St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[Tamas]

No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.

Laws are not created based on the sayings in Yoda, so no, its not exactly the same.

The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho

[Valmy]

The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho

Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.

[Tamas]

The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho

Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.

Unless the whole phenomenom of it having a practical effect is crazy.

[Valmy]

Unless the whole phenomenom of it having a practical effect is crazy.

Which strikes me as irrelevent.

[alfred russel]

For example, when jesus says in the temple, "tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." I think that is a clear prophesy that jesus will rise 3 days after being put to death. But it was not--and could not--be understood by those hearing the message.

Each of the Gospels (the ones in the Bible and all the Gospels that didnt make the cut) were written to instruct the growing community of Christians about the relatively new  religion.   Most scholars agree that the early Christians did not take the Bible literally but indeed did understand it metaphorically.   If you carefully study the inconsistencies in each of the Gospels you will see that the writers were crafting a story to address their own particular theology and their own particular audience.  They were not creating a kind of transcript of what was said or an historically correct document.

So, I disagree with your point that the prophesies of Jesus recorded in the Gospels did not make sense to their audience.  They were written in the Gospels for the very reason that they DID make sense to their audience.  The Gospels were after all teaching tools.

It is when one takes the view that the Bible is literally true and that the Bible is the Word of God that people run into trouble trying to explain away all the inconsistences that appear throughout.  Taking your discussion with Berkut as a case in point.  There are at least two creation stories and two flood stories that are conflated in the OT.  The reason for that has nothing to do with prophesies that are not understandable.  They are just two separate stories that have some commonalities but also many differences.

It is the same is true with the four Gospels of the Bible -  some commonalities but a lot of differences as well,  some of which are simply irreconcilable.

CC--I am in no way disagreeing with you. All I was trying to do (and obviously doing a very poor job) was refute Berkut's point of view that a believer looking at the creation stories metaphorically is a cop out. Maybe Berkut didn't even say this, but I was assigning him the point of view that god, who inspired the bible, wouldn't obscure his teachings with ambiguous metaphors. I was just trying to point out that in fact that happened elsewhere in the bible (at least from the perspective of a believer. Did Jesus really make the temple comment or was it added by the author after jesus died? You take the latter view, and I would as well, so in that sense the statement would always be understandable. But from the perspective of a believer, who would likely believe in the literal occurrance of the incident, the initial audiance--being the crowd that heard Jesus speak the words--could not have understood the meaning.)

My point of view on the creation stories is that they almost certainly have an origin in other religions of the region, and the first one especially was initially polytheistic.

[crazy canuck]

AR, I understand your point now.

Obviously I will let Berkut speak for himself but I understood him to be saying that the inconsistencies in both the new and old Testaments cannot be explained away by saying that that they were just metaphorical or allegorical so as to perserve the appearance that these texts were the word of God who wouldnt make the those kinds of mistakes.

[alfred russel]

AF, I understand your point now.

Obviously I will let Berkut speak for himself but I understood him to be saying that the inconsistencies in both the new and old Testaments cannot be explained away by saying that that they were just metaphorical or allegorical so as to perserve the appearance that these texts were the word of God who wouldnt make the those kinds of mistakes.

Maybe we should keep discussing Berkut's views without his input, hold a council to finally determine them in 400 years, and burn anyone who disagrees with the council. :p

Actually, I do think Berkut was making the point you said above, and in general I agree with it, I just take exception to his using the creation stories as the example of a contradiction. I do feel kind of silly dragging this out. Sorry about that.

[crazy canuck]

Maybe we should keep discussing Berkut's views without his input, hold a council to finally determine them in 400 years, and burn anyone who disagrees with the council. :p

[Josephus]

\
Why the fuck would Jesus curse a fig tree for not having fruit at a time it was not supposed to have fruit?

Haven't you never done anything stupid and without thought when you were angry? Let him who has never honked his horn in anger cast the first stone.

[Valmy]

Haven't you never done anything stupid and without thought when you were angry? Let him who has never honked his horn in anger cast the first stone.

Hey at least I have never killed a perfectly innocent fig tree!  Am I: morally superior to Jesus?

[Valmy]

Maybe we should keep discussing Berkut's views without his input, hold a council to finally determine them in 400 years, and burn anyone who disagrees with the council.

I will happily submit to the righteous Orthodoxy of the one true Berkutian Church.

[grumbler]

Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.

Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.

I don't think anyone who has read it cover-to-cover would argue that it is a clear and complete guide to the "Word of God."  Everyone who uses it for "practical purposes" must (and does) add a lot of codicals that essentially replace the Bible's literal words with their own.  The latter are the things rewarding when studied, IMO.  The Bible itself is almost incidental.

[Valmy]

Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.

That is true.  Studying the Bible itself in isolation from Christian thought on it is not very useful.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler, you are saying the same thing as Valmy,

If I can convincing people that they ought not create public policy based on Leviticus has a lot more practical effect then convincing someone that Hans Solo shot first.

[Razgovory]

Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.

Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.

I don't think anyone who has read it cover-to-cover would argue that it is a clear and complete guide to the "Word of God."  Everyone who uses it for "practical purposes" must (and does) add a lot of codicals that essentially replace the Bible's literal words with their own.  The latter are the things rewarding when studied, IMO.  The Bible itself is almost incidental.

You'd make a fine Catholic