He likens all stories of the Bible to the prodigal son story.
But nobody claimed to have MET the prodigal son. When the New Testamant writers wrote about Jesus, they were writing about a guy who had been walking around not that long ago. The writers of the gospels were talking about Jesus in a very different way than Jesus spoke about the prodigal son. The prodigal son story isn't historical, but it bears truth.
But the stories about Jesus are historical, or they're lies.
"Product" is the right word. There have always been Gurus and wandering preachers, "Profits" is you like. There are people who are great speakers and who claim to have all the answers to all the most important questions. People love hearing stoies, especially stories that inspire and give hope. . . . All gods are inventions of human imagination.
The traditional biblical canon is useful, but it is a mixture of different types of teachings or expressions. As he said in his book...there is spiritual metaphor, parables, aphorisms, and devotional expressions from students.
Well, "love another" DEFINITELY happened but "the wrath of God abides on them" CLEARLY DOESN'T. come on people! It's all just a cover up for picking and choosing what is less offensive and what makes people too uncomfortable to get numbers in a church or not be persecuted. Stop making God in your own image.
I believe Borg's point is that facts are irrelevant and that you should love Christ and continue to follow regardless. If you only love, follow or believe in the principles of Jesus in light of the presence of historical evidence proving certain events, than you are probably not a TRUE believer in His word. The true question is: Can you continue to follow Jesus and his principles as a way of life & thinking regardless of accuracy of the nature of events and not just because it is DEMANDED??
@Serglish Your out of line. You speak the words of hate like the nazis and Spanish inquisitors that killed my Jewish brothers and sisters...and if you make the "bible" the
"absolute Word of God" you dispense with the need for Gd Himself.
@Serglish The Bible is the divine and absolute word of God? Who decides that? The humans who wrote it, the humans who claim that it is, or the humans that believe it is? The errors and contradictions found in the Bible reveal that it is a work of human beings, not divine. Truth is based on what is, not on one's beliefs or faith.
@LivingMindfully1975 I find it funny that you rightly state that human beings (multiple) recorded the Bible, for there is not another book in the history of the universe that is consistent with itself, makes outrageous claims that are believed by millions to be true, took over 1600 years to write, and was written by around 40 different authors. With that said, I'm sorry my friend, but I cannot believe that the Bible is a human work, divinity is clearly present with the Bible.
@MrRindercella ......You say "divinity if clearly present in the Bible?" There are Universal Truths in the Bible, but these same Truths can be found in all religious traditions. The Bible contains many errors and contradictions, and since you're obviously blind to these facts, because of your blind faith, I will point them out to you if you like. It doesn't matter what you believe the Bible to be, because blind faith isn't going to change what it is, which is a book written by humans.
@LivingMindfully1975 Yes, please point out the apparent contradictions in the Bible that you see. Give me scripture references and I will do my best to explain them to you, for even I do not, at all times, fully comprehend what is being said. At those times I seek counsel from my pastor or one of my mentors. Also, what "Universal Truths" are you talking about? For Christianity is unlike any other religion, you can be sure of that.
@LivingMindfully1975 Also, to add on, man does not claim the authority of Scripture. God claims the authority of Scripture. Look up 2nd Timothy 3:16. You see, God inspired the 40 different writers to record what He wished to be presented to humanity for the rest of time. And no teaching inside the Bible contradicts itself. That is why people still believe the Bible to be true, it is the living word of the living God of the universe. God is timeless, thus the Bible is timeless.
@MrRindercella .....God doesn't claim anything concerning the Bible. You're basing all of your comments on what you "believe." Truth isn't determined by what you believe or blindly invest your faith in. Truth is based on fact, on what-is. Truth isn't something to be "believed" in, it is something to be known. You can quote scriptures all day, but all you're doing is having faith in what you "think" those scriptures are, however that is not truth, it's only faith. Faith does not = Truth.
@LivingMindfully1975 You still seem to be struggling with the validity of Scripture, and I can see why, it is hard to believe something that was written long ago. And, as you seem to wish, I will validate Scripture historically instead of spiritually. I mentioned the fact that the Bible was written by 40 different authors and over a 1600 year time period. Well, in the early days of Scripture writing there were prophecies made that were literally fulfilled as recorded later on. ... (cont. 3)
@LivingMindfully1975 Historically we know (via mentions of ruling kings, present cities, strong powers) that these prophecies were made hundreds of years before they were actually carried out to be. Take Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12. And I am reading this as a historical book right now, not a Spiritual one, since we have not arrived yet that it is the valid word of God. The book of Isaiah was written around 800 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. ... (cont. 4)
@LivingMindfully1975 In the passgae I mentioned, Isaiah makes a claim of a man who was despised by men, beaten, crushed, and assigned a grave. Yet this same man, "after the suffering of his soul, [shall] see the light of life." No man in the history of the world has ever seen life after death, but 800 years later a man named Jesus came along, was killed by his own culture of people, and came back to life after being dead three days. Why in the world would Isaiah have these thoughts? ..(cont. 5)
@LivingMindfully1975 Many claims like this are made in the Bible and if you wish to see more I will point them out to you. No prophecy made in the Bible is unfulfilled, except the prophecies of teh second coming, but that just has not come to pass yet, it shall though. Ah but you say this isn't enough, well okay. Historically a lineage has been provided by the bible that has been verified. Archaeologically, cities are where the Bible said they are. Geologically, there has ... (cont. 6)
@LivingMindfully1975 (cont 6.) ... been an event that is described as a great flood, which the Bible claims. I do not understand how you can consider this a book written by humans, for it filled with knowledge that was unattainble by humans. There is something transcendent that is clearly present in the creation of this book. And maybe you are blind to that. For God claims he is that transcendence. It doesn't matter what YOU believe the Bible to be, for God claims it is true.
@MrRindercella .........GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the flood. GE 7:12 All living creatures, other than Noah and his family and the creatures on the ark, were killed/annihilated in the flood. However, NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the flood.
@MrRindercella .......Also: GE 11:26 Terah was 70 when his son Abram was born. GE 11:32 Terah was 205 when he died, making Abram 135. GE 12:4 AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran, after Terah died, thus Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died, or Abram was only 75 after he had lived 135 years.
@LivingMindfully1975 I am terribly sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns; this week has been very hectic for me and thus I have not had ample time to sit down and evaluate the passages you have referred to. I will be sure to get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
@LivingMindfully1975 Furthermore, I'm not too sure you fully understand the concept of absolute truth, for you state that truth is "what is." The beliefs people have, strictly speaking true Christians, are based on the absolute truth that God presents us in the Bible, which we have already established has claimed to have authority by God Himself. Truth is not a result of belief, no reasonable person would say that, belief is a result of truth. The absolute truth of God, found in his word.
@MrRindercella .....You have not established anything concerning the Bible, except that "you" have "faith" that it is the word of God. Faith doesn't make something true, no matter how strong that faith is. What is found in the Bible are concepts of God created by ancient men. The writings of these men were influenced by their religious views, their culture & society, mythology, patriarchal views, a legalistic purity system, and the current events taking place during their lifetimes.
@LivingMindfully1975 If they are the concepts of God, how can they be created by ancient men? Man cannot create what God has already concieved, so you basically are calling the Bible the word of God. To speak of faith.... any worldview that you have is a faith based belief. Am I correct in saying that? Nothing can be FULLY certain. Nothing. Faith is what drives the human life. Faith that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Faith that your wife will love you in the morning ... (cont.)
@LivingMindfully1975 (cont.) .... So if faith drives human life, how can you possibly throw it aside so easily? Truth is what is you say. Well what is? And says who? If you believe truth is what is, then truth is what people say it is. Which is faith. Faith in the people who say what is. What if Hitler won WWII? Then Jews would possibly still be mass murdered, and people would believe that was right and true because Hitler won and said it was. ... (cont. 2)
@LivingMindfully1975 (cont. 2) ... You are saying that truth is what is. What is being what people define it. What people define it being faith in their own thoughts. I'm saying that Truth comes from the one who created the universe. He alone defines truth, through Scripture, and therefore truth never changes, it is absolute. I place my faith IN truth, I am NOT finding truth in faith.
If you choose to deny this, then you are placing yourself outside of the Faith, for "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" -Romans 10:17 I must go to work for now. You say what is clear in the New Testament means little to you...so i can do no more than offer the gospel and move on. Even if I had ALL the answers, you probably would still conntinue in your present path, so as i said before, i wish you well
It has been nice conversing with you. but my job awaits. Bye 4 now.
Jesus Christ, Born of a virgin, God manifested in the flesh, yielded his life so that we might live, he shed his blood so that we can have the remission sins, He endured the wrath of God that WE deserve, and perfectied forever those who are sanctified. He confirmed every thing he did by rising from the dead three days after he gave his life on the Cross.
This is the gospel. and It is The Jesus who is clearly taught in the bible
oops. 2 Timothy... As for isaiah 7:14. it was concidered a prophecy, which was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ, who is GOD with us.... wait... Marble carring "Scolars" deny the virgin birth, and the diety of Christ...hmmmm
What it comes down to basicly, is that you you don't need scriptures to base your faith on, then i wish you well, But without the scriptures and the blood of Chrst
in addition the cannon of scriptures we call the bible were established in a seried of Synods, that lead to the cannon of scriptures we hold, established in the Synod of Hippo in the late 300"s. as fotr god not setting a standard, Paul was subject to scriptures when he preached to the bereans, Acts 17:10-11 . Hebrews 4:12 shows the dpower of God's word todescern the thoughts of man. @ timothy 3:16,17 states that the scriptures are for completely furnishing the christian to good works.
Yikes my spelling..None the less, To say that The God of the bible did not require the shedding of blood is simply to deny the faith, because without the sheding of blood there is no remission of sins, , Those who overcome do so by the blood of the lamb and the word of his testimony, without that you have nothing to base your faith on. I would reference, but there is no sene in it. If you don't believe the
Bible is Gods word it would be a waste of my time. Gotta go to bed. Nice Talkin to you.
Jesus was a Jew. he was also a rabbi. He proclaimed that the Scriptures TESYIFIED OF HIM. and after he resurected He expounded all the scriptures concerning himsel to two travelers, who were distressed at his death.. To say that Jesus did not regard the Jewish writings is insane. He considered the law as comming from Moses, and quoted from it frequently. He Also quoted from the Psalms. even on the cross... com'on are you pulling my leg? ;)
i think its funny to see christians :D its sad people are so blind to the truth that there is no god. we needed the security of a higher being, but why the fuck would we need him now?
Marcus Borg is an example of what happens when man chooses man's wisdom over God's wisdom. He should consider: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" and "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Corinthians 1:21, 25).
No, that is not correct. In fact, it is a false dilemma. If God's word is really his word, then one must take it seriously. It is foolish to worship God and ignore his word. It is not a case of choosing one over the other; they go together.
It's foolish to call a collection of writings "God's word" when the collection itself makes no such claim. There's not a single prophecy, not even from Jesus, that says one day a bunch of self appointed leaders would ever put together a collection of writings that would represent the very thoughts of God.
Actually, Jesus quotes the OT all the time as God's word. If the Bible is not God's word, then how do you know about God or Jesus? Do you believe in God?
Actualy Jesus only used the term "God's word" once if Luke is correct, and then he was speaking in vague terms.
I don't need to know about God/Jesus to be a friend of them both. I simply need to recognize the truths already written into my conscence at birth and follow them. As MacDonald said, it's about doing the duty God lays before you if it be to pay a debt, make an appology, or sweep a room. You could be raised by a pack of wolves on a distant planet and still find friendship with God.
As Paul said and I agree, "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
No they didn't. ONE writer expressed his opinion that SOME of what Paul (and no one else) wrote was something he believed to be inspired by God. He didn't tell us what that piece(s) of writing was though, so it's useless info for us. Besides, his opinion may not have been correct. Obviously he could not have been speaking about ALL of Paul's writing since some of it was never canonized. He may well have been referring to some of Paul's letters that never made it into the canon.
The one writer was an Apostle confirming the writings of another apostle, as scrripture The Section of the verse "the other scriptures' back to the "All his epistles" of Paul, Perhaps you should re read the text.. In the verse you can logically assume he was refering to the epistles
circulating at the time, being that nothing has "cannonized" in the time of the apostles...
1) Textual critism is usually found among thosewho are not of the faith, such as marcus borg. various dates are sugusted, the point is irrelivent. The church conciders it part of the cannon, and untill it is removed, evingelicals will concider it part of the bible
2)The Teachings of the apostles are considered Inspired, "God breathed." therefore Peters critique of Pauls writings is concidered inspired as well.
ALL HIS LETTERS. once again the word "scriptures" generally refers to the sacred writings.
Peter concidered All the writings of Paul. as "scriptures." The men who determined the cannon may not have include all of Pauls writings. That does not make Peter wrong, If anything it made the men who determined the cannon wrong. Even if they did include ALL of Paul's letters, the Unredeemed would still not believe it anyway...
You actually have the audacity to judge whether someone is a Christian or not? Not exactly very biblical for a guy who says all of some bible is completely inspired. Borg says he is a Christian/Anglican and that Jesus "is a divine reality that Christians can still experience personally." That's a Christian. I don't know if YOU are a Christian or not. At this point I simply know you're a Biblican, but I doubt that you can be both. And textual criticism is found among all intelligent humans.
And Ye Shall Know them by their fruits Matthew Chapter 7 ...Yes you can tell if someone is A follower of Christ. The new testament is clear that there are false spiritual leaders. that is why it isso important to destroy the credibility of the scriptures, which is common aamong the "Jesus seminar" type. Jesus is just not a Divine reality, he is God manifested in the Flesh who gave himself as the sacrificial Penal substitute
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x For all who put their faith in him... How can someone be a christian when he attempts to destroy the documents that testify of him?
2-The church... not a denomination... the called out body of believers... don't get locked into man made organizations
3- Saying "no it dosent" without providing exegesis, is nothing more than denial.
Look as the sentense structure. basic english
4-He never said that? he might of thought it? but He WROTE it.
"How can someone be a christian when he attempts to destroy the documents that testify of him?"
How can someone be Christ-like while living a lie? That's all clergymen have done with this infallibility crud for centuries, and all it's done has been to run all intelligent people away from the church. We know for instance that most of the "supposedly" conquered lands thoroughly destroyed by the Jews were never conquered or destroyed by anyone. Some of them didn't even exist until Solomon's era.
See what it comes down to is this. God set a standard. a standard even the Apostle Paul was held to...That standard is the scripture. Attacking Gods word is the only way that error can creep into the church. (MATT4:4, LUKE 8:21, Luke 11:28, HEB 4:12... among many others. i will research the edomite kings, but good for would be to reference your disagreement with the bible.
The error that crept into the church was "infallability". The church did much better without a canon for its first 300 years. There were no quarrels over doctrines, no splits and divisions--things almost always based on the bible. God did not set a standard in the bible. You did. No one is attacking "God's word" because no one knows what it is. Even Jesus never predicted such a collection of writings would ever come into existence.
@gmdinformation hmmm "when the coin in the coffer rings another soul from hell doth spring." - Johann tetzel
error crept into the church that eventually lead to the dark ages. and to say there was no quarrels over doctrine, perhaps you should examine the lives of an Irenaeuus, Justin martyr and Athanasius, among others. the teachings of of gnosticism and arianism were threatening as early as polycarp. A lesson in church history might be of good use to you.
Irenaeus is unfair to bring up because it was Gnosticism he was battling--not the church. I don't see how anyone can begin to look at Gnosticism as just a schism of the church. It's like saying baseball is an offshoot of football. Aside from the fact that both use a ball they have nothing in common really.
Yes, Martyr among others had some radical concepts. That's my whole point. You were free to have them in those days. No one tried to excommunicate you over them.
While you're at it research Mathew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as a referrence to a virgin birth for Christ because Isaiah is quite obviously talking about a boy born to a prophetess and himself called Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and says nothing about a comming Messiah in that part of the text.
You say this a lot. It means very little to me. Any real laws worth knowing: the laws of nature; first precepts; the Tao, call them what you will, are already written into the consciences of all men whether they acknowledge this or not. This is the only thing in the world that should be "clear" to anybody. The fact that it's not shows how far many self described Christians are from the mark.
"Jesus ... who gave himself as the sacrificial Penal substitute"
Many Christians see no sense in this. You really ought to read George MacDonald's _Unspoken Sermons_. God is better than the blood sacrificial fiend clergymen so desperately want him to be. Whatever God is you can bet he is better than us and not some village idiot who screams from the sky for the blood of men and animals. Do you really think the creator of this vastly complicated world is that dumb?
@gmdinformation The wages of sin is death. From the clothing of Adam and Eve to the crucifixion of Christ there has been a steady stream of Blood. The Jewish law required the sheding of Blood of inosent animals to atone for the sins of the children of god. many of these sacrifices the hands of the sin offerer, were placed on the animal, showing the tranpher of the mans sin to the animal.
This is typical of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made as he yielded his life on the cross.
The Jewish priests ate the burnt offerrings. They had a vested interest in laws requiring sacrificial animals and grain. Again, Jesus never once claimed them as his forefathers and is never recorded as having once made an animal sacrifice himself. Why do you think that is?
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x You mean: the credibility of your interpretation of the scriptures. All you speak of is your interpretation. I'd suggest not speaking in absolutes for there are many different perspectives on the bible. Are you telling me that yours and wherever it was derived is the most righteous??
"various dates are sugusted, the point is irrelivent."
How? If a city landmark is cited (for instance) that didn't exist until the 2nd or 3rd century, then obviously there's a problem. When Genesis mentions 8 Edomite Kings, none of whom existed before the time of Solomon, then you might want to question your church's opinion about the bible because they also claimed that Moses wrote the Torah. Obviously he did not. (Not to mention that he would have had to have written about his own death).
@gmdinformation please reference the 8 edomite jkings you refered to... And Ask an orthodox Jew why there is a problem... Jesus Concidered the writings from Moses- Matthew 12:26, Luke 20:37, Luke 24-27... Moses and ALL THE PROPHETS... Jesus, or the Jesus seminar... which do you choose...John considered moses as the recipient ofthe law John 1:17 now the witness of christ and the apostles testify to moses as the inspired author. why should I believe otherwise?
No offense, but don't you own a concordance? If you look at my video series on "the documentary hypothesis" or go to my blog and read it, the list and the problem with it is there for all the world to see. And not only do outside sources tell us this list of kings lived during the reign of Solomon and David, but even the bible itself mentions them later in Kings and Chronicles.
Jesus never once mentions the Torah. He only mentions the laws, and doesn't even tell which laws. The Torah is much more than mere laws. Jesus may also have been trying to teach the Jews by pointing out things in their writings in just a few places where he thought them to be worthwhile. After all he never once referred to the Jews as his own forefathers. It was always, "Your fathers" every single time. Might have been a reason for that....
5-Peter and Paul had disagreements. true, and they were worked out... that is clear in the scripture. Peter and JESUS had disagreements also... those things happen.
6- 2 Timothy 3 !6- The word, inspiration is translated of the Greek word "THEOPNEUSTOS" - God breathed. A word that is used only once in the new testament. It's use shows a concept thatappears three times in scripture. When ever God breaths, life is imparted.
"6- 2 Timothy 3 16- The word, inspiration is translated of the Greek word "THEOPNEUSTOS" - God breathed."
That's nice and all, but since neither Paul, nor Christ, nor anyone else in the bible ever tells us exactly what books, letters, poetry etc. they thought to be inspired, this doesn't help us.
If you meet God one day and he tells you that there were obviously parts of every bible that are quite uninspired, will you decide:
A) The bible is wrong in spots?
B) He isn't really God but is instead a devil masquerading as God?
If you pick B, then you've just put your bible above God, and are therefore an idolater.
There are several things wrong with every bible just as there are several things wrong with every science book and every history book. Only God is perfect.
@gmdinformation - WHEN I stand before God... (all of us will saved or not,) the last thing i will worry about is weather there were mistakes in the Bible...Christians Will be in the presencee of the WORD INCARNATE. Jesus Christ .. Untill then I will take by faith that which made available to me now. The Bible we have now has a consistant message testifying to the glory of Jesus Christ. A few "Scolars" with a handfull of marbles will not change that...
Which church and which canon? And how can you be sure which church and canon are the right ones? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Coptic, Ethiopian all have a different number of books in their bibles, and most consider them divinely inspired. They can't all be right. The Coptic was probably first. Unlike yours, it has precedence and longevity on its side.
Jesus never once mentioned an "Old Testament" because there was no such thing then, let alone it being inspired (and all writing is "scripture" as in "script"). He simply said a few writings here and there would be fulfilled.
Generally old testament is a modern reference to The jewish writings, which is what I ment.
To say that Jesus did not concider the Jewish writings to be inspired is rediculous.. the word "Scripture" in the Bible is commonly used to Refer to the sacred texts. redefining the term 2000+ years later does not make it less so...
Please show me the passage where Christ lists the writings he considered inspired. If you think he meant the entire OT, I should point out that there was no Jewish canon at the time--only the Septuagint--which contains several extra books. NT writers quote from the Septuagint 85% of the time. And there are many references to things in the Book of Enoch which is in no western bible today. If Jesus believed in an inspired OT canon of some kind, it appears to be quite different from yours.
Further, when the term "word of the Lord" is used in the bible, it cold mean anything from the Septuagint, the Ten commendments, the Torah, the Laws (Leviticus), or certain propehcies that procalim to be the words of God. It's simply never defined.
Yes, that Romans quote means God has given everyone a conscience so they know there is a right and wrong. But he goes on to point out that all have fallen away and need redemption. You cannot redeem yourself. And if you don' t think that much of the Bible, why are you quoting it?
He also says (and it's just common sense) it's how we act in regard to our conscience that determines the state of who we are in regard to friendship with God. Obviously it can be nothing else.
Redeem myself? I'm not for sale.
Where did I say I didn't think much of the bible? Which bible? I said, rather, that you think too much of it, attribute qualities to it that it doesn't attribute to itself, and worship it as your God, demeaning both it and God in the process. But it's not too late...
Every human on earth has an idea about / a conception of the nature of a God. I find the christian idea of a Gods character (the New Testament) the most peaceful and civilized.
The text is saying that everyone is accountable to God - this is the theme of Romans 1 and 2, and that no one measures up to the standard of a holy God, which is why we need redemption. The theme throughout the Bible is man's need for redemption, and God's provision of redemption. This has nothing to do with worshiping a Bible, but rather paying attention to what God has revealed to us in it.
Is that why the people in the Bible wiped out the people of the promised land? In that case god needs to be indicted for crimes against humanity and taken to the Hague for trial. Which one of his followers do you think will he speak through at the trial?
@DIBBY40 Well I don't know. I'm only 14, lol. My opinion is if you have these kinds of questions, whethere you believe in God or not, you should just ask Him. You won't find many answers here.
This is what drives most people away from Christ.. They think to much. They try to find contradictions and everything else in the bible. God's knowledge is totally bigger than our knowledge. It's impossible to even try and understand God with our tiny mortal noggins.
Well Jenis, thats the thing. If I ask him what is he going to do? Appear before me in a blaze of light? And how will he justify genocide?
People using their minds too much?! Or do you think evangelicals use their minds too little?
I would agree that god is the infinite mystery which blows our little minds ....so how come alot of christians keep telling us all how to live and what god's opinions are?
I didn't really understnd the last part but God will show you the answers one way or another. I totally understand your point of view and i'm not putting it down.
Us Christians are just reading the bible and telling others what it says. The bible is God's opinion. I don't know if that answers your question, but i'm still trying to understand it.
The Bible is just a primitive fairytale; gods are no more real than the tooth-fairy. Anyone who thinks the Bible is inspired by a deity is delusional.
If the church doesn't take the cue provided by Borg and other scholarly christians it will lose an entire generation. There already exists a scholarly consensus about the gospels . . . Borg is saying nothing that your trained clergy isn't already being taught at colleges and universities. They don't say all they know because it would be wrong to feed meat to vegetarians.
"The Song of the Evaporating Believer," words and music by aikido7:
"O, everything in the Bible is TRUE. Otherwise, I have nothing. Paul said so. So whatever others say I will deny it is so and then finally ending up insulting them in a juvenile and immature manner as is possible."
The case for an inerrant Bible is hard to make. In the New Testament, Matthew and St. Paul have diametrically opposed theologies. And the Fourth Gospel asserts that Jesus was crucified on Passover, while the synoptic gospels assert he was crucified the day before.
And let's not even get into the fact that the Bible asserts that rabbits chew a cud.
Experts have long shown that over 95 per cent of ALL human communication is NOT found in words. Most of our sense of meaning from another human being comes from things like body language, skin color and tone, the sound and tone of one's voice, etc. It's all found in what the Christian would call "countenance" and what the New Agers would call "auras" and what Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys would call "vibes."
I find it funny that you use the term "logically coherent" when you speak of literally believing the Bible. Is it logically coherent to believe that a man lived inside a whale for 3 days, or that there was a flood that flooded the world. Why doesn't this stuff happen today? Because it didn't happen thousands of years ago either.
As an athiest I agree with you wholly. If it's not mostly true in a literal sense then it's simply not true. If you apply Borg's ideas where do they stop? What parts are literal and what parts are parabol? If you can flush the creation story and noah's arc then what stops you from flushing Job, Moses, or Paul.
I think it's just the fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is too much for thier faith too encompass.
Dismissing Paul is kind of ridiculous. If it wasn't Paul who wrote the letters, then who wrote them as Paul? And why would someone write letters about Christianity claiming to be someone who didn't exist? Why not write them as themselves? There would be no incentive to make up Paul and his story, because Paul was actually writing in the first person. Prophets of the old testament were not.
Not dismissing so much as taking what he said as not literal. Pauls own discription of his encounter with christ on the road becaomes more and more dramatic each time he recounts it, is the most dramatic version true or is it hyperbole?
well, it's not that simple but i do fear many christians do hold the Bible as an idol, not unlike the way the pharasees held the law as an idol. peace
I want to know how to purge the nausea I feel when I hear the word "christian' and yet feel Jesus was showing a way out of this hell we create for ourselves.
"I want to know how to purge the nausea"-though I want that as well, my advice is keep that feeling, it is a safegaurd against the hypocrasy, exploitation, and violence which we see in the Church all too often. To follow Jesus, means we will, and should, feel outrage at these things. God bless you, many of us are asking the same questions..may that number, grow.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This was 8 minutes of, the bible is literal when it's convenient, and metaphorical when it's convenient. He shoulda said that instead of wasting 8 minutes of my life.
This guy is so happy he found a reason for the secular and religious world to place value on the Bible. Too bad in his presuppositions he discounts the claims of the Bible itself to be inerrant, infallible, God breathed and LIFE itself to those with faith.
This guy is an old liberal in new liberal clothing.
Friends, let us acknowledge something here: the 'problem' of how to read the Bible is a problem that we ALL share. Some people feel that if they 'doubt' for a moment the authenticity of the Bible as historically true, they're no longer a Christian. Other's, in zeal to understand and know God, feel like they're cheating the Bible and God's word if they do NOT address the contradictions found in the new and old testament, and resolve them.
So, both parties: Let's acknowledge that each party is dealing with this problem with his/her own set of convictions, and those convictions are very REAL and makes sense to that person.
rgnanadavid, if you'll allow me to address you directly, I hear your point. There's a lot of historical proof. No one is denying this. Tell me, did Judas hang himself? Or did he trip on a rock? Don't be stubborn :) Judas didn't do both. Is the Bible 100% God's word, literally? Of course not. Are the LESSONS in the Bible 100% God's Word? I think that you and I and pretty much everyone here could agree upon that :)
pppz0r, I'll remind you that you could speak great mysteries but if you have not love, you're actually just an ass :) (If you don't believe the Bible, then I apologize for correcting you)
Listen, I'm just as arrogant as the next guy, but I can honestly say I'm tired of hearing people's comments (all of them true) about how much bullshit Christians dish out. Let's learn to disagree nicely, and remind me to do the same if my actions/words call for correction.
I don't agree with borg on saying that one should not take the bible literally... Most of the sayings in Bible are that of God which were given to the people of Israel and there are historical proofs that the places and people described in the bible did exist. Which means, the fact that God indeed interacted with the people of old testament is true. Although told several thousands of years ago..the truths written in the bible still apply to us and hence should be taken as given by god himself.
Spiderman operates in New York according to the books about him. Does that mean spiderman is real because New York exists?
And why do you accept revelation as truth from men living in a primitive and illiterate society in the middle-east 2000 years ago?
People are idiots to accept truth this way from fellow (opportunistic) humans claiming to speak in the name of god, as god obviously does not appear directly himself.
The Bible isn't a fax from heaven. It's common sense that the Bible contains the testimony of the ancient Israelites and the early Christian communities. Your view of scripture as "given by god [sic] himself" is nothing less than a perpetuation of the docetic heresy.
You all are taking Marcus' words too literally. This is obviously parabolic language he's using. I think we need to reclaim Borg's books and read them as parable, not that he literally means what he says. Hey, why not? He does that with the apostolic authors...
Marcus Borg is a biblical scholar, he's been studying the New Testament his whole adult life, I see him as finding the relevant and truthful meaning of the bible not as discrediting it
He raises some good points but I can't agree with him. I would say that the Bible is both divine and human: one doesn't exclude the other, just like in the hypostatic union of Christ.
I am a Red Letter Christian. I consider the words of Jesus to be fundamental...and the rest of scripture to be contextual. I tend to agree with Marcus Borg's approach, but only as applied to the non red-letter portions of scripture. Otherwise, pretty soon, black is white, and up is down. 2+2 doesn't equal 4 anymore. Nothing means anything. Everything is shifting sand. It becomes like a baseball game where the rules are constantly changing. One strike...Your're Out!!!
It seems to me that he propose a re-interpretation of the Bible, as a vague and subjective referential documents. He is honest trying to provide a alternative to the crisis of faith that we experience in this post-modern time. I think if we take this view, we cannot sustain the need of the church or the congregation anymore, just rescue Cristianity as an ancient religion. I think the Christianism in Germany is consequent in that way, the church died long time ago there. (Sorry for my English)
hehe ty. you should check out a youtube page im working on. Just enter /thebiblematters to find it. also if you are interested in learning more about post modernism, multi nationalism (the idea that truth is only true for you specific culture and no other), moral relativism (the idea that truth cannot come from morals, it must come form what the 5 senses observe) and many other false philosophy's, then read "The New Tolerance" by Josh McDowell & Bob Hostetler.
The issue is not if I agree/disagree with Mr. Borg. The issue is what does the Bible say, not what do I feel the Bible is saying. Mr. Borg is interpreting the Bible in a postmodern/moral relativistic way (non literal). The Bible needs to be interpreted as literal and relevant in all cultures and times. (Hebrews 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:16)
Eleazarsc, everyone take parts of the Bible literally and parts of it figuratively. Was it literal when it said in Joshua 10:13 "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."? If it is, it means that the sun revolves around the Earth. Of course today we recognize this as being symbolic.
Another case, where many that many Christians seem to gloss over is Mathew 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." If this is true, then it is more likely (though neither event is impossible) for a camel to go through a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.
The arguments you throw out are inconsistent. Due to context, we're able to discern what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken...symbolically/metaphorically if you will. Books, such as the prophetic books (Daniel, Revelation), contain a lot of these "symbols."
So now - we know what is to be taken literally and symbolically. You can't just throw out the entire bible and say, "we don't know, so the whole thing is symbolic."
I don't think I was arguing that the whole thing was symbolic. I am arguing that much of what many people take literally is meant to be symbolic (For instance the 7 day creation).
However, each interpretation is subject to one's worldview. For instance, if you take the naturalistic approach, you're more likely to say things "evolved" and there was a "big bang." Versus a supernaturalist approach where you claim God did everything....
However, it really isn't necessary compared to the crucifixion and resurrection. That's where Christian faith rests upon.
But for the sake of consistency; how do you know what is and what isn't symbolic?
I would like to point out that the first person to advance the Big Bang as a hypothesis was a Catholic Priest/Physicist, Georges Lemaitre, and the "naturalists" absolutely hated it because it smacked of Divine Intervention. They were eventually won over by the evidence, but I like to point to it as a case where religion won over atheism. Anyway, to your question, it is combination of study of the language, study of the culture it was written, study of the prerequisites to the stories.
Well we're arguing because you said I have no idea what I'm talking about :-)
Perhaps I should have been more clear in my first post, but what I meant to say is that NO ONE takes the Bible 100% literally. (Well, almost no one, if you are in the mood for a good laugh (or cry), check out geocentricity . com) There are things that we all recognize of symbolism so the argument that you MUST interpret the Bible 100% literally does not hold water.
Yeah, I'm bad at talking to people. First impressions are always awful.
I agree - you can't take it 100% literally; I don't know why anyone would force you to since Christian faith rests solely on the work of Christ in the NT.
"NO ONE takes the Bible 100% literally. (Well, almost no one...)"
Judging by YouTube alone, there are unfortunately huge droves of the faithful who hold every word to be the inerrant and precise utterance of the creator of the universe. So you might want to tell that to them, my friend. :)
Mr. Borg clearly sees Christianity as just another nice path in life. Jesus clearly states in John 14:6 "I am THE WAY, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through Me." Christianity is not just a path to a great and meaningfully life. It is more importantly a way to have a relationship with our creator and Lord, Jesus Christ. See his video "Christianity as a Spiritual Path"
He likens all stories of the Bible to the prodigal son story.
But nobody claimed to have MET the prodigal son. When the New Testamant writers wrote about Jesus, they were writing about a guy who had been walking around not that long ago. The writers of the gospels were talking about Jesus in a very different way than Jesus spoke about the prodigal son. The prodigal son story isn't historical, but it bears truth.
But the stories about Jesus are historical, or they're lies.
Jugglable 7 months ago
"Product" is the right word. There have always been Gurus and wandering preachers, "Profits" is you like. There are people who are great speakers and who claim to have all the answers to all the most important questions. People love hearing stoies, especially stories that inspire and give hope. . . . All gods are inventions of human imagination.
Avalon400 9 months ago
I agree and disagree...I think it is OK to say the bible is inspired spiritually...but at the same time it is a human expression.
jhgosnell 9 months ago 2
The traditional biblical canon is useful, but it is a mixture of different types of teachings or expressions. As he said in his book...there is spiritual metaphor, parables, aphorisms, and devotional expressions from students.
jhgosnell 9 months ago
Well, "love another" DEFINITELY happened but "the wrath of God abides on them" CLEARLY DOESN'T. come on people! It's all just a cover up for picking and choosing what is less offensive and what makes people too uncomfortable to get numbers in a church or not be persecuted. Stop making God in your own image.
janeym 10 months ago
it is nice to hear someone eloquently state what already believe.
garmaxco 1 year ago
I believe Borg's point is that facts are irrelevant and that you should love Christ and continue to follow regardless. If you only love, follow or believe in the principles of Jesus in light of the presence of historical evidence proving certain events, than you are probably not a TRUE believer in His word. The true question is: Can you continue to follow Jesus and his principles as a way of life & thinking regardless of accuracy of the nature of events and not just because it is DEMANDED??
beyondyourpoint 1 year ago 2
brilliant! Thanks a lot
pietrrocks 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are a fool, with what authority do you utter your foul words?
The Bible is the Divine and absolute Word of God and it is for those who are born again to disern - obviously you are not!
Serglish 1 year ago
@Serglish Your out of line. You speak the words of hate like the nazis and Spanish inquisitors that killed my Jewish brothers and sisters...and if you make the "bible" the
"absolute Word of God" you dispense with the need for Gd Himself.
pietrrocks 1 year ago 2
@Serglish The Bible is the divine and absolute word of God? Who decides that? The humans who wrote it, the humans who claim that it is, or the humans that believe it is? The errors and contradictions found in the Bible reveal that it is a work of human beings, not divine. Truth is based on what is, not on one's beliefs or faith.
LivingMindfully1975 1 year ago 2
@LivingMindfully1975 I find it funny that you rightly state that human beings (multiple) recorded the Bible, for there is not another book in the history of the universe that is consistent with itself, makes outrageous claims that are believed by millions to be true, took over 1600 years to write, and was written by around 40 different authors. With that said, I'm sorry my friend, but I cannot believe that the Bible is a human work, divinity is clearly present with the Bible.
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@MrRindercella ......You say "divinity if clearly present in the Bible?" There are Universal Truths in the Bible, but these same Truths can be found in all religious traditions. The Bible contains many errors and contradictions, and since you're obviously blind to these facts, because of your blind faith, I will point them out to you if you like. It doesn't matter what you believe the Bible to be, because blind faith isn't going to change what it is, which is a book written by humans.
LivingMindfully1975 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 Yes, please point out the apparent contradictions in the Bible that you see. Give me scripture references and I will do my best to explain them to you, for even I do not, at all times, fully comprehend what is being said. At those times I seek counsel from my pastor or one of my mentors. Also, what "Universal Truths" are you talking about? For Christianity is unlike any other religion, you can be sure of that.
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 Also, to add on, man does not claim the authority of Scripture. God claims the authority of Scripture. Look up 2nd Timothy 3:16. You see, God inspired the 40 different writers to record what He wished to be presented to humanity for the rest of time. And no teaching inside the Bible contradicts itself. That is why people still believe the Bible to be true, it is the living word of the living God of the universe. God is timeless, thus the Bible is timeless.
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@MrRindercella .....God doesn't claim anything concerning the Bible. You're basing all of your comments on what you "believe." Truth isn't determined by what you believe or blindly invest your faith in. Truth is based on fact, on what-is. Truth isn't something to be "believed" in, it is something to be known. You can quote scriptures all day, but all you're doing is having faith in what you "think" those scriptures are, however that is not truth, it's only faith. Faith does not = Truth.
LivingMindfully1975 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 You still seem to be struggling with the validity of Scripture, and I can see why, it is hard to believe something that was written long ago. And, as you seem to wish, I will validate Scripture historically instead of spiritually. I mentioned the fact that the Bible was written by 40 different authors and over a 1600 year time period. Well, in the early days of Scripture writing there were prophecies made that were literally fulfilled as recorded later on. ... (cont. 3)
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 Historically we know (via mentions of ruling kings, present cities, strong powers) that these prophecies were made hundreds of years before they were actually carried out to be. Take Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12. And I am reading this as a historical book right now, not a Spiritual one, since we have not arrived yet that it is the valid word of God. The book of Isaiah was written around 800 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. ... (cont. 4)
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 In the passgae I mentioned, Isaiah makes a claim of a man who was despised by men, beaten, crushed, and assigned a grave. Yet this same man, "after the suffering of his soul, [shall] see the light of life." No man in the history of the world has ever seen life after death, but 800 years later a man named Jesus came along, was killed by his own culture of people, and came back to life after being dead three days. Why in the world would Isaiah have these thoughts? ..(cont. 5)
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 Many claims like this are made in the Bible and if you wish to see more I will point them out to you. No prophecy made in the Bible is unfulfilled, except the prophecies of teh second coming, but that just has not come to pass yet, it shall though. Ah but you say this isn't enough, well okay. Historically a lineage has been provided by the bible that has been verified. Archaeologically, cities are where the Bible said they are. Geologically, there has ... (cont. 6)
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 (cont 6.) ... been an event that is described as a great flood, which the Bible claims. I do not understand how you can consider this a book written by humans, for it filled with knowledge that was unattainble by humans. There is something transcendent that is clearly present in the creation of this book. And maybe you are blind to that. For God claims he is that transcendence. It doesn't matter what YOU believe the Bible to be, for God claims it is true.
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@MrRindercella .........GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the flood. GE 7:12 All living creatures, other than Noah and his family and the creatures on the ark, were killed/annihilated in the flood. However, NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the flood.
LivingMindfully1975 10 months ago
@MrRindercella .......Also: GE 11:26 Terah was 70 when his son Abram was born. GE 11:32 Terah was 205 when he died, making Abram 135. GE 12:4 AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran, after Terah died, thus Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died, or Abram was only 75 after he had lived 135 years.
LivingMindfully1975 10 months ago
@MrRindercella ...........EX 34:6-7, HE 9:27 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven.
JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
LivingMindfully1975 10 months ago
@MrRindercella .........LK 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from before his birth or the birth of Jesus.
LK 1:41 Elizabeth had it long before Jesus went away.
LK 1:67 So did Zechariah.
LK 2:25 So did Simeon.
LK 11:13 It is obtained by prayer (presumably at any time).
JN 7:39, JN 16:7, AC 1:3-5 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world until after Jesus has departed.
LivingMindfully1975 10 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 I am terribly sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns; this week has been very hectic for me and thus I have not had ample time to sit down and evaluate the passages you have referred to. I will be sure to get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
MrRindercella 10 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 Furthermore, I'm not too sure you fully understand the concept of absolute truth, for you state that truth is "what is." The beliefs people have, strictly speaking true Christians, are based on the absolute truth that God presents us in the Bible, which we have already established has claimed to have authority by God Himself. Truth is not a result of belief, no reasonable person would say that, belief is a result of truth. The absolute truth of God, found in his word.
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@MrRindercella .....You have not established anything concerning the Bible, except that "you" have "faith" that it is the word of God. Faith doesn't make something true, no matter how strong that faith is. What is found in the Bible are concepts of God created by ancient men. The writings of these men were influenced by their religious views, their culture & society, mythology, patriarchal views, a legalistic purity system, and the current events taking place during their lifetimes.
LivingMindfully1975 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 If they are the concepts of God, how can they be created by ancient men? Man cannot create what God has already concieved, so you basically are calling the Bible the word of God. To speak of faith.... any worldview that you have is a faith based belief. Am I correct in saying that? Nothing can be FULLY certain. Nothing. Faith is what drives the human life. Faith that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Faith that your wife will love you in the morning ... (cont.)
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 (cont.) .... So if faith drives human life, how can you possibly throw it aside so easily? Truth is what is you say. Well what is? And says who? If you believe truth is what is, then truth is what people say it is. Which is faith. Faith in the people who say what is. What if Hitler won WWII? Then Jews would possibly still be mass murdered, and people would believe that was right and true because Hitler won and said it was. ... (cont. 2)
MrRindercella 11 months ago
@LivingMindfully1975 (cont. 2) ... You are saying that truth is what is. What is being what people define it. What people define it being faith in their own thoughts. I'm saying that Truth comes from the one who created the universe. He alone defines truth, through Scripture, and therefore truth never changes, it is absolute. I place my faith IN truth, I am NOT finding truth in faith.
MrRindercella 11 months ago
their mental limitations oh yeah
sekulaadam 1 year ago
If you choose to deny this, then you are placing yourself outside of the Faith, for "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" -Romans 10:17 I must go to work for now. You say what is clear in the New Testament means little to you...so i can do no more than offer the gospel and move on. Even if I had ALL the answers, you probably would still conntinue in your present path, so as i said before, i wish you well
It has been nice conversing with you. but my job awaits. Bye 4 now.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
Jesus Christ, Born of a virgin, God manifested in the flesh, yielded his life so that we might live, he shed his blood so that we can have the remission sins, He endured the wrath of God that WE deserve, and perfectied forever those who are sanctified. He confirmed every thing he did by rising from the dead three days after he gave his life on the Cross.
This is the gospel. and It is The Jesus who is clearly taught in the bible
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
oops. 2 Timothy... As for isaiah 7:14. it was concidered a prophecy, which was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ, who is GOD with us.... wait... Marble carring "Scolars" deny the virgin birth, and the diety of Christ...hmmmm
What it comes down to basicly, is that you you don't need scriptures to base your faith on, then i wish you well, But without the scriptures and the blood of Chrst
there is no salvation.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
in addition the cannon of scriptures we call the bible were established in a seried of Synods, that lead to the cannon of scriptures we hold, established in the Synod of Hippo in the late 300"s. as fotr god not setting a standard, Paul was subject to scriptures when he preached to the bereans, Acts 17:10-11 . Hebrews 4:12 shows the dpower of God's word todescern the thoughts of man. @ timothy 3:16,17 states that the scriptures are for completely furnishing the christian to good works.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
i will research the eight edomite kings, and reply soon
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
Yikes my spelling..None the less, To say that The God of the bible did not require the shedding of blood is simply to deny the faith, because without the sheding of blood there is no remission of sins, , Those who overcome do so by the blood of the lamb and the word of his testimony, without that you have nothing to base your faith on. I would reference, but there is no sene in it. If you don't believe the
Bible is Gods word it would be a waste of my time. Gotta go to bed. Nice Talkin to you.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
pardon the poor spelling, it is well past my bedtime...
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
Jesus was a Jew. he was also a rabbi. He proclaimed that the Scriptures TESYIFIED OF HIM. and after he resurected He expounded all the scriptures concerning himsel to two travelers, who were distressed at his death.. To say that Jesus did not regard the Jewish writings is insane. He considered the law as comming from Moses, and quoted from it frequently. He Also quoted from the Psalms. even on the cross... com'on are you pulling my leg? ;)
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
RELIGION IS MAN MADE!! The bible is nothing but an old out dated book!
99minerkc 1 year ago
i think its funny to see christians :D its sad people are so blind to the truth that there is no god. we needed the security of a higher being, but why the fuck would we need him now?
navalwater123 1 year ago
Marcus Borg is an example of what happens when man chooses man's wisdom over God's wisdom. He should consider: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" and "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Corinthians 1:21, 25).
TheExastrologer 1 year ago
@TheExastrologer,
Might we say that you are an example of what comes from choosing to worship a book and a church instead of God?
gmdinformation 1 year ago
No, that is not correct. In fact, it is a false dilemma. If God's word is really his word, then one must take it seriously. It is foolish to worship God and ignore his word. It is not a case of choosing one over the other; they go together.
TheExastrologer 1 year ago
It's foolish to call a collection of writings "God's word" when the collection itself makes no such claim. There's not a single prophecy, not even from Jesus, that says one day a bunch of self appointed leaders would ever put together a collection of writings that would represent the very thoughts of God.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
Actually, Jesus quotes the OT all the time as God's word. If the Bible is not God's word, then how do you know about God or Jesus? Do you believe in God?
TheExastrologer 1 year ago
Actualy Jesus only used the term "God's word" once if Luke is correct, and then he was speaking in vague terms.
I don't need to know about God/Jesus to be a friend of them both. I simply need to recognize the truths already written into my conscence at birth and follow them. As MacDonald said, it's about doing the duty God lays before you if it be to pay a debt, make an appology, or sweep a room. You could be raised by a pack of wolves on a distant planet and still find friendship with God.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
As Paul said and I agree, "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation - The apostles themselves acknowledged each others writings as scriptures...2 Peter 3: 1516.
Jesus acknowledged the old testament as scriptures.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
No they didn't. ONE writer expressed his opinion that SOME of what Paul (and no one else) wrote was something he believed to be inspired by God. He didn't tell us what that piece(s) of writing was though, so it's useless info for us. Besides, his opinion may not have been correct. Obviously he could not have been speaking about ALL of Paul's writing since some of it was never canonized. He may well have been referring to some of Paul's letters that never made it into the canon.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation
The one writer was an Apostle confirming the writings of another apostle, as scrripture The Section of the verse "the other scriptures' back to the "All his epistles" of Paul, Perhaps you should re read the text.. In the verse you can logically assume he was refering to the epistles
circulating at the time, being that nothing has "cannonized" in the time of the apostles...
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x,
1st I should point out that 2nd Peter is widely thought to be a 2nd century forgery.
2nd, Peter's opinion on anything does not make it God's opinion.
3rd, Peter simply says that Paul writes the same in all his letters. He does not say that makes them ALL something from God.
4th, Several of Paul's letters never made it into any bible, so obviously if Peter thought they were ALL inspired, he was wrong.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
1) Textual critism is usually found among thosewho are not of the faith, such as marcus borg. various dates are sugusted, the point is irrelivent. The church conciders it part of the cannon, and untill it is removed, evingelicals will concider it part of the bible
2)The Teachings of the apostles are considered Inspired, "God breathed." therefore Peters critique of Pauls writings is concidered inspired as well.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x
3) The phrase OTHER SCRIPTURES refers back to
ALL HIS LETTERS. once again the word "scriptures" generally refers to the sacred writings.
Peter concidered All the writings of Paul. as "scriptures." The men who determined the cannon may not have include all of Pauls writings. That does not make Peter wrong, If anything it made the men who determined the cannon wrong. Even if they did include ALL of Paul's letters, the Unredeemed would still not believe it anyway...
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
You actually have the audacity to judge whether someone is a Christian or not? Not exactly very biblical for a guy who says all of some bible is completely inspired. Borg says he is a Christian/Anglican and that Jesus "is a divine reality that Christians can still experience personally." That's a Christian. I don't know if YOU are a Christian or not. At this point I simply know you're a Biblican, but I doubt that you can be both. And textual criticism is found among all intelligent humans.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
And Ye Shall Know them by their fruits Matthew Chapter 7 ...Yes you can tell if someone is A follower of Christ. The new testament is clear that there are false spiritual leaders. that is why it isso important to destroy the credibility of the scriptures, which is common aamong the "Jesus seminar" type. Jesus is just not a Divine reality, he is God manifested in the Flesh who gave himself as the sacrificial Penal substitute
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x For all who put their faith in him... How can someone be a christian when he attempts to destroy the documents that testify of him?
2-The church... not a denomination... the called out body of believers... don't get locked into man made organizations
3- Saying "no it dosent" without providing exegesis, is nothing more than denial.
Look as the sentense structure. basic english
4-He never said that? he might of thought it? but He WROTE it.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
"How can someone be a christian when he attempts to destroy the documents that testify of him?"
How can someone be Christ-like while living a lie? That's all clergymen have done with this infallibility crud for centuries, and all it's done has been to run all intelligent people away from the church. We know for instance that most of the "supposedly" conquered lands thoroughly destroyed by the Jews were never conquered or destroyed by anyone. Some of them didn't even exist until Solomon's era.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation bible, or The Jesus seminar?
See what it comes down to is this. God set a standard. a standard even the Apostle Paul was held to...That standard is the scripture. Attacking Gods word is the only way that error can creep into the church. (MATT4:4, LUKE 8:21, Luke 11:28, HEB 4:12... among many others. i will research the edomite kings, but good for would be to reference your disagreement with the bible.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x,
The error that crept into the church was "infallability". The church did much better without a canon for its first 300 years. There were no quarrels over doctrines, no splits and divisions--things almost always based on the bible. God did not set a standard in the bible. You did. No one is attacking "God's word" because no one knows what it is. Even Jesus never predicted such a collection of writings would ever come into existence.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation hmmm "when the coin in the coffer rings another soul from hell doth spring." - Johann tetzel
error crept into the church that eventually lead to the dark ages. and to say there was no quarrels over doctrine, perhaps you should examine the lives of an Irenaeuus, Justin martyr and Athanasius, among others. the teachings of of gnosticism and arianism were threatening as early as polycarp. A lesson in church history might be of good use to you.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x,
Irenaeus is unfair to bring up because it was Gnosticism he was battling--not the church. I don't see how anyone can begin to look at Gnosticism as just a schism of the church. It's like saying baseball is an offshoot of football. Aside from the fact that both use a ball they have nothing in common really.
Yes, Martyr among others had some radical concepts. That's my whole point. You were free to have them in those days. No one tried to excommunicate you over them.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
"i will research the edomite kings"
While you're at it research Mathew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as a referrence to a virgin birth for Christ because Isaiah is quite obviously talking about a boy born to a prophetess and himself called Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and says nothing about a comming Messiah in that part of the text.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
Comment removed
bstoked99 1 year ago
@bstoked99 Huh? I don't know what you're talking about.
sthugh 1 year ago
"The new testament is clear...."
You say this a lot. It means very little to me. Any real laws worth knowing: the laws of nature; first precepts; the Tao, call them what you will, are already written into the consciences of all men whether they acknowledge this or not. This is the only thing in the world that should be "clear" to anybody. The fact that it's not shows how far many self described Christians are from the mark.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
"Jesus ... who gave himself as the sacrificial Penal substitute"
Many Christians see no sense in this. You really ought to read George MacDonald's _Unspoken Sermons_. God is better than the blood sacrificial fiend clergymen so desperately want him to be. Whatever God is you can bet he is better than us and not some village idiot who screams from the sky for the blood of men and animals. Do you really think the creator of this vastly complicated world is that dumb?
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation The wages of sin is death. From the clothing of Adam and Eve to the crucifixion of Christ there has been a steady stream of Blood. The Jewish law required the sheding of Blood of inosent animals to atone for the sins of the children of god. many of these sacrifices the hands of the sin offerer, were placed on the animal, showing the tranpher of the mans sin to the animal.
This is typical of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made as he yielded his life on the cross.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x,
The Jewish priests ate the burnt offerrings. They had a vested interest in laws requiring sacrificial animals and grain. Again, Jesus never once claimed them as his forefathers and is never recorded as having once made an animal sacrifice himself. Why do you think that is?
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x You mean: the credibility of your interpretation of the scriptures. All you speak of is your interpretation. I'd suggest not speaking in absolutes for there are many different perspectives on the bible. Are you telling me that yours and wherever it was derived is the most righteous??
bstoked99 1 year ago
"various dates are sugusted, the point is irrelivent."
How? If a city landmark is cited (for instance) that didn't exist until the 2nd or 3rd century, then obviously there's a problem. When Genesis mentions 8 Edomite Kings, none of whom existed before the time of Solomon, then you might want to question your church's opinion about the bible because they also claimed that Moses wrote the Torah. Obviously he did not. (Not to mention that he would have had to have written about his own death).
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation please reference the 8 edomite jkings you refered to... And Ask an orthodox Jew why there is a problem... Jesus Concidered the writings from Moses- Matthew 12:26, Luke 20:37, Luke 24-27... Moses and ALL THE PROPHETS... Jesus, or the Jesus seminar... which do you choose...John considered moses as the recipient ofthe law John 1:17 now the witness of christ and the apostles testify to moses as the inspired author. why should I believe otherwise?
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
"please reference the 8 edomite kings"
No offense, but don't you own a concordance? If you look at my video series on "the documentary hypothesis" or go to my blog and read it, the list and the problem with it is there for all the world to see. And not only do outside sources tell us this list of kings lived during the reign of Solomon and David, but even the bible itself mentions them later in Kings and Chronicles.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
"Jesus Concidered the writings from Moses"
Jesus never once mentions the Torah. He only mentions the laws, and doesn't even tell which laws. The Torah is much more than mere laws. Jesus may also have been trying to teach the Jews by pointing out things in their writings in just a few places where he thought them to be worthwhile. After all he never once referred to the Jews as his own forefathers. It was always, "Your fathers" every single time. Might have been a reason for that....
gmdinformation 1 year ago
"The Teachings of the apostles are considered Inspired, "God breathed""
This is never said in the bible about the writings of the apostles.
"The phrase OTHER SCRIPTURES refers back to ALL HIS LETTERS."
No, it doesn't. It in no way ever defines anything.
"Peter concidered All the writings of Paul. as "scriptures.""
He never said that. He may have thought it. We don't know. We DO know the two men had disagreements at times concerning church matters.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation -
5-Peter and Paul had disagreements. true, and they were worked out... that is clear in the scripture. Peter and JESUS had disagreements also... those things happen.
6- 2 Timothy 3 !6- The word, inspiration is translated of the Greek word "THEOPNEUSTOS" - God breathed. A word that is used only once in the new testament. It's use shows a concept thatappears three times in scripture. When ever God breaths, life is imparted.
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
"6- 2 Timothy 3 16- The word, inspiration is translated of the Greek word "THEOPNEUSTOS" - God breathed."
That's nice and all, but since neither Paul, nor Christ, nor anyone else in the bible ever tells us exactly what books, letters, poetry etc. they thought to be inspired, this doesn't help us.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
If you meet God one day and he tells you that there were obviously parts of every bible that are quite uninspired, will you decide:
A) The bible is wrong in spots?
B) He isn't really God but is instead a devil masquerading as God?
If you pick B, then you've just put your bible above God, and are therefore an idolater.
There are several things wrong with every bible just as there are several things wrong with every science book and every history book. Only God is perfect.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation - WHEN I stand before God... (all of us will saved or not,) the last thing i will worry about is weather there were mistakes in the Bible...Christians Will be in the presencee of the WORD INCARNATE. Jesus Christ .. Untill then I will take by faith that which made available to me now. The Bible we have now has a consistant message testifying to the glory of Jesus Christ. A few "Scolars" with a handfull of marbles will not change that...
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x,
"WHEN I stand before God...."
II don't really have any problem with any of this except to say that I don't think the bible is quite as consistant as you seem to think.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
"The church conciders it part of the cannon"
Which church and which canon? And how can you be sure which church and canon are the right ones? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Coptic, Ethiopian all have a different number of books in their bibles, and most consider them divinely inspired. They can't all be right. The Coptic was probably first. Unlike yours, it has precedence and longevity on its side.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
Jesus never once mentioned an "Old Testament" because there was no such thing then, let alone it being inspired (and all writing is "scripture" as in "script"). He simply said a few writings here and there would be fulfilled.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation
Generally old testament is a modern reference to The jewish writings, which is what I ment.
To say that Jesus did not concider the Jewish writings to be inspired is rediculous.. the word "Scripture" in the Bible is commonly used to Refer to the sacred texts. redefining the term 2000+ years later does not make it less so...
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
@x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x -ridiculous... spell check....scripture...typo, haven't had my coffee yet
x8xMIDNIGHTMAREx8x 1 year ago
Please show me the passage where Christ lists the writings he considered inspired. If you think he meant the entire OT, I should point out that there was no Jewish canon at the time--only the Septuagint--which contains several extra books. NT writers quote from the Septuagint 85% of the time. And there are many references to things in the Book of Enoch which is in no western bible today. If Jesus believed in an inspired OT canon of some kind, it appears to be quite different from yours.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
Further, when the term "word of the Lord" is used in the bible, it cold mean anything from the Septuagint, the Ten commendments, the Torah, the Laws (Leviticus), or certain propehcies that procalim to be the words of God. It's simply never defined.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
Yes, that Romans quote means God has given everyone a conscience so they know there is a right and wrong. But he goes on to point out that all have fallen away and need redemption. You cannot redeem yourself. And if you don' t think that much of the Bible, why are you quoting it?
TheExastrologer 1 year ago
He also says (and it's just common sense) it's how we act in regard to our conscience that determines the state of who we are in regard to friendship with God. Obviously it can be nothing else.
Redeem myself? I'm not for sale.
Where did I say I didn't think much of the bible? Which bible? I said, rather, that you think too much of it, attribute qualities to it that it doesn't attribute to itself, and worship it as your God, demeaning both it and God in the process. But it's not too late...
gmdinformation 1 year ago
Every human on earth has an idea about / a conception of the nature of a God. I find the christian idea of a Gods character (the New Testament) the most peaceful and civilized.
kvikkurin 1 year ago
The text is saying that everyone is accountable to God - this is the theme of Romans 1 and 2, and that no one measures up to the standard of a holy God, which is why we need redemption. The theme throughout the Bible is man's need for redemption, and God's provision of redemption. This has nothing to do with worshiping a Bible, but rather paying attention to what God has revealed to us in it.
TheExastrologer 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jesus is real. Jesus does exist. The bible is 100% true.
Those people that wrote the bible heard God, and saw visions from God. That is what they based their writings on. God spoke through them.
JenIsPro 2 years ago
Is that why the people in the Bible wiped out the people of the promised land? In that case god needs to be indicted for crimes against humanity and taken to the Hague for trial. Which one of his followers do you think will he speak through at the trial?
DIBBY40 2 years ago
@DIBBY40 Well I don't know. I'm only 14, lol. My opinion is if you have these kinds of questions, whethere you believe in God or not, you should just ask Him. You won't find many answers here.
This is what drives most people away from Christ.. They think to much. They try to find contradictions and everything else in the bible. God's knowledge is totally bigger than our knowledge. It's impossible to even try and understand God with our tiny mortal noggins.
JenIsPro 2 years ago
Well Jenis, thats the thing. If I ask him what is he going to do? Appear before me in a blaze of light? And how will he justify genocide?
People using their minds too much?! Or do you think evangelicals use their minds too little?
I would agree that god is the infinite mystery which blows our little minds ....so how come alot of christians keep telling us all how to live and what god's opinions are?
DIBBY40 2 years ago
I didn't really understnd the last part but God will show you the answers one way or another. I totally understand your point of view and i'm not putting it down.
Us Christians are just reading the bible and telling others what it says. The bible is God's opinion. I don't know if that answers your question, but i'm still trying to understand it.
And i'm Jen, not Jenis. ;]
JenIsPro 2 years ago
@JenIsPro
So it isn't absurd that Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, the two first people on earth ran away to a town after killing his brother...
Marcusjapp 2 years ago
I don't understand.
JenIsPro 2 years ago
what did bible say about how take and keep a slave?
Sunilkanwar 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Borg says you will be assimilated.
Antiks72 2 years ago
Magic books exist only in the minds of misinformed brains.
billybee53 2 years ago
Christians make the huge mistake of assuming there's a god and that this god wrote the Bible.
a0eoj 2 years ago
The Bible is just a primitive fairytale; gods are no more real than the tooth-fairy. Anyone who thinks the Bible is inspired by a deity is delusional.
a0eoj 2 years ago
Bottom line, Jesus never rose from the grave and christianity is just another religious myth.
a0eoj 2 years ago
If the church doesn't take the cue provided by Borg and other scholarly christians it will lose an entire generation. There already exists a scholarly consensus about the gospels . . . Borg is saying nothing that your trained clergy isn't already being taught at colleges and universities. They don't say all they know because it would be wrong to feed meat to vegetarians.
tsisqua 2 years ago
"The Song of the Evaporating Believer," words and music by aikido7:
"O, everything in the Bible is TRUE. Otherwise, I have nothing. Paul said so. So whatever others say I will deny it is so and then finally ending up insulting them in a juvenile and immature manner as is possible."
Thank you very much. And don't step in the vomit.
aikido7 2 years ago
The case for an inerrant Bible is hard to make. In the New Testament, Matthew and St. Paul have diametrically opposed theologies. And the Fourth Gospel asserts that Jesus was crucified on Passover, while the synoptic gospels assert he was crucified the day before.
And let's not even get into the fact that the Bible asserts that rabbits chew a cud.
aikido7 2 years ago
... Rabbits actually chew a cud.
Anarkiados 2 years ago
Did you hear that from a talking snake, Anark?
aikido7 2 years ago
No, I heard it from some researchers who observed rabbits both in captivity and the wild some 70 years ago.
Anarkiados 2 years ago
That was meant to be sarcastic, playing on the fundamentalist literal interpretation of Genesis.
aikido7 2 years ago
I see. Now that's one of the reasons we need a sarcasm font.
Anarkiados 2 years ago
Experts have long shown that over 95 per cent of ALL human communication is NOT found in words. Most of our sense of meaning from another human being comes from things like body language, skin color and tone, the sound and tone of one's voice, etc. It's all found in what the Christian would call "countenance" and what the New Agers would call "auras" and what Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys would call "vibes."
aikido7 2 years ago
Q.E.D.
aikido7 2 years ago
So if Jesus is the Lamb of God, then does that then mean that Mary had a little lamb?
If you see the Bible as inerrant, TheWretchthatlam, then does that then mean that your understanding of the Bible is ALSO inerrant?
aikido7 2 years ago
I find it funny that you use the term "logically coherent" when you speak of literally believing the Bible. Is it logically coherent to believe that a man lived inside a whale for 3 days, or that there was a flood that flooded the world. Why doesn't this stuff happen today? Because it didn't happen thousands of years ago either.
TheSmash4cash 2 years ago
As an athiest I agree with you wholly. If it's not mostly true in a literal sense then it's simply not true. If you apply Borg's ideas where do they stop? What parts are literal and what parts are parabol? If you can flush the creation story and noah's arc then what stops you from flushing Job, Moses, or Paul.
I think it's just the fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is too much for thier faith too encompass.
phookadude 2 years ago
Dismissing Paul is kind of ridiculous. If it wasn't Paul who wrote the letters, then who wrote them as Paul? And why would someone write letters about Christianity claiming to be someone who didn't exist? Why not write them as themselves? There would be no incentive to make up Paul and his story, because Paul was actually writing in the first person. Prophets of the old testament were not.
TheSmash4cash 2 years ago
Not dismissing so much as taking what he said as not literal. Pauls own discription of his encounter with christ on the road becaomes more and more dramatic each time he recounts it, is the most dramatic version true or is it hyperbole?
phookadude 2 years ago
well, it's not that simple but i do fear many christians do hold the Bible as an idol, not unlike the way the pharasees held the law as an idol. peace
boomac62 2 years ago
I want to know how to purge the nausea I feel when I hear the word "christian' and yet feel Jesus was showing a way out of this hell we create for ourselves.
Unityspirit50 2 years ago
"I want to know how to purge the nausea"-though I want that as well, my advice is keep that feeling, it is a safegaurd against the hypocrasy, exploitation, and violence which we see in the Church all too often. To follow Jesus, means we will, and should, feel outrage at these things. God bless you, many of us are asking the same questions..may that number, grow.
freezingstill 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This was 8 minutes of, the bible is literal when it's convenient, and metaphorical when it's convenient. He shoulda said that instead of wasting 8 minutes of my life.
sugarstump1 2 years ago
This guy is so happy he found a reason for the secular and religious world to place value on the Bible. Too bad in his presuppositions he discounts the claims of the Bible itself to be inerrant, infallible, God breathed and LIFE itself to those with faith.
This guy is an old liberal in new liberal clothing.
anthonyrlocke 2 years ago
"the claims of the Bible itself to be inerrant, infallible, God breathed and LIFE itself"
With the exception of 'God breathed' the Bible does not claim any of these things about itself.
steveh20man 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. Marcus Borg is incorrect.
2. More importantly, he looks really dehydrated.
AKhardcore1 2 years ago
Wonderful! Thanks for putting things in perspective..
Love n peace
revdolaf 1 year ago
Friends, let us acknowledge something here: the 'problem' of how to read the Bible is a problem that we ALL share. Some people feel that if they 'doubt' for a moment the authenticity of the Bible as historically true, they're no longer a Christian. Other's, in zeal to understand and know God, feel like they're cheating the Bible and God's word if they do NOT address the contradictions found in the new and old testament, and resolve them.
joshwestcott 3 years ago
So, both parties: Let's acknowledge that each party is dealing with this problem with his/her own set of convictions, and those convictions are very REAL and makes sense to that person.
joshwestcott 3 years ago
rgnanadavid, if you'll allow me to address you directly, I hear your point. There's a lot of historical proof. No one is denying this. Tell me, did Judas hang himself? Or did he trip on a rock? Don't be stubborn :) Judas didn't do both. Is the Bible 100% God's word, literally? Of course not. Are the LESSONS in the Bible 100% God's Word? I think that you and I and pretty much everyone here could agree upon that :)
joshwestcott 3 years ago
pppz0r, I'll remind you that you could speak great mysteries but if you have not love, you're actually just an ass :) (If you don't believe the Bible, then I apologize for correcting you)
Listen, I'm just as arrogant as the next guy, but I can honestly say I'm tired of hearing people's comments (all of them true) about how much bullshit Christians dish out. Let's learn to disagree nicely, and remind me to do the same if my actions/words call for correction.
Thanks everyone!
Josh
joshwestcott 3 years ago
Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say...."
sbach4 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's that supposed to mean?
pppz0r 3 years ago
I don't agree with borg on saying that one should not take the bible literally... Most of the sayings in Bible are that of God which were given to the people of Israel and there are historical proofs that the places and people described in the bible did exist. Which means, the fact that God indeed interacted with the people of old testament is true. Although told several thousands of years ago..the truths written in the bible still apply to us and hence should be taken as given by god himself.
rgnanadavid 3 years ago
Spiderman operates in New York according to the books about him. Does that mean spiderman is real because New York exists?
And why do you accept revelation as truth from men living in a primitive and illiterate society in the middle-east 2000 years ago?
People are idiots to accept truth this way from fellow (opportunistic) humans claiming to speak in the name of god, as god obviously does not appear directly himself.
You are credulous, easily coerced and led.
Stipoon 3 years ago
So how's that sausage thing working out for you?
tlh215 3 years ago
The Bible isn't a fax from heaven. It's common sense that the Bible contains the testimony of the ancient Israelites and the early Christian communities. Your view of scripture as "given by god [sic] himself" is nothing less than a perpetuation of the docetic heresy.
pppz0r 3 years ago
The creator of this universe never spoke to man literally or inspirationally.
Bible, Torah, Koran was written by man, for man. If you can't see this, it's too bad.
How so many people can believe this because an old book says so is beyond my comprehension as a rational adult ex-christian.
People (Adults)need to grow up or the human race will never mature. And stop preaching this crap to children. It's criminal.
TheSpindles 3 years ago
i only wish they would all realize this.
ryeguy34 3 years ago
You all are taking Marcus' words too literally. This is obviously parabolic language he's using. I think we need to reclaim Borg's books and read them as parable, not that he literally means what he says. Hey, why not? He does that with the apostolic authors...
MagicNate 3 years ago 2
Simply brilliant!
Of course you're right! Why take Marcus Borg literally?
TrinidadAdventistGay 3 years ago
2 John 1:10 if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching (The Bible) do not let him in your house. This is heresy!!
JesusFreak155 3 years ago
Marcus Borg is a biblical scholar, he's been studying the New Testament his whole adult life, I see him as finding the relevant and truthful meaning of the bible not as discrediting it
ItstheHaminator 2 years ago 11
He raises some good points but I can't agree with him. I would say that the Bible is both divine and human: one doesn't exclude the other, just like in the hypostatic union of Christ.
PricklyHairStubble62 3 years ago
I am a Red Letter Christian. I consider the words of Jesus to be fundamental...and the rest of scripture to be contextual. I tend to agree with Marcus Borg's approach, but only as applied to the non red-letter portions of scripture. Otherwise, pretty soon, black is white, and up is down. 2+2 doesn't equal 4 anymore. Nothing means anything. Everything is shifting sand. It becomes like a baseball game where the rules are constantly changing. One strike...Your're Out!!!
redletterchurch 3 years ago
Looks a bit like George Carlin... Ironic.
Matty272 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sounds a lot like John Spong... Demonic.
CAndiron 3 years ago
Preaches a bit like Fred Flintstone... Cool.
KFDonny 3 years ago
I'll Yabba Dabba Doo to that!
Matty272 3 years ago
It seems to me that he propose a re-interpretation of the Bible, as a vague and subjective referential documents. He is honest trying to provide a alternative to the crisis of faith that we experience in this post-modern time. I think if we take this view, we cannot sustain the need of the church or the congregation anymore, just rescue Cristianity as an ancient religion. I think the Christianism in Germany is consequent in that way, the church died long time ago there. (Sorry for my English)
cstwilli 4 years ago 3
yes! finally somebody i agree with, nice work Eleazarsc..
baristaboy2 4 years ago
hehe ty. you should check out a youtube page im working on. Just enter /thebiblematters to find it. also if you are interested in learning more about post modernism, multi nationalism (the idea that truth is only true for you specific culture and no other), moral relativism (the idea that truth cannot come from morals, it must come form what the 5 senses observe) and many other false philosophy's, then read "The New Tolerance" by Josh McDowell & Bob Hostetler.
Eleazarsc 4 years ago
The issue is not if I agree/disagree with Mr. Borg. The issue is what does the Bible say, not what do I feel the Bible is saying. Mr. Borg is interpreting the Bible in a postmodern/moral relativistic way (non literal). The Bible needs to be interpreted as literal and relevant in all cultures and times. (Hebrews 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:16)
Eleazarsc 4 years ago
Eleazarsc, everyone take parts of the Bible literally and parts of it figuratively. Was it literal when it said in Joshua 10:13 "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."? If it is, it means that the sun revolves around the Earth. Of course today we recognize this as being symbolic.
KPhysicsGeek 3 years ago
Another case, where many that many Christians seem to gloss over is Mathew 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." If this is true, then it is more likely (though neither event is impossible) for a camel to go through a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.
KPhysicsGeek 3 years ago
Context, son. If you're gonna be consistent, why not go with "Jesus is the Vine" or "Jesus is a door...replete with hinges and a knob."
Wow, KPhysicsGeek. You have no idea what you are talking about.
AnthonyNpplboy 3 years ago
Can you be more specific about that?
KPhysicsGeek 3 years ago
*sigh*...
The arguments you throw out are inconsistent. Due to context, we're able to discern what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken...symbolically/metaphorically if you will. Books, such as the prophetic books (Daniel, Revelation), contain a lot of these "symbols."
So now - we know what is to be taken literally and symbolically. You can't just throw out the entire bible and say, "we don't know, so the whole thing is symbolic."
AnthonyNpplboy 3 years ago
I don't think I was arguing that the whole thing was symbolic. I am arguing that much of what many people take literally is meant to be symbolic (For instance the 7 day creation).
KPhysicsGeek 3 years ago
Sorry, got a bit carried away there.
However, each interpretation is subject to one's worldview. For instance, if you take the naturalistic approach, you're more likely to say things "evolved" and there was a "big bang." Versus a supernaturalist approach where you claim God did everything....
However, it really isn't necessary compared to the crucifixion and resurrection. That's where Christian faith rests upon.
But for the sake of consistency; how do you know what is and what isn't symbolic?
AnthonyNpplboy 3 years ago
I would like to point out that the first person to advance the Big Bang as a hypothesis was a Catholic Priest/Physicist, Georges Lemaitre, and the "naturalists" absolutely hated it because it smacked of Divine Intervention. They were eventually won over by the evidence, but I like to point to it as a case where religion won over atheism. Anyway, to your question, it is combination of study of the language, study of the culture it was written, study of the prerequisites to the stories.
KPhysicsGeek 3 years ago
I don't know why we're arguing if we agree on a lot of issues...
AnthonyNpplboy 3 years ago
Well we're arguing because you said I have no idea what I'm talking about :-)
Perhaps I should have been more clear in my first post, but what I meant to say is that NO ONE takes the Bible 100% literally. (Well, almost no one, if you are in the mood for a good laugh (or cry), check out geocentricity . com) There are things that we all recognize of symbolism so the argument that you MUST interpret the Bible 100% literally does not hold water.
KPhysicsGeek 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm bad at talking to people. First impressions are always awful.
I agree - you can't take it 100% literally; I don't know why anyone would force you to since Christian faith rests solely on the work of Christ in the NT.
AnthonyNpplboy 3 years ago
"NO ONE takes the Bible 100% literally. (Well, almost no one...)"
Judging by YouTube alone, there are unfortunately huge droves of the faithful who hold every word to be the inerrant and precise utterance of the creator of the universe. So you might want to tell that to them, my friend. :)
Ralph1Waldo 2 years ago 3
do a search online for skeptics bible . that site is really good about showing some of the not so nice things in bible
Unityspirit50 2 years ago
people argue over religion.. it will never stop
Unityspirit50 2 years ago
Mr. Borg clearly sees Christianity as just another nice path in life. Jesus clearly states in John 14:6 "I am THE WAY, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through Me." Christianity is not just a path to a great and meaningfully life. It is more importantly a way to have a relationship with our creator and Lord, Jesus Christ. See his video "Christianity as a Spiritual Path"
Eleazarsc 4 years ago