What is the religious defense of this Jesus Christ quote?

[Belacqua]

The Genesis creation myth, and the Noah flood myth, are two examples that not only contain risibly erroneous claims, but whose core message is contradicted by objective scientific facts.

Here of course you're assuming that you know what the "core message" of these stories is, and that this is something that can be contradicted by objective scientific facts. 

Myths, allegories, etc., carry a core message that is not dependent on the scientific accuracy of the story. 

Do you have some historical evidence that the stories are intended as literally true? Many Christians (e.g. Augustine) assume that their purpose is something other than reportage.

[Sheldon]

The Genesis creation myth, and the Noah flood myth, are two examples that not only contain risibly erroneous claims, but whose core message is contradicted by objective scientific facts.

Here of course you're assuming that you know what the "core message" of these stories is, and that this is something that can be contradicted by objective scientific facts. 

No, I am merely reading the texts without any subjective interpretation, the geological record demonstrates unequivocally no global flood has ever occurred. The Genesis creation myth gets the most basic chronological facts about the formation of our solar system wrong, and is at odds with species evolution. So again there is no assumption on my part, I merely state the facts.

Myths, allegories, etc., carry a core message that is not dependent on the scientific accuracy of the story. 

Well of course, that's why they're called myths, but then so do Spiderman comics and Harry Potter novels, I am not sure I see your point here? 

Do you have some historical evidence that the stories are intended as literally true?

Did I claim that, I am not sure I did? If on the other hand you are claiming they are allegory though, then you would need to demonstrate something beyond bare assertion, and the fact they otherwise fail in the face of just a few hundred years of human scientific endeavour, something a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message,  and limitless power to convey it, cannot realistically be claimed to have not known would happen. I must ask, why do you imagine, hypothetically of course, such a deity would need to deal in primitive and erroneous allegory, that a) reflect the human ignorance and superstition of the epoch from which they emerged, and b) would so easily be falsified in a very short time by one species of evolved apes, that apparently are supposed to be the main show? Personally I don't find this moving of the goal posts at all compelling. 

Many Christians (e.g. Augustine) assume that their purpose is something other than reportage.

Well see my previous objections to this rationale, and then explain why should I care about the subjective and unevidenced assumptions of others, especially when their bias in starting form a position of credulity is manifest?

[Vicki Q]

But I think you probably knew that.

Hardly. If I have more than three things to buy I know I'll forget some so I make a list. Similarly I don't therefore remember book, chapter and verse of all those allegedly troublesome passages. So better to ask...

Apologies, it's 1 Tim 2:11-12

As for content, NTWright nails it again. As always, RATS (read about the setting) is the answer.

Verse 11- women are being actively encouraged to study and learn. Paul adds 'give them peace and quiet to do it'. Although full submission is assumed by some to be to a husband, it's more likely to mean submission to God or the Gospel, especially given that's a constant theme of Paul's.

Verse 12- 1 Tim was written about ministry in Ephesus, where the main religious show in town was the Temple of Artemis/Diana. This was run by women, and men were kept in their place. Since the letter was discussing how following Jesus meant that all types of roles and relationships had to be rethought, Paul is warning against following the Artemis model (and this needed saying because given the complete newness of Christianity and the dominance of the Diana cult, the shiny new church might well go down that road). ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’

It was a local letter for local people.

NTWs translation:
11They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed.

[Vicki Q]

The Gadarene swine is an interesting one, because a lot of the context is to a greater or lesser extent obscured.

Again, RATS.

Fun fact, “Decapolis” (Mark 5:20) is probably the earliest use of the word in ancient literature.

Firstly, Jesus was in a Gentile area, ministering to an person with an impure spirit calling themselves  “Legion” who lives among tombs with a nearby pig herd. It's about as unclean for C1 Judaism as it gets.

Jesus spends a lot of time in the NT, far far more than is generally realised, preparing the ground for a shift away from Torah to obedience to Him as the key criterion for being one of the People of God. Rome and Gentile impurity were seen as the enemy in C1 Judaism; not so, says Jesus, there is a real enemy using that as cover to fool Israel into missing the real enemy.

Jesus is demonstrating, in an acted parable, who the real enemy is (the pigs were good to stay otherwise), and who He is, that He has the Power to destroy the real enemy. Further, the incident illustrates that evil leads to destruction.

Secondly, on a pragmatic level, we don't know enough about the world of exorcism and its after-effects to speculate on what Jesus' alternatives were.

He may well have chosen the lesser of two lot-of-evils; all sorts of things might have happened if He'd just let Legion out to run riot. Remember that when Jesus was in human form, He didn't have full God powers (e.g. Mark 13:32).

Incidentally, a very good book on this is Deliverance by Jason Bray. It's consciously anti-dramatic, very British, with more to say about diocesan insurance than describing exorcism.

I hope this helps.

[Vicki Q]

It's a textbook case of understanding the context.

Of course, follow the chart: if it is violent, then it's "out of context". DUH

RATS to that

(Read About The Setting)

[Fake Messiah]

RATS to that

You do that and you used every apologist trope in that post about bears (context, wrong translation, the metaphor), that it reads like a parody.


And in Jesus and the sword post, you try to blame all the violence on people who expect the messiah who will destroy the Romans. And why would they expect that? Because the Torah told them. And since god supposedly wrote the Torah and god and Jesus are the same, the blame again goes back to Jesus.

But the truth is that Jesus sword talk is nothing more than the usual violent cultist talk which the NT is full of.

[brewer]

But I think you probably knew that.

Hardly. If I have more than three things to buy I know I'll forget some so I make a list. Similarly I don't therefore remember book, chapter and verse of all those allegedly troublesome passages. So better to ask...

Apologies, it's 1 Tim 2:11-12

As for content, NTWright nails it again. As always, RATS (read about the setting) is the answer.

Verse 11- women are being actively encouraged to study and learn. Paul adds 'give them peace and quiet to do it'. Although full submission is assumed by some to be to a husband, it's more likely to mean submission to God or the Gospel, especially given that's a constant theme of Paul's.

Verse 12- 1 Tim was written about ministry in Ephesus, where the main religious show in town was the Temple of Artemis/Diana. This was run by women, and men were kept in their place. Since the letter was discussing how following Jesus meant that all types of roles and relationships had to be rethought, Paul is warning against following the Artemis model (and this needed saying because given the complete newness of  Christianity and the dominance of the Diana cult, the shiny new church might well go down that road). ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’

It was a local letter for local people.

NTWs translation:
11They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God.  12I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed.

I find it eye opening that the 'word of god' can't stand on it's own for the average educated reader. Could it be that is no longer impactful/applicable until someone ads their own slant? Why was it included (or not removed) if it was a local letter for local people that no longer exist?

Maybe we need to return to bibles only printed in Latin.

And please educate me, is NTW the JW version?

[brewer]

The Gadarene swine is an interesting one, because a lot of the context is to a greater or lesser extent obscured.

Again, RATS.

Fun fact, “Decapolis” (Mark 5:20) is probably the earliest use of the word in ancient literature.

Firstly, Jesus was in a Gentile area, ministering to an person with an impure spirit calling themselves  “Legion” who lives among tombs with a nearby pig herd. It's about as unclean for C1 Judaism as it gets.

Jesus spends a lot of time in the NT, far far more than is generally realised, preparing the ground for a shift away from Torah to obedience to Him as the key criterion for being one of the People of God. Rome and Gentile impurity were seen as the enemy in C1 Judaism; not so, says Jesus, there is a real enemy using that as cover to fool Israel into missing the real enemy.

Jesus is demonstrating, in an acted parable, who the real enemy is (the pigs were good to stay otherwise), and who He is, that He has the Power to destroy the real enemy. Further, the incident illustrates that evil leads to destruction.

Secondly, on a pragmatic level, we don't know enough about the world of exorcism and its after-effects to speculate on what Jesus' alternatives were.

He may well have chosen the lesser of two lot-of-evils; all sorts of things might have happened if He'd just let Legion out to run riot. Remember that when Jesus was in human form, He didn't have full God powers (e.g. Mark 13:32).

Incidentally, a very good book on this is Deliverance by Jason Bray. It's consciously anti-dramatic, very British, with more to say about diocesan insurance than describing exorcism.

I hope this helps.

So wait, yet another story and not real? I might as well be reading a Dr. Strange comic book. He also represents good and defeats evil thru magic, and I'll add, without out the threat of hell with eternal torment and suffering.

[Pat Mustard]

Quoting from the bible, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." - Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:34-36

How would theists defend Jesus here? It's my favorite biblical quote when I want to point out that Jesus is a dick.

They largely ignore it. Remember most christians only know the bits of the bible their priest/minister/pastor tells them about. And said priest/minister/pastor is taught very strictly to parrot only the bits of the bible which agree with the sect's views on the religion. Hence why at catholic mass, I never heard the bits (mostly from Pauline christianity) about sola fide (or justification by faith alone) and why most protestants (and dissenters) don't hear the bits about needing to do good works too (mostly from gospel christianity).

[Belacqua]

Earlier you wrote that:

The Genesis creation myth, and the Noah flood myth, are two examples that not only contain risibly erroneous claims, but whose core message is contradicted by objective scientific facts.

Here you seem to be asserting a truth claim: that the stories' "core message" would be contradicted by objective scientific facts. And since you have said elsewhere that the person making the assertion carries the burden of proof, I’m asking you to demonstrate that your claim is correct. 

I KNOW that the global flood didn’t happen. I KNOW that the Genesis creation myth is not what happened. 

I DO NOT KNOW that the “core message” of each of these stories would be contradicted if the story is not scientifically true. So I’m asking you to support your claim. 

First, we’d have to establish what the “core message” of each story is. Then you’d have to show that, given this core message, it is no longer meaningful if the story containing it is fiction. You haven’t done these things yet. 

I am skeptical of your claim. Writers who wish to teach moral messages have used fiction as the medium for such lessons pretty much forever. They continue to do so. If the “core message” of a story is its moral interpretation, then fiction works perfectly well. Harry Potter novels and Spiderman comics may use these techniques as well. Why not? 

Scholars currently say that the Book of Genesis reached its current form sometime before the Babylonian exile, so prior to the 6th century BC. I’m curious if you can name any narrative text from that time or earlier which purports to give a straightforward account of events WITHOUT any moral or ideological message involved. I don’t know of any. When we read texts from this time, it is an informed person’s objective view to see them as carrying such messages. 

Herodotus is often said to be the first writer to attempt straightforward accounts of historical events WITHOUT adding in moral messages. He was writing at least 100 years after Genesis was edited together, and he was seen as an innovator. In other words, the kind of history he was writing was not the kind of thing that the authors of Genesis wished to write. And his methods were slow to catch on. 

Caesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico are taken to be accurate history, and of course these were written hundreds of years after Herodotus. At the time, though, it was still considered normal to write the kind of foundational myth in the same genre as the Hebrew Bible. Obviously Vergil’s Aeneid is myth written to give Rome a glamorous foundation, though everyone who read it at the time was perfectly aware that the events in the story are fictional. 

One book you could read to address this whole topic is Richard Rorty’s Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Rorty is an atheist and so his approach to using fiction is perfectly safe for atheists to use. He makes the case that in teaching us about our moral lives, and how we can increase our empathy and solidarity with others, fiction is often more effective than non-fiction. He does close readings of novels by Nabokov and Orwell to make this point. All of these novels are of course fiction, yet the "core message" of each is not harmed by the fact that the events recounted never happened. 

So I disagree with you that the “core message” of a text is always its literal sense.