5 ms·

> The book forms a coherent whole I think when perhaps in isolation, some of the individual books may be coherent, but as a whole, there is no logical consiste

> The book forms a coherent whole I think when perhaps in isolation, some of the individual books may be coherent, but as a whole, there is no logical consistency, but instead there are a myriad of contradictions, such as those between the synoptic gospels and John. For example, on what day was Jesus crucified? John does not agree with the synoptic gospels regarding this. Or in the Old Testament, in Exodus, we have two entirely different sets of Ten Commandments, the first we find familiar, but were destroyed, and the second set that few would recognize that Exodus specifically refers to as the Ten Commandments, including a prohibition on boiling a young goat in it's mother's milk. Is God El, or Yahweh? Is God a perfect being, or subject to all too human emotions like jealousy? I am nearly certain the Bible was never intended to be coherent. It's authors span nearly a millennia, and it is doubtful they expected or intended their writings to be translated and compiled together by St. Jerome or the First Council of Nicaea. Joseph Campbell, a Jungian, stated "a mythic dream is a personal experience of that deep dark ground which is the support of our conscious lives, and the myth is the society's dream," that a dream is a private mythology, and mythology is the public dream, and as easy it is to understand what he means, not even that is coherent.

prometheus76 5y ago
Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. John probably had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when he wrote his own account of the Gospel, so if there are contradictions MAYBE they're intentional and are intended to teach you something. But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Fascinating. Can you provide one single example from the Bible where a contradiction is intentionally employed to unveil a deeper concept or connection that is not immediately clear? > Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. The author of John's Gospel sourced from a "signs" gospel, possibly the Gospel of Thomas, and seems to have known about Gospels Mark and Luke, but not Matthew, as well as Jewish scripture and non-Jewish sources, such as Greek philosophy. The Johannine community were messianic Jews excommunicated from the Jewish community on account of their belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. > To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. Unless such a claim was made, this is a straw man. I disagreed with OP's claim that the Bible is coherent, because it could not possibly be coherent, and I explained why. Is it necessary that the Bible be coherent? I'd like to know why, because it isn't, and it can not be, because it literally is not possible for it to have been intended to be coherent, mostly due to it being a collection of works from multiple ancient authors that lived in different centuries. > But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other. Another straw man and an ad hominem. Your argument is twice fallacious.
ars 5y ago
> Is God El, or Yahweh? Is your name Doctor, Father, General, Mr., George, or Maursault? People can have more than one title which is used as a name. It's the same with God, the different names denote different aspects. I don't know if Christianity does this, but Judaism associates each name with a different attribute. For example: mercy, justice, creation, compassion, etc. By knowing which name is used, i.e. which attribute is being expressed, you gain a whole new insight when reading the stories on what's going on. It's a real shame that most English translations do not preserve this information.
- phonypc 5y ago
  That works for the various epithets, but El and Yahweh seem to be conflicting proper names. i.e. is your name Robert or George?
  - ars 5y ago
    > but El and Yahweh seem to be conflicting proper names They don't. I'm not really sure where you get that idea from. I read the original in Hebrew routinely and I don't get that sense at all that they conflict. I mean just look at Exodus 6:3, were God explicitly says that he has more than one name.
    - phonypc 5y ago
      Ya conflicting is maybe not the right word. Obviously within the narrative as a whole it's one god. I guess I'm trying to point out they were historically separate deities, so it's more like being called both Robert and George, rather than Dr. and Mr.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      In fact, they were proper names of different deities. Unlike El, Yahweh was envisioned as a storm god in the early literature, one among many Canaanite gods and goddesses including El, Asherah and Baal. Eventually, Yahweh and El were conflated, and became chief among gods. But Yahweh/El was not the only god worshiped, not until Elijah rose to prominence. For a very long time, Yahweh/El was not the only God, just the only one that had any sympathy for the Israelites.
bencollier49 5y ago
Logical consistency wasn't the way I meant that it coheres! The themes, arcs, symbolism, prophecies, moral structures, deeper messages, all of that stuff. God, by definition, defies human understanding. In the same way that the Zen people use apparently self-contradictory statements or questions to try to get across ideas, the Bible works with more than just literal historical statements. There's plenty of history in there too, of course. Often seen from different perspectives.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Logical consistency wasn't the way I meant that it coheres! The themes, arcs, symbolism, prophecies, moral structures, deeper messages, all of that stuff. Though your argument is unconvincing, I still disagree, because now you are employing syllogism. The Bible is an anthological compilation of sacred literature of radically different genres, connected only by belief that they are revelations of God. > God, by definition, defies human understanding. Stop me when I get to anything that defies your understanding: by God, you mean the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, the supreme being who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Or perhaps you are referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the notorious Cynic philosopher, poet and rebel Jew that dared to suggest loving one's enemy, who knocked over tables and caused a commotion at the Temple in Jerusalem, passed bread while saying, "do this in memory of me," and was crucified. I think I know what you're getting at, but, in fact, most ordinary people defy human understanding. > In the same way that the Zen people use apparently self-contradictory statements or questions to try to get across ideas, I think you must mean Buddhists. > the Bible works with more than just literal historical statements. Is there any other written work that does not work with more than just literal interpretation? Isn't that true of everything that has ever been written?
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    > I think you must mean Buddhists. No, I mean Zen people. This includes Zen Buddhists. > Is there any other written work that does not work with more than just literal interpretation? Isn't that true of everything that has ever been written? https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf > Stop me when I get to anything that defies your understanding...most ordinary people defy human understanding Quite true. Another argument in favour of religion, at least as a starting point. I don't think we're going to make much progress here. Perhaps a long conversation over several glasses of wine, but not on the Internet.

prometheus76 5y ago

Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. John probably had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when he wrote his own account of the Gospel, so if there are contradictions MAYBE they're intentional and are intended to teach you something. But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other.

Maursault 5y ago
> Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Fascinating. Can you provide one single example from the Bible where a contradiction is intentionally employed to unveil a deeper concept or connection that is not immediately clear? > Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. The author of John's Gospel sourced from a "signs" gospel, possibly the Gospel of Thomas, and seems to have known about Gospels Mark and Luke, but not Matthew, as well as Jewish scripture and non-Jewish sources, such as Greek philosophy. The Johannine community were messianic Jews excommunicated from the Jewish community on account of their belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. > To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. Unless such a claim was made, this is a straw man. I disagreed with OP's claim that the Bible is coherent, because it could not possibly be coherent, and I explained why. Is it necessary that the Bible be coherent? I'd like to know why, because it isn't, and it can not be, because it literally is not possible for it to have been intended to be coherent, mostly due to it being a collection of works from multiple ancient authors that lived in different centuries. > But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other. Another straw man and an ad hominem. Your argument is twice fallacious.

ars 5y ago

> Is God El, or Yahweh? Is your name Doctor, Father, General, Mr., George, or Maursault? People can have more than one title which is used as a name. It's the same with God, the different names denote different aspects. I don't know if Christianity does this, but Judaism associates each name with a different attribute. For example: mercy, justice, creation, compassion, etc. By knowing which name is used, i.e. which attribute is being expressed, you gain a whole new insight when reading the stories on what's going on. It's a real shame that most English translations do not preserve this information.

phonypc 5y ago
That works for the various epithets, but El and Yahweh seem to be conflicting proper names. i.e. is your name Robert or George?
- ars 5y ago
  > but El and Yahweh seem to be conflicting proper names They don't. I'm not really sure where you get that idea from. I read the original in Hebrew routinely and I don't get that sense at all that they conflict. I mean just look at Exodus 6:3, were God explicitly says that he has more than one name.
  - phonypc 5y ago
    Ya conflicting is maybe not the right word. Obviously within the narrative as a whole it's one god. I guess I'm trying to point out they were historically separate deities, so it's more like being called both Robert and George, rather than Dr. and Mr.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    In fact, they were proper names of different deities. Unlike El, Yahweh was envisioned as a storm god in the early literature, one among many Canaanite gods and goddesses including El, Asherah and Baal. Eventually, Yahweh and El were conflated, and became chief among gods. But Yahweh/El was not the only god worshiped, not until Elijah rose to prominence. For a very long time, Yahweh/El was not the only God, just the only one that had any sympathy for the Israelites.

bencollier49 5y ago

Logical consistency wasn't the way I meant that it coheres! The themes, arcs, symbolism, prophecies, moral structures, deeper messages, all of that stuff. God, by definition, defies human understanding. In the same way that the Zen people use apparently self-contradictory statements or questions to try to get across ideas, the Bible works with more than just literal historical statements. There's plenty of history in there too, of course. Often seen from different perspectives.

Maursault 5y ago
> Logical consistency wasn't the way I meant that it coheres! The themes, arcs, symbolism, prophecies, moral structures, deeper messages, all of that stuff. Though your argument is unconvincing, I still disagree, because now you are employing syllogism. The Bible is an anthological compilation of sacred literature of radically different genres, connected only by belief that they are revelations of God. > God, by definition, defies human understanding. Stop me when I get to anything that defies your understanding: by God, you mean the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, the supreme being who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Or perhaps you are referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the notorious Cynic philosopher, poet and rebel Jew that dared to suggest loving one's enemy, who knocked over tables and caused a commotion at the Temple in Jerusalem, passed bread while saying, "do this in memory of me," and was crucified. I think I know what you're getting at, but, in fact, most ordinary people defy human understanding. > In the same way that the Zen people use apparently self-contradictory statements or questions to try to get across ideas, I think you must mean Buddhists. > the Bible works with more than just literal historical statements. Is there any other written work that does not work with more than just literal interpretation? Isn't that true of everything that has ever been written?
- bencollier49 5y ago
  > I think you must mean Buddhists. No, I mean Zen people. This includes Zen Buddhists. > Is there any other written work that does not work with more than just literal interpretation? Isn't that true of everything that has ever been written? https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf > Stop me when I get to anything that defies your understanding...most ordinary people defy human understanding Quite true. Another argument in favour of religion, at least as a starting point. I don't think we're going to make much progress here. Perhaps a long conversation over several glasses of wine, but not on the Internet.