The Bible and Pagan Mythology

[John Chrysostom]

Did I say that? I'm not saying anything is beyond God. I'm saying that I don't believe God directly wrote the Bible through men and secondly that the Biblical Canon didn't fall from Heaven. Your argument doesn't make sense, a perfect and complete book is not necessary for an all powerful God. As C.S. Lewis said, sorry Thatcher , "It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true Word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him."

[Pirate Oriana]

Did I say that? I'm not saying anything is beyond God. I'm saying that I don't believe God directly wrote the Bible through men and secondly that the Biblical Canon didn't fall from Heaven. Your argument doesn't make sense, a perfect and complete book is not necessary for an all powerful God. As C.S. Lewis said, sorry Thatcher , "It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true Word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him."

You're right, God doesn't need a book....but that doesn't mean we don't either. If there isn't some established standard by which to measure truth, then everything is subjective. You may say that God can communicate directly with people. And it's true, he can; but if I tell someone that God is saying something to me, and they say God is telling them the exact opposite how do we (or anyone else) know which is right?

Alright, but then how do I know that God was the source behind the Bible? Basically, because it was written by around 40 men, from all walks of life, over fifteen-hundred years and (contrary to what you may say) they all agree. The correlations that are hidden just beneath the surface and insanely awesome; God was leaving Easter eggs long before the video game era...or the Easter bunny for that matter. You can go back to it, over and over, and learn new things every time.

[John Chrysostom]

Let me ask you this though, in the situation you've described, two people disagree over what God is saying. How would going to the Bible, without some kind of authoritative interpretation, solve the problem? The two people can probably both find verses that they can interpret to support themselves and their side and who says which is right or wrong?

[TigerintheShadows]

Should we be less dependent on God or have less of an orderly society?

Whether or not you adhere to the Hebrew law code does not make you any more or less dependent on God. Dependence on God means that you allow Him to work in you and through you to reach out to others, which does not necessarily have a prerequisite in abstinence from various mundane things--for some reason, I was under the impression that an omnipotent God was capable of working in and through anyone, not just people who lived under Hebrew law.

I think they have the same relevance to us today. Sacrifices were mentioned specifically, doesn't that mean they're a special case?

So are food laws. I seem to recall the phrase "what God has made clean, do not call unclean" from Acts 10. Though Peter later figured out that God had been speaking about Jew-Gentile associations, the specific choice of food that had been prohibited under Jewish law makes me think that God was trying to kill to birds with one stone, so to speak. Jesus also references the food laws, declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. So aren't they special cases, too?

What did you lose by shaving? How about obedience to God? Do God's laws need to pass our approval?

But those were part of the Old Covenant, whereas the New Testament introduces the New Covenant, freeing us from being bound by such physical restrictions. It is my personal opinion that if a law is present in the Old Testament and is not reiterated in the New Testament, it is no longer applicable literally and is meant to be interpreted symbolically. The more ascetic you are, the more likely you are to have a more legalistic outlook--you can get that anyway, but why exacerbate a tendency we already have?

[Margaret Thatcher]

@Christian A. Paul does not tell us it's fine to eat meat leftover from a sacrifice. He says we can purchase meat at the market or eat at a Gentiles meal without fear of where the meat comes from but if we are told specifically that the meat is from an idol then we should abstain. "But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it"

@John Jesus and the Apostles never quoted any of the Apocrypha. As for what this council declared that has no bearing on my Bible, if they fell into error I'm not going to follow them. Also there's no evidence that the rest of the churches at the time accepted this council. If we're not following them anymore then it seems like they've been abolished. Christ lived a life following this law, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same.

@Tiger Why do you treat the Ten Commandments as straightforward but view the rest as symbolic? The nation of Israel didn't treat them as symbolic. In your examples of the spirit of the law versus the letter rings hollow to me. I'm saying not physically murdering someone is important and you're saying the important part is not thinking about murdering them. I mean yes if you never think about murdering someone then you won't physically murder someone but the point still stands that physically murdering someone is just as bad. I also don't see why Peter's vision in Acts makes it okay to eat unclean animals, if you want to talk about symbolism I think this vision is about the Gentiles receiving the word; not unclean animals becoming clean.

Of course God can and does work through anyone but if we take that as the normative then why shouldn't we sin so that grace may abound?

Mark 7 is Jesus scolding the pharisees for laying aside God's law, the Old Testament, for man made traditions. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. " Jesus never spoke against the law of God but the laws of man.

So there are no longer any physical restrictions on us?

[TigerintheShadows]

Why do you treat the Ten Commandments as straightforward but view the rest as symbolic? The nation of Israel didn't treat them as symbolic.

And yet...we're not the nation of Israel. Symbolic children of Abraham? Yep...so considering the symbolism there, why can't there be other things that we treat as symbolic of something deeper?

The thing about being symbolic sons of Abraham is that, as Galatians 3 points out, it is done through faith alone, not by the works of the law. Jesus made it clear when speaking to the Pharisees (called them "sons of the devil", if I am not mistaken) that though they were born Jewish, though they followed both God's laws and the ones they made up, they were not true sons of Abraham because they did not have the faith that is at the core of being a true child of God's promise to Abraham. As I will demonstrate later in my post, the whole reason why Paul tells the Galatians that they are children of Abraham by faith is because Judaizers were attempting to impose the laws of God on them, and Paul was explaining that through Jesus and His sacrifice and resurrection, we are set free from the law.

I treat the Ten Commandments as straightforward because they are reiterated multiple times in the Old and New Testaments. I don't treat the Hebrew Law as straightforward because the New Testament mentions specifically that part of the purpose of Christ's death was to free us from having to follow the Hebrew Law—more on that later. But because there was a purpose for the Hebrew Law—setting the Jews apart from their neighbors—I keep that kind of purity in mind.

In your examples of the spirit of the law versus the letter rings hollow to me. I'm saying not physically murdering someone is important and you're saying the important part is not thinking about murdering them. I mean yes if you never think about murdering someone then you won't physically murder someone but the point still stands that physically murdering someone is just as bad.

Yes, it is. But don't you think that the condition of your heart--as in, the thing out of which you speak--is very, very important to your Christian walk, probably more so than what actions you've taken? Works without faith are just as dead as faith without works. I'm not saying that not physically murdering someone isn't important; I'm saying that not holding bitter, angry thoughts about someone in your heart is more important.

Actually, what you were saying was that the divorce of spirit from physical sounds like gnosticism to you. Which it would...if I were saying things like "spirit is good and matter is evil; reject the physical world in favor of the spiritual", which is the crux of gnosticism. What I was actually saying was that there is a spirit behind the law that is ultimately more important than simply following the physical actions instructed by the law, though both are very important.

I also don't see why Peter's vision in Acts makes it okay to eat unclean animals, if you want to talk about symbolism I think this vision is about the Gentiles receiving the word; not unclean animals becoming clean.

But why would God have used that specific item in the vision--food that was considered unclean? I covered the whole "Jews associating with Gentiles" thing--yes, that is at least part of the point--but why can't it have multiple meanings? Why can't He have been killing two birds with one stone? The Bible is full of symbolism, but that doesn't mean that the symbols only mean one concrete thing.

Of course God can and does work through anyone but if we take that as the normative then why shouldn't we sin so that grace may abound?

No. Paul specifically tells us not to. But that wasn't the point that I was making.

Part of Paul's point in writing letters like the one to the Galatians was to condemn the idea that Christians needed to convert to following Jewish law. Galatians 3:10 reminds us that "all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'" Paul goes on to remind us that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" in verse 13. It's not even interpretive—it's there on the paper that the law is a curse and that Christ died to free us from it, which is part of what I have been saying this whole time. Yes, God works in and through anyone, but the point that I was making was that a Christian does not have to follow the Hebrew Law in order to effectively serve Him—we have been set free from that kind of lifestyle.

Jesus never spoke against the law of God but the laws of man.

That logic does not answer the question as to why verse 19 specifically states that Jesus declared all foods clean. No, He didn't change God's laws...but I believe that He did change the way we should look at them.

So there are no longer any physical restrictions on us?

They exist, and they should be followed—yes, absolutely, murdering someone or having sex outside of wedlock or stealing from someone are all deplorable actions. But I believe that it is far more important that your heart be pure than that your actions be pure—so you also shouldn't hold grudges, lust after someone, or envy what someone else has. A pure heart is nearly always accompanied by pure actions, but pure actions are not nearly as often accompanied by a pure heart.

[Christian A.]

@Christian A. Paul does not tell us it's fine to eat meat leftover from a sacrifice. He says we can purchase meat at the market or eat at a Gentiles meal without fear of where the meat comes from but if we are told specifically that the meat is from an idol then we should abstain. "But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it"

He goes on to say that that was for the Gentiles' sake. They were not to abstain from eating the meat because of the nature of the meat itself, but because of how it would cause the Gentiles to stumble and remember their former lives of sin.

[The Kings Daughter]

I tried to read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe one time and just all of the witchcraft and the pagan elements really got to me and I had to put it down.

I actually struggled with that a few years ago. But the witchcraft is wielded by the 'evil side', and that's what the Bible says it is. *shrugs* I mean like, should I not read anything that has sin in it because it's wrong? Jesus' parables included examples of sin.That's just the conclusion I came to.

For another example, I don't do anything with Harry Potter because the 'good side' wields witchcraft. And that bothers me quite a bit because of what the Bible says about it.

Some people argue that if it's in a fantasy world, it doesn't matter, because that world has its own rules and laws. I still think it's too close because we readers in the real world are reading about it in the light of it being alright. Those are just a few scattered thoughts.

[TigerintheShadows]

I actually struggled with that a few years ago. But the witchcraft is wielded by the 'evil side', and that's what the Bible says it is.

Pagan elements (the creatures, for instance) are on both sides, though, and Aslan's resurrection is brought about by the "Deep Magic". There is magic use and pagan elements, but I never saw it as a problem.

Some people argue that if it's in a fantasy world, it doesn't matter, because that world has its own rules and laws. I still think it's too close because we readers in the real world are reading about it in the light of it being alright.

Okay, fair enough...I disagree, because I've never read a fantasy novel involving witchcraft and come out thinking that it's acceptable, and I don't think anyone old enough to comprehend the books would, either. But I see where you're coming from.

Also, first on-topic post in the thread!

[The Kings Daughter]

I actually struggled with that a few years ago. But the witchcraft is wielded by the 'evil side', and that's what the Bible says it is.

Pagan elements (the creatures, for instance) are on both sides, though, and Aslan's resurrection is brought about by the "Deep Magic". There is magic use and pagan elements, but I never saw it as a problem.

Oh, that's true. I guess I overlooked that. Woops. Well then that seems to contradict my later statement a bit. Hmm.

I still feel like some of the witchcraft in some books/movies is dark...and I couldn't in good conscience watch that be 'good'. It would just mess with me whether I noticed it outright or not, I think.

Okay, fair enough...I disagree, because I've never read a fantasy novel involving witchcraft and come out thinking that it's acceptable, and I don't think anyone old enough to comprehend the books would, either. But I see where you're coming from.

What would you say is your reasoning for being comfortable with magic in general? I mean, other than, 'it's not real' (unless that's it ).:

Also, first on-topic post in the thread!

Take a screenshot, I'm on topic! ^_^

[TigerintheShadows]

What would you say is your reasoning for being comfortable with magic in general? I mean, other than, 'it's not real' (unless that's it ).::)

Pretty much. I guess it's the fact that I've been hearing fairy tales with the exact same kind of magic used in environments like HP that has desensitized me to it. I knew from a young age that "witchcraft" and "fairy tale magic" are two totally different things--one involves real spiritual forces that should not be tampered with, the other involves waving a magic wand and making cool sparkly things happen. One is attainable, but very, very evil...the other is purely fantasy and is totally neutral. If HP said things along the lines of "HARRY MADE HIS DAILY COMMUNION WITH BEELZEBUB AND APOLLYON" or whatever, that would turn me off; but because it's all "'Expelliarmus!' Harry shouted -cue wand or other object flying out of target's hand-", it doesn't bother me. It has always been portrayed as fictional, and I've been raised to know that what makes a good, interesting story and what constitutes acceptable or natural behavior in real life are not always the same thing. (And to me, if you're going to avoid Harry Potter solely on a witchcraft basis, you can pretty well bet that you're not watching another Disney movie or reading another fairy tale ever again...since those also involve dealing with some form of magic.)

And the thing about HP magic (and by extension the magic in the same types of stories) is that it's not something you can obtain by work--you're born with it. It's like talents, or something to that effect--you either have the innate ability to wave a wand and make magical sparkly things happen, or you don't--no demons required.

To me, you could make a far better case about other objectionable content in HP than anything to do with the magic. There is some pretty unpleasant stuff in there (though much of the story's darkness can be attributed to the whole "major war" thing). The thing is, though, the messages about the strength of love and friendship, about courage, about doing what is right instead of what is easy, about how there are always shades of gray in the midst of the black and white, and that subsequently, people should be looked at as real human beings with flaws and strengths--those shine through the darker elements and ultimately make for a pretty incredible story. (Matter of fact, there is quite a bit if Messianic and otherwise Biblical symbolism to be noted in DH.)

I totally understand why people are sensitive to magic. Me? I'm pretty sensitive to violence. I can't stand violent movies. (Hermione's torture scene in DH1 causes me to flee the room, because Emma is a fantastic actress.) I don't do well with screams of pain, nasty wounds, blood spattering on walls, or any of those elements. Thus, war movies are pretty much out, as are games such as CoD or Halo. My brother and dad, though, are totally cool with violent movies, if the movie has enough redeeming messages and values to it that the violence is largely par for the course. They are not horrible people who are filling their minds with FILTH OF THE DEVIL ; they are two of the most godly men I know. It's just a difference--everyone has a blind spot. (Note--I don't believe that you were accusing me of anything, TKD; I speak to a broader audience in this particular paragraph.)

[Margaret Thatcher]

@Tiger I believe we as the church are the new Israel. Paul and the Apostles were talking about being free from the man made laws of the Hebrews, not the God given laws. At the meeting in Acts the Judaizers were told to not hold the Gentiles to man made standards but the Apostles still told everyone to follow the law of Moses that had been taught everywhere.

I agree both the spirit and the physical are important.

I just don't see the multiple meanings, are you saying that the uncleanness of those animals was symbolic during the Old Testament? If it wasn't just symbolic but actual physical uncleanness then they are still unclean and bad for our body.

As I said earlier, Paul was against following man made laws, not against following God's laws.

I agree, not having those thoughts is important.

@Christian I still don't understand how the physical nature of the meat changed from the OT to the NT.

@KingsDaughter Yeah both sides use magic, that was really what threw me. Many of the "good" guys are magical creatures from pagan beliefs systems.

[TigerintheShadows]

Paul and the Apostles were talking about being free from the man made laws of the Hebrews, not the God given laws.

Then why, when speaking of the curse of the law, does Paul make reference to a verse in Deuteronomy identifying the law as a burden? The original stating of the law came far, far before the man-made laws of the Sanhedrin, and Paul still identifies it as a curse from which we are freed by the death of Jesus.

At the meeting in Acts the Judaizers were told to not hold the Gentiles to man made standards but the Apostles still told everyone to follow the law of Moses that had been taught everywhere.

Reference, please? I've read through Peter explaining how to live a godly life, and he never mentions the necessity of following the law. I may have missed something--I don't know. But I don't remember anything about laws of Moses that weren't covered in the Ten Commandments being necessary.

I just don't see the multiple meanings, are you saying that the uncleanness of those animals was symbolic during the Old Testament? If it wasn't just symbolic but actual physical uncleanness then they are still unclean and bad for our body

I'm not saying that they had multiple meanings; I'm saying that they used to mean one thing and now they mean another.

I think they were once unclean, largely because back then a pig could not be prepared properly, but Jesus's declaration of all foods being clean in Mark 7 makes them clean. If God has the authority to declare a food unclean and we should obey Him, shouldn't we consider it okay to eat them when the same God tells us all foods are clean?

[Margaret Thatcher]

Then what is the purpose of the Old Testament?

The reference is Acts 15 "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Moses has been preached in every city.

So why didn't God just tell them how to prepare pork properly? Why say it is unclean?

[Christian A.]

Why say shellfish are unclean? Or that you must have four tassels on your cloak? Or that it's wrong to shave the edges of your beard?

You really can't pick and choose. Either you say that they're all done away with, you see some spiritual meaning in them for us today, or you take all of them as applicative to us. But you can't say that some of them apply to us and others don't, when it's clear that they function as a whole in Paul's writings in the New Testament.

[Pirate Oriana]

Let me ask you this though, in the situation you've described, two people disagree over what God is saying. How would going to the Bible, without some kind of authoritative interpretation, solve the problem? The two people can probably both find verses that they can interpret to support themselves and their side and who says which is right or wrong?

True, there are such debates, and most cases I've found that the reason for this is that people tend to take the extreme sides of these debates. The fact that there are verses used on both sides of the argument is a sign to me that the truth is probably something in the middle. In all my experiences with the Bible I have not found any clear contradictions in doctrinal issues, only contradictions in the way people choose to apply the verses referring to them.


And to give my take on Old Testament law....

There are different aspects to the Old Testament law. Some parts of the law were purely ethical: don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc. Other parts of the law were judicial rules which helped to insure fair and equal treatment of the people. There were parts of the law which were meant to keep the temple holy, and in general to create a contrast between the pure holiness of God, and the impurity of sinful men. Finally, there were laws that I believe were established simply to differentiate the people and the God of Israel, from every other nation and god on the planet.

So, no we don't, nor in my opinion should we, follow all the Old Testament laws because some of them are no longer applicable. The laws which govern our morals and ethics will always be things that we should follow. However, the judicial part of the law doesn't really apply to us in the United States, because we are told to obey the leaders of our government, but the government is no longer the same government as was present in the Old Testament when the law was written.

As far as laws regarding to treatment of the temple, most of them are also not applicable because when we are saved our own bodies become the temple. So, rules about washing your hands and feet before entering the temple don't really make sense any more, however, the spirit of these rules about taking care of the the temple and respecting it can be used to govern how we treat our bodies in the context that they are now a temple for the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Christians should still do things in there lives in a ways that differentiates them from the rest of the world. While, we may not necessarily wear head coverings, or keep our beards untrimmed (the men that is ;-] ) we can make sure we're not dressing in a way that is immodest or wasteful of the money God has given us. While we might not refrain from eating pork we can refuse to use drugs or smoke cigarettes. (In this case thought, we might be smart in following the Old Testament law, as part of the reason for declaring pigs unclean might have actually been because pork isn't a particularly healthy meat.

So, ultimately, I believe that if we look at the Bible as a whole, we will be able to understand which parts of the Old Testament law are still applicable to our lives today. And yes, if you understand some of the things that were going on around Israel during the time period it will be easier to understand why some of the seemingly arbitrary laws were set in place.

However, I don't think the beliefs of the other ancient nations influenced the writing of the bible in the way that some people seem to be saying. As if the Bible stole parts of it's account from other religions because it sounded cool or something. Cause, if that's the case, the Bible sounds more like Frankenstein's monster than a Holy Book, so who cares what it says?

[TigerintheShadows]

Then what is the purpose of the Old Testament?

Maybe to point to the depravity of humanity and our need for a Savior and to prophecy concerning said Savior? I dunno. //sarcasm

So why didn't God just tell them how to prepare pork properly? Why say it is unclean?

Because meat preservation is harder than it looks and requires things that weren't available during that time and that logically wouldn't be divinely granted because God works with His people in the context of their time period and culture.

I'll be honest--I really don't know why exactly pork was considered unclean aside from the difficulty in preserving and preparing it as compared to other meats. I don't believe that preparation and preservation difficulties were the only reasons why God declared it unclean. And frankly, I don't really care about that, because I do know that Jesus declared in Mark 7 that all foods were clean and that Paul--and thus God, because Paul's words were divinely inspired--considers the law to be a curse from which we are freed by Christ--a curse that included the food laws.

However, I don't think the beliefs of the other ancient nations influenced the writing of the bible in the way that some people seem to be saying. As if the Bible stole parts of it's account from other religions because it sounded cool or something. Cause, if that's the case, the Bible sounds more like Frankenstein's monster than a Holy Book, so who cares what it says?

^This.

The reference is Acts 15 "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Moses has been preached in every city.

Re: meat sacrificed to idols...Christian can probably phrase it better than I, but Paul does tell a church later on that they can eat meat sacrificed to idols unless it causes them or a brother to stumble. To me, that implies that eating meat sacrificed to idols would lead to a situation that would entice a new Christian to turn back to paganistic ways, not necessarily that there's something super special about the meat that prevents you from being able to eat it.

However, you used this in response to me in our discussion of why we should follow the Mosaic law, to which I must respond that in that same chapter, in verses 6-11, Paul describes it as a "yoke" that was being unnecessarily placed upon the Gentiles in question, heavily emphasizing being saved by grace rather than works of the law, indicating that no, it is not necessary for a Christian to obey the tenants of Mosaic law.

[Christian A.]

@ Margaret Thatcher: I just memorized this passage today for the Bible Bee, and I thought it applied very well to this situation:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Paul says that every food created by God is acceptable to eat if it is received with thanksgiving. It is sanctified by the Word of God. God has declared it clean; therefore it is clean.

[Margaret Thatcher]

@Christian A. I just can't see where you're coming from, in my mind Paul is clearly distinguishing between man made traditions and God's Law.

@Tiger I think again that the yoke Paul refers to is the man made additions to the Law. I can see your point though about the other purpose of the OT. But you say "logically" God wouldn't have divinely granted certain things to His people but to me that's depending on our own logic rather than trusting in God.

Hmm, that is an interesting verse. I will have to consider it further.

[John Chrysostom]

In all my experiences with the Bible I have not found any clear contradictions in doctrinal issues, only contradictions in the way people choose to apply the verses referring to them.

So free will or predestination? No clear contradictions right?

Are the sacraments just a symbol or more than a symbol?

Of course people choose to apply the verses in contradictory ways, that's my whole point; the Bible by itself does not solve doctrinal differences. You say there's some kind of middle ground, okay who decides what the middle ground is?