jews didn't. They were both monotheistic, yes, but the Christians now had to deal with some kind of plurality within the one God, which was revealed in Christ. They couldn't grasp it, and I would dare to say that nobody will ever be able to fully grasp that mystery. This doesn't change the fact that both Jews and Christians are monotheists.

Hi Rhino,

Perhaps I lack sufficient clarity, but you seem to have misunderstood nearly every one of my key points.

You answered "Not really" to my reasonable assumption above, but then in your follow-up comments you inadvertantly underscored what I said. The Jews and the Christian are, in your words, "divided" over the how Jesus fits into their respective notions of monotheism (this is, in part, what I was referring to when I said "the 'Jesus' problem"). The Jewish notion of monotheism is different from the Christians. In other words, while the Jewish and Christian noions may be classified under the general category of "monotheism" (the strict monotheistic Jews, however, would reject trinitarianism as monotheistic), their understanding of the "oneness" of God differs in key ways. And since the Jewish and Christians'notions are based on their respective interpretations of the Bible, then there is evidently more than one way to interprete the Bible on this essential issue. Otherwise they would both unavoidably believe the same thing because that would be the ony way to interpret it.

If this is true between Jews and Christian (and it evidently is), then logically the same applies in the case of key differences on this essential issue among the many subgroups of Christianity (or, if you prefer, among bible-based religious denominations linkable to Christianity), many of which I listed in the online article you read.

These evident differences among bible-based religious organizations, is clear evidence that there is more than one way to interpret the Bible, even on essential issues.

I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It seem rather basic and obvious to me. But, let's continue.

And, no need to address the "Jesus" problem, since no problem would exist.

Don't really know what you mean here, maybe you could fill that out for me?

See above.

All would interprete that portion of the Bible the same---since, as you say, there is only one way to interprete it.

If you are referring to the OT, I think that Jews and Christians did interpret it in the same way, at least with regard to monotheism.

How could they? The Jews didn't include Jesus (or even the Messiah) in their monotheistic view, and the Christians (or, if you prefer, bible-based religious denominations linkable to Christianity) were also divided as to how and whether Jesus fit within their view of the "oneness of God." Logically, that couldn't have happened were there only one way to interpret the Bible on this essential issue.

However, history suggest quite the opposite. Even among historical Christianity there has been a broad range of beliefs, including among monothiests. (See: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookA/Chap1.htm#christian )

Two points that trouble me about this kind of thinking: First, you make the assumption that anybody who calls themselves "Christian" is therefore "Christian". In other words, the label is more important than the beliefs. This is what leads to complete anarchy, as I stated in my last post. I could just as easily say that each of the dozens of splinter groups from Joseph Smith's Restoration movement are equally valid and truthful. Basically, you are postulating no objective standard, no objective truth. All religion, all beliefs, amount to nothing in such a paradigm. You are cutting away your own foundation upon which to build, in my opinion.

Actually, I was simply applying the commonly accepted (dictionary) definition of Christianity so as to avoid endless idiosyncratic circularity in interfaith dialogue. If it is of any help, then replace the word "Christian" above with: bible-based religious denominations linkable to Christianity). (By "bible-based," I am simply referring to those who use the Bible as the bases of the religious beliefs)

Second, I found it interesting that in your article, almost all of the aberrant doctrines of God you listed were (1) deemed heretical even at the time, for many reason including lack of biblical support, and (2) have no contemporary equivalent. This suggests to me that these beliefs indeed have little or no biblical warrant, because they can't be reconciled with the biblical testimony. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses are only able to hold to their odd doctrine of God by redefining Hebrew and Greek translation, and editing their own copy of the Bible (which was Marcion's trick, by the way).

That I didn't list contemprary equivelents for each of the doctrines ("abberrancy" is a matter of perspective, and has little place in interfaith dialogue), does not mean they do not exist. I just had't completed my research so as to determine it one way or another.

That they were deemed heretical, suggest just the opposite from what you assumed. It clearly demonstrates that there were significant difference in how each party interpreted the Bible on this essential issue, and that the respective parties were so convinced of the verity of their respective interpretations, that a deep schism occured. And, while the "majority" party "won out", and thus was able to dictate who's interpretation was "heretical" and who's wasn't, the "label" of heretic, then, was merely indicative of who's interpretation "won" in that instance, and not whether the Bible could only be interpreted in one way on this essential issue. In fact, it indicates otherwise.

Would it interest you to learn that of the scriptures which speak to the "oneness" of God versus those that speak to a multiplicity of Gods, the former are outnumbered by the later by nearly 10 to 1 ? (See http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookA/Chap1.htm )

Another principle of biblical interpretation (along with interpreting the less clear passages by those that are clear) is taking the culture and literary qualities of the text into account. The passages that you list do not do that, in my opinion.

As inaccurate as your opinion is, your statement above again inadvertantly underscores my point. If there was only one way to interprete the Bible, then it wouldn't matter whether the interpreter utilized textual critical analysis or not. The intrepretation would invariably be the one and only way you claim the Bible may be interpreted.

And, if you are at all familiar with Biblical studies, you will realize that even amongst those who take "culture and literary qualities" into consideration when analyzing biblical text, they are far from unanimous in their interpretations, thus again underscoring my point about multiple ways to reasonably interprete the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible is there even hinted that there is another being in existence like God, or more powerful than God.

As uniformed as the first part of this statement is, it too, inadvertantly supports my point. For example, the Jews would say exactly that in reference to the Christian (or, if you prefer, bible-based religious denominations linkable to Christianity) assertion about the divinity of Christ.

But, how could that be if there is only one way that the Bible could be interpreted on this essential issue?

In truth, there are multiple ways in which the Bible may reasonably be interpreted.

Anyway, suffice it to say that your interpretation does not take into account poetic and figurative language (such as "standing/sitting at God's right hand", which denotes a position of power, authority, and respect in the middle eastern culture, not a literal position in time and space), nor does it take into account the verses that are so explicitly monotheistic as to be unmistakable (such as various passages in Isaiah and other books).

Obviously, you didn't read the whole article. I do, in fact, specifically address those very things.

There are explicit references to strict monotheism; the references used to promote polytheism (or bitheism or tritheism) are implicit, and can be interpreted just as well in the context of the explicit passages. I don't have to throw those passages out when I make my case for monotheism, in other words.

As inaccurate as this statement is, you are here missing the point while unknowingly confirming it. If there were only one way to interprete the Bible, as you claim, then both the explicite and implicite references would be interpreted exactly the same. Everyone would interprete those passages that one and only way.

Are you yet beginning to see the fallacousness of your claim?

Would it interest you to learn that ratio of scriptures speaking to the non-corporal nature of God are outnumbered by those speaking to his corporal nature, is closer to 25 to 1 ? (See: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookB/Table.htm )

And yet even LDS scholars would not go so far as to say that the corporeality of God is really taught in the Bible. Stephen Robinson, for example, states that there are only two passages from which the corporeality of God is made clear, and both of those are found in LDS modern revelation: Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, and D&C 130:22 (if I remember right). Robinson states that if one looks at such passages you list in light of poetic language and ancient Hebrew culture and idiom, the case is far from conclusive. (To be fair, he also writes that the case for the immateriality of God is also not conclusive from the biblical text.)

I am not sure whether you have accurately represented Robinson here or or not, and I can't speak to what he may or may not have said about the corporeality of God not "really being taught" in the Bible. All I can speak to is what I have argued, and supported.--and I am quite confident in letting the evidence speak largely for itself.

Anyway, if, as you report Robison as saying, the case is far from conclusive one way or the other, doesn't that suggests to your mind that there can't be only one way to interprete the scriptures on this essential issue? Otherwise, wouldn't it be conclusively interpreted in tthat alleged one and only way?

The test for biblical truth is not majority vote. If it were, the LDS would be in more trouble than the rest, especially regarding more esoteric doctrines such as baptism for the dead and eternal progression. This is even taking into account LDS modern revelation; there is hardly any scriptural evidence for many of the unique doctrines and practices of the LDS church in any of the four standard works.

Perhaps you forgot, but the "majority rule" principle was introduced and reintroduced by you in your "love letters" analogy. I was applying it the same way you did---i.e. if there are 10 scripture which say one thing, and two that seem to say otherwise, then the two need to be interpreted in a way consistent with the 10. I applied it to the number of scriptures for a given issue, not the number of people who believe one thing or another, as you irrelevantly remarked.

Still, how can there be a majority or minority interpretation if there is only one way to interprete the thing?

Again, the truth is, there are multiple ways in which the Bible can reasonably be interpreted, even on essential issues.

I am just challenging your view that there can only be one interpretation of the Bible on essential issues. That just can't possibly be the case.

I will not make a dogmatic assertion that there is only one interpretation possible of the Bible, even on essentials. That would be presuming too much intelligence on my part, and sadly, much as I would like to think otherwise, I am not omniscient. However, I will go as far as to say that there has only been one internally consistent and sensible interpretation of the Bible on these essential issues, and it is that interpretation that unites all of Christendom, regardless of denominational stands on peripheral issues.

One need not be "omniscient" to rationally accept historical facts which unavoidably contradict the claim that there is only one reasonable interpretation of the Bible on essential issues, let alone one reasonable interpretation that unites Jews and Christians (or, if you prefer, bible-based religious denominations linkable to Christianity), or even all of Christendom (or, if you prefer, bible-based religious denominations linkable to Christianity).

There is considerable divisiveness over whether there is one or more person(s)/personage(s) who is/are God, whether the "oneness" of god is ontological or in purpose, whether Christ is considered to be God (honorifically, through the resurrection, or not at all), whether his mortal nature was an illusion or one of the persons of the Father, or the Father, or a mode or attribute of the Father, or distinguishable from the Father as a tree is distinguishable from its root, or one in ousios but not in hypostasis, or whether the "three-ness" is emphasisd over the "oneness" or vice versa, etc. etc.

Each of the respective parties base their views on their interpretation of the Bible, and believe their interpretations to be consistent with all the passages of the Bible, and may even take into consideration "cultural and literary qualitie."

That is not possible if there is only one way that the Bible can be interpreted on this essential issue.

Once again, the truth is, there are multiple ways in which the Bible can be reasonably interpreted even in the case of essential issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

I'll try to break this up into smaller chunks here. We are currently writing a theological novella Thanks for taking the time to get back to me on all this stuff, by the way. I appreciate it.

The Jews and the Christian are, in your words, "divided" over the how Jesus fits into their respective notions of monotheism (this is, in part, what I was referring to when I said "the 'Jesus' problem"). The Jewish notion of monotheism is different from the Christians... And since the Jewish and Christians'notions are based on their respective interpretations of the Bible, then there is evidently more than one way to interprete the Bible on this essential issue. Otherwise they would both unavoidably believe the same thing because that would be the ony way to interpret it.

If the Jews claimed to be a Christian group, and if their interpretation attempted to take into account the person and claims of Jesus Christ, and the writings of his followers found in the New Testament, then you might have a case here. As it is, you seem to be trying to limit Christian interpretation to the Old Testament, which if course monkeys with the situation a bit, in my opinion. Feel free to correct me on that, though.

If this is true between Jews and Christian (and it evidently is), then logically the same applies in the case of key differences on this essential issue among the many subgroups of Christianity

Or in the differences between Islam and Buddhism, or between Catholicism and Sikhism for that matter. If it is not the Christian Bible (OT and NT) that you are talking about being interpreted, then why limit it to "Christian sub-groups"? I would not include Judaism as a Christian group by the way; I don't think they'd agree It doesn't really help your case either way, as far as I can see.

More later. Thanks again! Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Perhaps you forgot, but the "majority rule" principle was introduced and reintroduced by you in your "love letters" analogy. I was applying it the same way you did---i.e. if there are 10 scripture which say one thing, and two that seem to say otherwise, then the two need to be interpreted in a way consistent with the 10.

Just a clarification. I only intended to use my love letter analogy in terms of that one aspect of biblical interpretation. It was obviously a faulty one that breaks down beyond that point. I'll try to come up with another analogy to better explain the second interpretative principle. Don't read too much into the love letter thing; perhaps I can do better. Thanks for understanding

[wenglund]

I'll try to break this up into smaller chunks here. We are currently writing a theological novella Thanks for taking the time to get back to me on all this stuff, by the way. I appreciate it.

The Jews and the Christian are, in your words, "divided" over the how Jesus fits into their respective notions of monotheism (this is, in part, what I was referring to when I said "the 'Jesus' problem"). The Jewish notion of monotheism is different from the Christians... And since the Jewish and Christians'notions are based on their respective interpretations of the Bible, then there is evidently more than one way to interprete the Bible on this essential issue. Otherwise they would both unavoidably believe the same thing because that would be the ony way to interpret it.

If the Jews claimed to be a Christian group, and if their interpretation attempted to take into account the person and claims of Jesus Christ, and the writings of his followers found in the New Testament, then you might have a case here. As it is, you seem to be trying to limit Christian interpretation to the Old Testament, which if course monkeys with the situation a bit, in my opinion. Feel free to correct me on that, though.

If this is true between Jews and Christian (and it evidently is), then logically the same applies in the case of key differences on this essential issue among the many subgroups of Christianity

Or in the differences between Islam and Buddhism, or between Catholicism and Sikhism for that matter. If it is not the Christian Bible (OT and NT) that you are talking about being interpreted, then why limit it to "Christian sub-groups"? I would not include Judaism as a Christian group by the way; I don't think they'd agree It doesn't really help your case either way, as far as I can see.

More later. Thanks again! Take care, everyone

I think it wise to break things up, and I am glad to see that you have done this.

However, with all due respect, you seem to be having considerable trouble following the line of discussion. Remember back about 5 or 6 exchanges to where I indicated that because of the endless rounds in talking about "Biblical Christianity" I noted that it would be prudent to focus the discussion on just what may qualify as "Biblical"?

Anyway, since then, the discussion was intended to determine if there is more than one way in which ANYONE may reasonably interpret the Bible (not just Christians). I mentioned Jews and Christians as an example of how historically there have been at least two divergent interpretations of the Bible.

With this now getting us back on track, would you please re-read what I said, and responded accordingly.

Again, this seems rather simple and obvious. For the life of me, I don't understand why you can't see that there are multiple reasanable interpretations of the Bible, even on essential issues. Otherwise, we would all interprete the Bible the same way on those issues, and be in agreement thereon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

Hey wenglund, sorry it took so long. And this will probably be another short posting day. Pretty busy

[i noted that it would be prudent to focus the discussion on just what may qualify as "Biblical"?]

In light of your bringing Judaism as a contradistinctive interpretation to Christianity (despite the fact they do not claim to be Christian, nor do they accept the NT as Scripture), perhaps it would first be prudent to focus the discussion on what you consider to be "Bible".

[i mentioned Jews and Christians as an example of how historically there have been at least two divergent interpretations of the Bible.]

Jews and Christians have two divergent interpretations of the OT, of course. However, I still fail to see how this is germane to the point you are trying to make. Unless you wish to begin a tangent on "Biblical Judaism"? Which might be fun, in a way. It would certainly take my thinking in a new direction. Maybe if we got RebAvomai in on it as well. Hmmm....

[ And, while the "majority" party "won out", and thus was able to dictate who's interpretation was "heretical" and who's wasn't, the "label" of heretic, then, was merely indicative of who's interpretation "won" in that instance, and not whether the Bible could only be interpreted in one way on this essential issue. In fact, it indicates otherwise.]

This is a common argument, and there is no doubt some truth to it. However, I think it important to note that these "heretical" views died out rather quickly, and I think both of us would be hard-pressed to find any examples of a group claiming to be Christian that would adopt most of these. The reason is not just because one view won out, but because that view was well defended and exposed large gaps and inconsistencies in the alternate views. From my readings and studies, all of these heresies had significant weaknesses, either from contradicting Scripture or not making sense, or from not taking into account the whole of the biblical witness. In short, these views were proven not to be reasonable, and that proof was so conclusive that nobody's bothered to pick up those beliefs again. (Except for maybe some New Agey types, who don't really care about Scripture anyway, they just want Jesus the Avatar or Jesus the social revolutionary.)

So you are correct in pointing out that there are alternate readings. However, I would submit that you are incorrect in assuming that all these interpretations were reasonable.

[And, if you are at all familiar with Biblical studies, you will realize that even amongst those who take "culture and literary qualities" into consideration when analyzing biblical text, they are far from unanimous in their interpretations, thus again underscoring my point about multiple ways to reasonably interprete the Bible.]

And here you bring up another relevant area to our discussion. There is indeed a lack of scholarly consensus on many (if not all) areas of Christian faith and ancient Hebrew faith. As you correctly pointed out, my familiarity with biblical studies is not where I wish it was. But I am learning, usually through helpful discussion like these

The problem with bringing in modern scholarly consensus is that it introduces a whole other can of worms into the mix. For example, many biblical scholars claim no affiliation to Christianity, and many don't even worry about the rest of the Bible when digging into a subject. There are scholars who study only the ancient Hebrew of the minor prophets, for example. They don't care if their interpretation lines up with the witness of the rest of the Bible. Also, lack of scholarly consensus is also due to the amazing ability of scholars to nitpick and disagree over amazingly inconsequential stuff. There is no scholarly consensus about the exact meaning and history of, say, Isaiah 23:6, for example. (I don't even know what that verse says, but I am quite certain that not everyone agrees on it.

Another big problem is that many scholars today operate with a set of assumptions that would not have even entered the minds of the biblical authors. For instance, the Jesus Seminar scholars base their interpretation of the gospels in part on the naturalistic assumption that miracles can't happen. Of course they're going to be off, especially when trying to figure out what the biblical authors and the early Christians meant. The biblical authors and the early Christians, without a doubt, believed in miracles.

For scholars who take the entire Bible seriously, and try to get to the original meanings and intentions and cultural backgrounds of the authors, and also see the Bible as Scripture, I think there is a surprising amount of consensus on the essentials from such men and women. Surely more consensus than you would find among scholars of any other collection of ancient writings. Try reading scholarly works on the Vedas sometime, if you really want your head to spin. Nobody knows what those are trying to say!

Oops, I'm getting long again. I'll pipe down now. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Hey wenglund! Hope you had a good weekend. I found some principles of biblical exegesis that might help you understand where I'm coming from with regard to my position that there is only one correct/reasonable interpretation of the Bible possible with essential issues, such as monotheism. There are fifteen principles, so bear with me.

(1) When studying through a text of Scripture, learn to ask the right questions, i.e. who wrote it, when, why, what happened, etc.

(2) Always examine closely the context of any given passage. All literature, including the Bible, must be read or studied in light of its context. To do otherwise, will only cause confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the reader. There are plenty of instances in which the same word carries different meanings depending on how it is used.

(3)The Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation is necessary if one is going to rightly interpret the Bible. This means that the interpreter must be sensitive to the historical context and setting of the passage under examination as well as its grammar or word usage.

(4)Allow clear or plain passages of the Bible to explain those which are obscure or doubtful. In fact, without the help of clearer or parallel passages, some words and sentences in Scripture would hardly be intelligible. In a real sense, then, Scripture interprets Scripture

[rhinomelon]

Just a bit more. Then I'll be quiet

These are basic principles that govern the interpretation of the Scriptures. Some of them are just as easily applied in studying any ancient document, or even modern documents for that manner. Some are specifically related to Scripture.

And I am not trying to impose extrabiblical criteria on you by saying there is only one correct interpretation. Correct interpretation is a stated goal even within the Bible itself:

[rhinomelon]

I know it's been a while, I just thought I'd come back and post a few more thoughts. Makes me think I'm special or something

This thread has focused on the concept of Biblical Christianity, and has approached the issue in several different ways. First, there is the view that there is no such thing as Biblical Christianity, that it is all a "sham". Of course, if there is no such thing as Biblical Christianity, then that would create significant problems for the religions that now claim to have restored it.

Along this line of thinking is the view that there can be multiple versions of Biblical Christianity, as long as they find some basis in the Bible (for the purposes of this discussion, defined as OT & NT). This apparently is true even if the various interpretations are mutually exclusive, i.e. that they can't both be true at the same time. I am of the opinion that there are certain foundational concepts taught in the Bible and throughout the history of Christianity, that form the core of the Christian faith, or "Biblical Christianity". An analogy that I was thinking about this morning: If you put grains of sand, alike in every way, in mollusks that inhabit various areas of the earth, and come back in a few years, you will find pearls. Of course, if these mollusks came from different conditions, the pearls would be different in various ways, such as size, color, etc. But they are all pearls, and all have the same core. In a way, this is like the various branches of Christendom today, all building up a different pearl around the same grain of biblical truth. They may look different, and some are bigger than others, but they all have that common core, that same original source.

I believe that this grain of sand is composed of non-negotiable issues within theology, many of which I've already laid out in the preceding pages.

Another position that came to light in this thread is one of seeming relativism, in which it doesn't matter how you interpret something, it doesn't matter if the interpreter is a follower of Christ or not, it doesn't matter if what one is interpreting is even the Bible or not, any interpretation has an equally valid claim to the throne of Biblical Christianity. This approach, in my opinion, has two major flaws.

First, in terms of comparing the concept of Biblical Christianity to the LDS church, it poses a double standard. Christianity apparently has to agree on everything to give the concept of Biblical Christianity some credibility, while the LDS church is under no such injunction. It would be interesting to see if the LDS posters on this board (or even in this thread) could absolutely agree on every issue within LDS theology, even on the big ones (like how many Gods exist).

The second flaw with this line of reasoning is that it erodes the very foundation upon which the LDS church (or any organization with a particular set of beliefs, for that matter) seeks to build a "true religion". By arguing for the equal validity of every interpretation, one does not bring their own up a notch, but drops everyone's interpretation to the muddy floor of "personal opinion". There are no winners in such a universe, only losers.

There is a difference between splitting theological hairs about (which admittedly does divide Christianity way too much) and burying the hatchet square in the beating heart of that which holds all of Christianity together.

I will plant my flag in the core of the Christian faith, what I would call Biblical Christianity. This frustrates some people, because I refuse to take a tack of argument that would lead to theological and interpretative anarchy (as discussed above). Of course, these other people do the same thing, they just have planted their flag somewhere else Also, planting my flag does not mean I am automatically discounting the possibility that there is a more complete, more perfect interpretation out there; it does mean that I have yet to find one that even comes close to taking in the whole of biblical testimony and human experience, as does the core beliefs of Biblical Christianity laid out earlier. Considering that brilliant and faithful men have been working through these issues for two thousand years, I am admittedly skeptical that anything noteworthy will come out.

There seems to be at least some form of theological foundation in the LDS church, a "Scriptural Mormonism" if you will. People are excommunicated for teaching error and promoting false views, even if they are backed up by Scripture in the four standard works. Is it any wonder that Christianity has the same kind of foundation? And yet we are blasted for it, because we are excluding so many people (like the LDS). I find it somewhat amusing. Pot, kettle, black, whatever.

I appreciate the thoughts and contributions of those who have posted on this thread, even though we obviously did not agree on everything. I would enjoy keeping this thread going, but I also understand that sometimes you just have to bury the dead horse instead of tenderizing it

Maybe I'll post more on this topic later, if I have a brain spark at some point. Thanks again, and take care, everyone

[aznative]

.What is Biblical Christianity?

It's a lie, all a lie..........

[rhinomelon]

It's a lie, all a lie.......... 

Darn, ya caught me...

[wenglund]

Correct interpretation is espoused by Jesus himself. In my thinking, when you propose that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the Bible, even on foundational issues, that consequently denies that there can be real truth found in it. It all depends on the mood or bias of the interpreter, in other words. And I am not denying I have a bias, mind you, because I obviously do. It's simply that in my studies and education, I have been convinced of the truth of certain basic precepts that the Bible teaches. This convincing comes from both outside the Bible and within it, and from sources outside of me, and from the Source inside me.

Hi Rhino,

I am sorry that I haven't responded sooner, but after failing to get you to come to an agreement on several pretty basic, simple, reasonable points, I wasn't sure there would be much value in continuing, and so I have lost interest.

Anyway, even though I may grant that your interpretation of the Bible is reasonable, and that your belief in Christ qualifies you to be classified as Christian, and thus considered a "Biblical Christian," I understand that your Evangelical way of thinking prevents you from offering the same respect in return.

That's fine. To each their own.

My belief in Christ, and my confidence in the verity of his restored gospel as biblical, rests in the capable hands of God, and not with unathoritative, self-appointed, human judges.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

[i am sorry that I haven't responded sooner, but after failing to get you to come to an agreement on several pretty basic, simple, reasonable points, I wasn't sure there would be much value in continuing, and so I have lost interest.]

That's kind of what I figured. You didn't seem too happy

I will admit that on the face of it, you had some good points that I could concede for the moment. However, if those points were taken to their logical conclusions, they would have led into areas that I have no wish to go (and, I suppose, you wouldn't want to go either), as I described in my last larger post.

[i understand that your Evangelical way of thinking prevents you from offering the same respect in return. ]

Please don't think that I am not being respectful by not agreeing with your views. Quite the opposite; I have enjoyed our conversation, as it challenged my thinking in new areas. I can respect someone without agreeing with them; indeed, I think such a response is what I am called to as a follower of Christ. If there is anything in my previous posts that causes you to believe that I lack respect for you, please point it out so that I may correct it.

[My belief in Christ, and my confidence in the verity of his restored gospel as biblical, rests in the capable hands of God, and not with unathoritative, self-appointed, human judges.]

Absolutely! I have never suggested otherwise. Personally, I'm glad that the buck stops with God, and not you or I. That could get crazy...

If you have no wish to continue this thread, that's okay by me. Maybe somebody else can jump in with some fresh fire. Take care, everyone

[wenglund]

If there is anything in my previous posts that causes you to believe that I lack respect for you, please point it out so that I may correct it.

Whether intended or not, you insult my intelligence, and the intelligence of others who have faith in Christ and his restored gospel, when you say that our interpretation of the Bible on essential issues, is not reasonable.

You also insult our faith by arbitrarily and capreciously refusing to accept that we are Christian.

As polite and and gentle spoken as you have been, these kinds of insults makes pointless discussing essential issues with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

What is "Biblical Christianity"?

BIBLIDOLITRY

[Paul McNabb]

Rhinomelon,

I'd like to jump in and raise a few issues here.

These are basic principles that govern the interpretation of the Scriptures. Some of them are just as easily applied in studying any ancient document, or even modern documents for that manner. Some are specifically related to Scripture.

But just where do those principles come from, and are those principles Biblical? The Bible itself shows people interpretting earlier scriptures in ways that clearly are beyond what is considered "acceptable" by scholars studying ancient texts. Consider the context of "a virgin shall conceive." If anyone were to take a scripture like that out of the Bible and change its entire meaning, the person would be accused of poor exegesis. People who accept the New Testament writers as having the authority to interpret scripture allow those writers any leeway they want to take.

And if you want to interpret scripture the way other ancient texts are interpretted, you will have to allow the use of other Semetic and near eastern texts to help interpret the Bible. If you don't allow a scholar to use texts and concepts contemporary with the Bible to interpret the Bible, then you are using "basic principles" that are neither Biblical nor scholarly.

And I am not trying to impose extrabiblical criteria on you by saying there is only one correct interpretation. Correct interpretation is a stated goal even within the Bible itself:

[Dear Mee]

BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY: Words and deeds recorded by those professing belief in Christ who presented himself as a messanger with instructions from God. What we have recorded is the understanding of those who heard, or received, the message, based upon their ability to fully comprehend, "What did he say? What did he mean? What should we do?"

Which has been happening (asked) for 2,000 years. I suggest the question might better be, "what is 'Contemporary Christianity'?" That could guide us out of 'Confused Christianity' and be more purposeful, IMHO.