To an informed person, it would be self-evident that the Bible is not perfect. God could certainly protect some written documents, but he doesn't seem to have done that. When you look into Biblical texts and textual criticism, you will find that there's nothing neat and simple about it. Just the fact that the modern Greek Bible (the Nestle-Aland) is in it's 26th, 27th, or 28th edition should suggest that the Bible isn't absolutely perfect. I think the Bible is useful because God seems to point to it and use it at times.
I've always been rather amazed at the ignorance I've run across in Christian circles, though, about the formation of their own scriptures and the history of the faith. There are a few people here I have appreciated who have a more conservative view but also seem to grasp a lot of the nuances of the historical journey.
With laypeople, many I have met are just very simplistic. They think the exact same faith they practice today and cling to, in its details, is the True Faith that people followed 2000 years ago, which means they're even more entrenched in defending that specific doctrinal set and stance. They also argue as if their current-day faith was always before these religious ancestors in its full form, so it was just a matter of adherence to the same 2000-year-old doctrine; no, actually people weren't sure, they were just fighting for the view they believed to be right without the benefit of hindsight or centuries of reinforcement and codification and easy access to publications. It's just frustrating to deal with, any attempt to frame something historical is considered wrong or evil if it deviates in any way from the set of beliefs that they've decided are true.
But I do think it takes time, energy, and courage to dig in that far and not just look at one's own world but to examine Christianity -- both good and bad -- throughout the centuries, from the outside.
The Bible is not a constitution or the hand book for everything spiritual and everything pertaining to God.
When I stumbled across that revelation (which flew in the face of everything I was being taught, implicitly and explicitly), it was life-changing for me.
The Jesus depicted in the Bible seems to repeatedly claim to know things from speaking with and having experience with the Father, and only occasionally points to scripture. I haven't looked into this, but I think he often brought up scriptures when dealing with religious people like he was saying, "Look, even the scriptures that you like so much contradict what you're doing."
Well, there are passages where he seemed to be trying to anchor himself in place as the fulfillment of scripture (such as when he begins his ministry). And some people would beg to differ with you; even in regards to the temptations of Christ by Satan, he is attributed as quoting Scripture rather than providing his own answers... this point is highly emphasized in sermons I've heard, as having relevance. ("As God's son, he could have just said whatever he wanted -- but Scripture is SO important that he quoted it instead of providing new answers!")
Sometimes I wonder if Jesus was even literate. When referring to scripture it could've been something he heard people read in a synagogue. The story of the woman caught in adultery where he wrote on the ground is questionable cause it's not in early manuscripts, and also, writing a word or two on the ground hardly constitutes being literate.
You're right, the latter story was added ... which might or might not indicate authenticity. (It could just be a later edit of real info, which we do on this forum all the time. It doesn't mean our new edits are less factual.)
From what I understand, rabbis were required to memorize all of the scripture, the amount based on age cutoffs. Somewhere between age 6-10 (for example), you were required to have memorized the Torah. And so on. Can you imagine? Talk about brainy. If you didn't meet the requirement, you did not advance to the next stage of training. here's a
reference to that practice... on a basketball site nonetheless!
So Jesus reading from the scroll... well, who knows? He likely had it committed to memory anyway.
The heaven/hell issue is strangely absent from the Old Testament. I'm not sure if its even brought up in Genesis at all, and that's supposed to be the record of God dealing with humanity from the beginning. Job is believed to be the earliest writing, and you'd think if people were in danger of burning forever, there would be a lot of stuff in there about it. Frankly, the God of the Old Testament doesn't seem to think heaven and hell is that important.
Basically you will see references to Sheol throughout the middle and later OT. No reference to heaven or hell as we talk about it today. Sheol means "the grave." It refers to going into the earth -- the body being interred. One reason the Jews protected and did not desecrate the body was because they did not really distinguish between soul and body. It was all one. This is why you did not deface the body, and why people with disease (unclean) were also considered "sinful," etc. The body was the soul was the body. Those scenes of destruction in that OT? That was hell. having God destroy your body was being destroyed by God, not just punished. You were
damned forever at that point. I don't think modern religious people grasp that damnation was very literal and very tangible, not this spiritual abstracted thing where you "burn forever at a later date."
And after death, while they believed JHWH would "save" them somehow, they couldn't imagine it happening without their bodies. This is why leaving someone's body to die in a tree to be eaten by carrion, or by dogs (like Jezebel), was reserved for people who had committed heinous crimes or were apostates. If you lose your body, or parts of it, how can God make you live again? Ezekiel's vision of dry bones coming back to life was a big deal.
Anyway, when someone died, they were "asleep in the grave." The Jews considered them resting, and that somehow God would one day restore them to life.
The whole heaven/hell thing is a late OT or NT construct.
He decides to adopt a few special people as his own, and then a special nation while everyone else can just go to hell. Then he decides to take his jolly good time before he brings Jesus on the scene, mean while, people are supposedly dying and going to hell.
Well, not entirely true. Some of the foreigners were brought within the fold and were accepted by God. You'll find them scattered throughout the OT. I think Rahab from Jericho is even mentioned as a woman of faith in Hebrews. You COULD be born outside Israel and yet by faith be brought to God's fold.
(The NT really hammered home on this, in Paul's writings... where he argued vehemently that one did
not have to be circumcized and thus "become jewish" in order to be a child of God, like some of the early Christians -- who of course were also jews -- were insisting.)
I don't see the "Jews being God's people" as the equivalent of modern-day concept of Christian salvation. They were just a nation selected by God (according to the Bible) and set apart; the rules were both practical necessities of the day to keep the culture alive (the cleanliness rules prevented epidemics, etc.) as well as separate and distinct from other [pagan] cultures and thus clearly identifiable as that belonging to the monotheistic deity.
I agree here. I find most modern Gods, as they appear in their original texts (Bible, Torah, Koran) are not worthy of worship. Some people get around the uncomfortable aspects of these Gods by picking and choosing at the Bible or what-have-you, but you are essentially calling all of the Bible potentially fallible by calling any of the supposed Word of God fallible. Besides, by self-editing, one creates one's own God rather than following an actual Christian God. I don't see why they don't just start from scratch.
Well, because their authority is tradition, not constructed rationalities. The sort of arguments and details they trust come through historicity and human institutions; they do not trust their sense of rational or intuitive consistency, it would feel "fake" to them.
For you, it might be the "norm" approach.
For them, it's completely alien, just as their approach is alien to you.
No, they have to somehow "jigger together" the content of the authorities they trust and make it coherent somehow... even if it doesn't seem coherent to you.
I see religion more as a choice of belief, not as a proven reality.
Even if a god could be proven to be "real," if you despise that god or feel that that god is evil, would you still want to pledge allegiance to him, her, it, or them, regardless?
