I agree that not all of Biblical accounts are about revelation, and there is indeed a curious mixture. I also think that the idea of God being part human and part man is an interesting aspect of The Bible. In this way, the idea of God in The Bible is so different from ideas in other religions and sacred texts, in the specific idea of God being incarnated as an actual living human being, in Jesus.

I will try to look at the original Les Reid article, , because I have one left in what I am allowed to log into. So, I am being careful about accidentally logging into other articles accidentally. I am going to reply to a couple of other posts and try to access the Les Reid review, if I can, this afternoon.

I just had a look at the'God' issue of 'Philosophy Now', and most of it appears to come down to the debate between theism and atheism. However, in one article,'Theism, History and Experience', Timothy Chapel explores the idea of moaning to God.

I think that this is an interesting idea, and it certainly makes sense think of, 'The Book of Job', which I see as involving a lot of moaning and groaning. It also makes me wonder about the way in which The Bible holds an emphasis upon the power, or force, lying behind life. There is a sense of awe generally, and of wishing to praise this source. However, this is mixed with a sense of being in a relationship with God, and of being uncertain of how God will respond to the human plight. Part of this seems to involve fear, especially of punishment, and of reward in heaven too. As far as I can see, the worldview in The Bible is of human beings having an intimate relationship with some power behind life and nature, and, generally, this at odds with most thinking of our time, including most contemporary philosophy perspectives.

Thanks for your reply. I have to laugh a bit at the idea of me being so busy now because in some ways I have more free time than usual. If I manage to get a job, I can imagine spending my breaks logged into this site.

I don't usually trust the authority of mainstream newspapers but the idea in your link appears credible. I do often wonder about archaeology in relation to questions of historical evidence relating to The Bible. I also wonder about the idea of the flood at the time of Noah. I try to read about such ideas because I find them interesting.

I do think that Christianity may be a fusion of many blends of thinking. That is why I think that esoteric sources of thought are worth thinking about, as underlying developments behind the surface. In many ways, we are in a secular age now, and I am also interested in what lies behind this. I do believe that there is so much behind the surface of ideas, on an ideological level.

Many thanks for your reply, and definitely the extent to which the ideas in The Bible are read literally is of critical importance. This does bear particular relevance to the ideas which I am reading presently, 'The Book of God: A Response' by Gabriel Josipovici. In this book, the author focuses on the texts as expressions of human thinking.

In particular, Josipovici speaks of 'the need to utter', saying, 'Without the recognition of man's need to utter, no matter what, in moments of crisis, of triumph and despair, the Bible would have been quite other than it is.' However, he goes on to stress that in the Bible, 'the bedrock is of course dialogue. This dialogue is between humans and God. The framework of The Bible is in that context of thinking.

But, this is where the essential argument may lie, in the framing of perspective and authority. In some religious perspectives, there is belief that the authority comes from God, whereas others view the authority in terms of the human need to make sense of life. An essential aspect is how we read The Bible, especially the mindset involved. Josipovici points to the way in which there can be 'so much anxiety attached to the reading of religious documents that the natural processes of reading are interfered with by external notions of what it is one should be looking for far more than other writings'

This idea resonates with me because I know that when I was growing up and up until a few years ago, I always looked to The Bible as divine revelation, and felt profoundly anxious for specific answers. So, the underlying philosophical question is about the idea of the authority of The Bible and how we conceive this. We can ask what is 'divine revelation' ? Josipovici suggests that,
'Kierkergaard, trying to rescue Christianity from a vague Romantic ethics, argued that it is not so much what is said in the New Testament that is important as the authority of the speaker. '

I believe that the question of the way we understand the question of authority is stepping slightly aside from that of the literal, but how we consider the nature of authority is important for the whole way in which we consider and try to draw conclusions from The Bible.

I have just looked at the Michael Langford article and it is fairly useful, in looking at the genres in The Bible,and I am hoping to be able to look at a couple of articles in 'The God' issue of 'Philosophy Now', as I have accessed 2 of my 4 allowed. I am hoping to be able to address @neoshaman2012s concerns as well. I am trying to think of a more specific focus and one particular book which I wish to have a look at is one which I have in my room by Gabriel Josipovici, which is the best philosophical discussion of it that I can find presently. So, I plan to read some of this and write a fuller entry afterwards, later today.

I have not heard of that being the main view within Judaism. My own understanding is that many Jews simply did not believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah.

It is true that the authors of The Bible presume a belief in God but this does not mean that everyone who reads it has to come from that angle. People can approach it from all kinds of philosophical perspectives.

I have never come across the band, The Jesus Cult, but I am familiar with The Jesus and Mary Chain. My favourite Biblically inspired track is one by U2, called '40' and it is based on the 40th psalm.

I just logged in to the site before going to bed, and I noticed you have written your first post, so welcome to the forum. I realise that the thread question which I have written is extremely broad and, of course, I am not expecting it to be fully answered. I really chose the idea of thinking about The Bible as an approach to the philosophy of religion with a slightly different focus rather than the typical atheist vs theist dichotomy.

If you are interested in the discussion at all you may find links in the thread which may be useful. I can assure you that I am interested in many aspects of philosophy, and my thread is not intended to make any set of assumptions. The aim is to look at The Bible as a text, and I do welcome your ideas.

Thanks for your link to 'Philosophy Now' magazine. I do read it sometimes, in paper form, but have not read the particular issue on God, I think that it was a little while before I discovered the magazine. I think that some of the content is coming up on my phone, so I will try to use some of the ideas as a basis for some further discussion. Hopefully some others will be able to access the links because I am not really able to make links on my phone. Sometimes, I can't access some people's links on the site but your ones seem to show up, and it is probably due to signals and transmissions.

With some sources such as these the thread may turn into a miniature encyclopedia. I do also plan to refer to some books which I have in my room, because I do a certain amount of reading online but I do read paper books still. I have been out all day, so I will look at the thread tomorrow, and follow it through by adding some further ideas. Once again, thank you for your input because I am wishing to keep the topic focused within philosophy.

Yes, I am probably on a wider path of reading in my own life, beyond the forum itself. The way which I see any ideas which I draw upon from any other disciplines here is with a view to drawing out the relevance of those ideas to the philosophical discussion of The Bible.

Also, you must bear in mind, that what happens in the thread is partly in relation to the way others pursue those ideas as well. Having initiated the discussion, I see my own role as stearing the flow to some extent, but it is not as if I control the thread. I think that what is most important is for various people who are engaged in it to be able to engage in a way which enables them to think about the topic. Also, I do wish the thread to work in such a way that anyone who looks at it can find some discussion worth reading, hopefully.

Anyway, going back to the idea of the bus, the one funny aspect of this is that on several occasions I have been busy writing replies on this site on busses and have missed my stop...

Of course, I and, I am sure others don't have time to build an encyclopediac thread . I will look at it, and I am hope to try to draw out ideas which are worth discussing in the thread, in conjunction with any who engage in it while it lasts.

I think that I probably have a slightly wider view of philosophy than you do because even I look at philosophy texts I do believe in drawing on ideas from related fields. I don't think philosophy can be boxed off. Also, I do think that the line between contemplation and critical thinking is absolute because we engage with writing and ideas on an aesthetic level. For example, I think that the ideas of Nietzsche work better as an art form rather than simply at the conceptual level.

I am hoping for some discussion from outside of mere textual analysis of The Bible. I am not a theologian and have more of a humanities and psychology perspective. I do have some ideas which I do wish to contribute but it will probably be some time tomorrow, because I am busy most of today and the books which I wish to look at are in my room in London. I will put in an entry some time tomorrow because I do need to look at a book or two to see what is appropriate for the thread. I am wishing for any discussion to be critical in nature, but it does depend partly on the various angles of anyone who engages in the thread.

Thanks for the links, I have just woken up but I will read them. I don't know how far this thread will go because I only started it about 5 days ago. Going back to Proof's idea of the bus it depends on which passengers get on and off. I would have thought that some analysis of The Bible is worthwhile as there are threads devoted to the works of Plato. It is not as if I am approaching the topic with a set agenda, and I do like to encourage discussion from those of varying viewpoints because I think it builds balanced dialogue.

I will probably not be writing much on the thread today because I am going on the train back to London this afternoon. I am hoping that my thread can last for a few more days at least, but this does depend on who is engaged, as in a way all these threads are a bit like mystery tours.

I am sorry if I am sending you off the bus, and I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. But, the Bible is a big topic and I wish to look at it as fully as possibly can. I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday because I am at my mother's house. Generally, my own approach is about trying to use ideas in books as a basis for critical discussion, as when philosophy is just talking purely on the basis of one's own ideas I don't think it goes as far as when it involves considering specific ideas of writers.

I don't think that it is particularly helpful to focus on proving or disproving miracles, and any experience of these which people have are probably best appreciated on a subjective basis. I also agree that the mythic dimension of life do provide treasures and I think that this aspect of life is undervalued by many. It is probably most understood and appreciated within the arts.

I think that the ten commandments can be seen as a basis for laws, as derived from Moses. Jesus was emphasising the importance of the first two commandments. Writers such as Augustine can be compared to Socrates in emphasising wisdom and being pious. However, we could say that there has been an different trend, towards an emphasis in social justice in more recent thinking, especially in the trend of liberation theology, which focuses on the alleviation of suffering.

I think that the issue of the supernatural is one of the aspects of The Bible which many people have difficulty with, including miracles. However, there are people in modern times who claim to have experienced miraculous dealings. The example which I am thinking of is those who have experienced healings in the holy waters at Lourdes. Of course, many visit Lourdes and are disappointed because they don't get healed but, on the other hand, people have spoken of healings there and that is why the place has become renouned. But I am aware that many people would argue that miracles are not possible scientifically, and would suggest that there must be some other explanation.

I can't see why inserting philosophy leads to confusion, especially as the have a shared history. You say that the main purpose of philosophy is about language, and I think that is a focus within contemporary philosophy, but there are also the fields of metaphysics and epistemology too.

Armstrong's interpretation of the ethics of the NT is the idea of my own. My own view is more about how there is a basis for compassion, especially avoiding judging others detrimentally. The joke of that is that people often claim that Christian's can be so judgemental and narrow minded. But, of course that is more the hypocrisy that Jesus criticised the Pharisees for. I think that one important parable is that of the good Samaritan, and I am sure that is where the organisation to help the suicidal, got its name, The Samaritans, from.

I think that the centre of any ethics of from the NT has to be that of loving others as oneself. Sometimes, I think that people forget that a starting point for loving others is to love oneself. Also, I don't think loving oneself and others is a simple task. One aspect of this is how we have so many neighbours. One idea which I think is useful for thinking about this concern for others is what the sociobiologist, Edward O Wilson, described as the extending circle. One begins with the idea of thinking about the needs of family and friends, gradually moving outside of this to the concerns of the more remote sphere of others.

There are some people who believe that Jesus did not even exist at all. But, my own understanding is that of him being one of a wandering Jew, and that there were many such people in his time. There are also some books which suggest that Jesus spent time in India, but I am not sure that there is any real basis for thinking that.

I think that the people who take so many of the ideas in The Bible miss the symbolic level and esoteric aspects. I do believe that what was taught to the inner circle of disciples was different to that which was taught to the wider circles of people. But, another part of this is the way in which meanings of the texts has probably varied and been changed a lot in the various translations.

Karen Armstrong suggests the importance of contemplation of texts. But, I do think that a critical reading is also important, especially in some of the books is useful, especially the books which are harder to understand. I know some people who have read The Bible from cover to cover.

One other tradition which I find interesting is the legend of the grail, but I do believe that this is probably a symbolic quest.

I think that understanding of any set of ideas is aided by thinking about the person who wrote them, because the ideas arise in the context of a person's life. I am interested in the lives of the Buddha, Kant and Nietzsche in connection with their work. Also, I feel that reading about Jim Morrison's life helps me to understand the music of The Doors, and this applies to Bob Dylan, Prince and so many others.

I still feel that it is important to know about the nature of the historical Jesus, in order to think about and contextualize Christian thinking and The Bible, but, of course, that is my own personal perspective.

I have just finished reading 'The Bible: A Biography' by Karen Armstrong(2007), who was a nun, but left her life in the convent eventually. One idea she points to is how so little is really known about the life of Jesus. She suggests,
'Jesus himself remains an enigma. There have been attempts to uncover the figure of the "historical" Jesus, a project that has become something of a scholarly industry. But the fact remains that the only Jesus we really know is the Jesus described in the New Testament, which was not interested in scientifically objective history. There are no other contemporary accounts of his mission and death. We cannot even be certain why he was crucified. The gospel accounts indicate that he was thought to be the king of the Jews. He was said to have predicted the imminent arrival of the kingdom of heaven. In the literature of the Late Second Temple period, there had been hints that a few people were expecting a righteous king of the House of David to establish an eternal kingdom, and this idea seems to have become more popular during the years leading up to the war. Josephus Tacitus and Suetonius all note the importance of revolutionary religiosity, both before and after the rebellion. There was now keen expectation in some circles of a meshiah(in Greek, christos), an "anointed king of the House of David, who would redeem Israel. We do not whether Jesus claimed to be this Messiah _ the gospels are ambiguous on this point. Other people rather than Jesus himself may have made this claim on his behalf. But after his death some of his followers had seen him in visions that convinced them that he had been raised from the tomb_ an event that heralded the general resurrection of all the righteous when God would inaugurate his rule on earth.'

The idea of speaking in many languages is interesting to me, mainly because I am in the position of only speaking English. As a philosophical possibility, I do see the idea of command of many languages as such an advantage and have to admit my own deficiency as being only able to speak English, and I am sure that this goes way beyond the idea of the ineffable. I would love to be able to communicate and think of ideas in a far greater way beyond my present capability and understanding.

I do believe that there is so much going on in the ideas behind the ethics of Judaeo- Judaeo- Christian thought about human nature. To what extent are human beings hopeless and beyond redemption.I think that this question can appear as ridiculous on the surface, but in some ways is extremely important, because human beings are struggling to find the best way forward despite obstacles, especially those arising in human nature.

I think that it so interesting to think about the fusion of thought which underlies the Christian worldview. I believe that many people have not taken this into account in thinking about Christianity and the ideas which arise within this specific traditions of thought which arise in that tradition. My own view is that acquaintance with the ideas and ideals which were central to the philosophies and ideologies arising within Christianity is of central importance in demystifying the underlying assumptions if the ideas and ideals, and of looking behind the surface of the thinking of religious beliefs derived from the Bible. It is about looking behind the surfaces of beliefs, and approaching the ideas within the Bible from a deeper and critical perspective.
.

I wish that I had enough time and money for philosophy, and in the meantime I am improvising. I would love more time and money to spend on philosophy.I feel that we live in such an upside down world. I think of philosophy as more of a default position or activity for trying to make some sense of it.

I may not have have forwarded my answer properly to you, so please see the answer in the post above.

One aspect of this debate which I believe is important is the prescriptive approach and of more scrupulous analysis. On the surface, it may be that it appears that ideas, especially Christian ethics arrive at certain solutions. However, I am not sure that it is clear at all. The more think about Christianity , and about certain solutionss being apparent answers become increasingly complex.

In some ways the Bible may help.for some people, but it is questionable to what extent The Bible provides a foundation in metaphysics and ethics. I am not sure that The Bible does provide this, but in considering The Bible, and alternative perspectives, I do believe that we do need to think about how such basics can be established.

I was so puzzled by how many children believed in Santa Claus, when I knew that there was no evidence for such a person. I knew that my parents gave presents to me and the chimneys were blocked. Personally, I find the idea of Santa Claus as one of the most unhelpful ideas, although I do see this as a basis for thinking about the fictionious, especially in the ideas presented to children.

If anything, The Bible may be a starting point for thinking, even if any critique develops in the opposite direction. Therefore, my own position is one in which we ideas of The Bible are important for further analysis and critique of other ideas, from a critical perspective. We may look at the hermeneutics of textual analysis, in relation to metaphysics questions, and even the phenomenological questions. How do all these factors interplay, especially in the way in which we understand the ideas arising in Biblical texts? How do we understand the objective and subjective in relation to historical ideas, especially those which are central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition?

I do believe that so much of our thinking is based on the thinking of The Bible, in superficial and deeper aspects of thinking. I do think that Kantian ethics and utilitarianism can be traced back to the Bible. It has been such an essential aspect of philosophy and thinking behind the scenes of so many ideas and ideologies. That is why I am trying to draw its importance as a central aspect for thinking within philosophy.
.

I am not in favour of seeing The Bible as 'special' but trying to understand these ideas, as part of the ongoing developments of metaphysics and philosophy. I do believe that the tracing of such ideas is important for any philosophy and thinking about the history and future of ideas.

I think that it can be problematic if the focus within thinking is upon death too strongly. This is possible within a religious context, or any discussion stemming from it. I do remember thinking how, when I was reading on the topic of life after death, how I may be in danger of focusing on the area of life after death to the extent that I lose sight of this one. My own father emphasised the importance of thinking beyond this life, on the basis that we are dead for eternity. I am able to see his point, but I do think that this life is extremely important, because it may be all we have, depending on one's conclusions about these matters.

Really, I try to read The Bible with a view to finding ethical insights, and I think that the importance of thinking about others is especially important. Of course, so many people may live in a hypocritical way, as suggested in the mode that The Pharisees. But, I think that the idea of The Good Samaritan is important, and we do not need any particular metaphysics for thinking about this.

In thinking about suicide, which I raised in this thread, I am not sure that it is about relief, but more about rash decisions in a state of panic.The worst scenario which I am aware of is is when someone has taken an overdose of Paracetamol. The person often wakes up, after initial unconsciousness, is so glad to have survived, only to discover that they may be dying slowly from liver complications. Even though people may wish to die on some level, it is questionable whether this is a lasting perspective, beyond the immediacy of a particular moment in time.

This discussion is a bit different to the debate about God's existence in logical terms, because it is about looking at The Bible, as a source for thinking about these ideas. One aspect which I believe is interesting is the thread which you wrote about 6 months ago on how we understand the experience of suffering, and how Christianity viewed this matter.

I definitely plan to write later today, but I am staying with my mother, who gets so cross with me writing so much. But, I definitely wish to develop the thread further because I do believe that it is an important aspect of philosophy, which is worth exploring. Really, I would like to do as much reading and research as possible because I think that is important to any full philosophy discussion. Ideally, I would like this thread to develop over a couple of weeks, rather than just be one that fizzles in a few days, because the ideas within Christianity are at the core of thinking in Western culture.