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.

:smirk:

I didn't say most Jews say Jesus was evil but that its possible that this is their most consistent position logically

Is that a plea or anticipatory apologetics of some kind? Are you suggesting that any approach is a good approach? What, exactly, is the value or virtue in what some people do, in mere consideration of the fact that they did it?

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. — Jack Cummins

But the image of the antichrist has its roots in Judaism. Early antichrist folklore centered around evil Roman emperors such as Nero.

The oldest Hebrew version of it is the Pharaoh in Exodus.

Early antichrist folklore centered around evil Roman emperors such as Nero — frank

I'm sure the Egyptians had their own savior kings or Messiahs and their adversaries or Antichrists.

But I doubt that Jesus is in any way comparable with Nero.

m sure the Egyptians had their own savior kings or Messiahs and their adversaries or Antichrists. — Apollodorus

They didn't have any experience with being underdogs.

The antichrist is an evil king who pits himself against gods chosen ones.

The idea transferred from Judaism to Christianity and quickly became associated with the pope.

They didn't have any experience with being underdogs. — frank

Oh, they did. The Egyptians went through invasions and occupations like everyone else. Not to the same extent as the Hebrews. But they certainly had kings fighting to reestablish righteousness in the land and foreign kings opposed to them. They also had gods fighting evil, etc. who served as models for righteous kings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

One of Egypt's righteous kings who fought the Hyksos invaders was Ahmose I

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ahmoseI/

Oh, they did. — Apollodorus

Yea whatever.

Let me briefly preface that I have studied and have degrees in both philosophy and religion, and joined this forum looking for good discussion.

I do think however that as nuanced as these topics are it is best to address very specific topics and issues so as we may come to find very nuanced specific answers to those questions. Otherwise we are circling around a yet to be defined grey area which does not set any new foundations of relevant boundaries.

That being said, as I stated previously, yes the Bible does address many philosophical issues humans have needed to confront, but I see nothing special about the Bible's ability to do so successfully. Many or most of the same issues were discussed and written long before the Bible came into being and I have not found anything particularly progressive or groundbreaking in finding the answers to those questions within its texts that other cultures and scripts did not already address.

Both the Bible and philosophy don't need to have anything special, progressive or groundbreaking (which are quite subjective qualities) to deserve study: they have had and still have their importance and their specific characteristics in the history of the world and that's more than enough to dedicate attention, deep study, comparison, passion, to them.

The question "How Do We Think About the Bible From a Philosophical Point of View?" is really too broad to begin a detailed and constructive discussion. The Bible certainly discusses philosophical problems of humanity (i.e. origin of life, our role in the world, the origin of evil, etc.). You will need to take a philosophical stance the Bible proposes and then form your hypothesis or question from that.

The Bible does not prove the belief in God or defend it, it presumes it. — neoshaman2012

it is best to address very specific topics and issues so as we may come to find very nuanced specific answers to those questions. Otherwise we are circling around a yet to be defined grey area which does not set any new foundations of relevant boundaries. — neoshaman2012

First of all, welcome to TPF. Your input is already valuable. I think this advice is the way forward.
What specific topics/issues do you think would be of most help in understanding the role of the Bible and philosophy of religion as they meet current challenges in humanity ?

I have looked at the definitions of 'Justice' and 'Welfare' in the biblical worldview Glossary. I doubt this necessarily reflects the current views held by 'Christians' - another wide term covering a host of beliefs and interpretations. If you can update with your knowledge that might be helpful.

Here:

Definitions in Philosophy, as per:
http://www.biblicalworldview21.org/Glossary/Glossary.asp — Amity

This is a Glossary which acts as a 'mini-overview' of a Biblical and Christian worldview.
Of special importance are these words:
emotions, ethic, ethics, evangelical, heart, law, justice, philosophy (and all its synonyms), regeneration, righteousness, salvation, and truth. — Amity

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...
— Jack Cummins

So, a different viewpoint from the way 'Justice' and 'Welfare' are defined in the Glossary ?
Can you provide sources from both theology and philosophy of religion ? — Amity

@Jack Cummins - interested to hear your thoughts. I think it clear that the definition of e.g. 'Welfare' provided is biased and narrow, but of interest re political stance.
This comes back to your wish not to bring in theism v atheism issues.
I doubt this is avoidable, given other discussions in TPF !

--------

Next up
Reference to Philosophy Now articles mentioned here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/557465

[ There follows a review of 6 major genres in the Bible: mythology, poetry, laws, moral/theological reflection, historical sources, and wisdom literature.] — Michael Langford

I will try to use some of the ideas as a basis for some further discussion. — Jack Cummins

Good. I think it would be useful and productive to follow advice such as @neoshaman2012's.
Otherwise, there is a danger of:

With some sources such as these the thread may turn into a miniature encyclopedia — Jack Cummins

Here's hoping not !

Let me briefly preface that I have studied and have degrees in both philosophy and religion, and joined this forum looking for good discussion. — neoshaman2012

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. — Jack Cummins

The aim is to look at The Bible as a text, and I do welcome your ideas. — Jack Cummins

Looking at the Bible as a text is fine. But what is happening here is perhaps too much of a focus on quoting Scripture and the historical aspects ( as fascinating as they are).
A new focus is welcome - there remains the ever present theism v atheism debate - this thread is a challenge and I hope that it can progress in a fruitful and constructive manner, thanks.

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 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 — Jack Cummins

Excellent. I hope I'll be able to access that soon !

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. — Jack Cummins

Thanks for update and I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts later :smile:

Just like other people in the thread said, it depends on wheter you're interpreting it litterally, allegorically or analogicallly. If you're interpreting it litteraly, it doesn't have much philosophical value, as it becomes more of a history book than a philosophical work. However, if you interpret it allegorically or analogically, it becomes a very interesting philosophical work. It becomes a book about ethics that supports the Golden Rule in the New Testament, for obvious reasons, and offers an early response or even support to nihilism in Ecclesiastes, with passages like: "What profit hath a man for all his toil, in which he toils under the sun?", "Fear God and keep his commandments; for that is the all of mankind. Since every deed will God bring to judgment, for every hidden act, be it good or evil", and "the dead are better off than the living". Also, because of the diversity of views of the people who wrote it, it's a good introduction and starting point to Christian theology and various philosophical views.

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.

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

I agree. I think The Bloodline of the Holy Grail by L Gardner makes interesting reading.

But, in historical terms, no evidence has been found that can conclusively link archaeological remains to King David or Solomon and this has led some historians like Ralph Ellis to suggest that as Canaan was under Egyptian rule for several centuries and the OT says that the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt, there is a strong possibility that many of the early Hebrew kings were in fact Egyptian pharaohs.

I know you are very busy at the moment but here is a very good article that takes less than 5 minutes to read:

Are tales about legendary king Solomon completely made up? – Daily Mail

And, of course, the Christian belief in divine judgement after death resulting in resurrection in paradise for the righteous and eternal damnation or death for the unrighteous, was an Ancient Egyptian belief rather than OT-based Jewish religion.

So, it can be clearly seen that Christianity is a fusion of several strands of spiritual wisdom that blended together in the cosmopolitan culture of the Hellenistic Middle East. If God or anyone else wanted to found a new, universal religion, then Christianity was ideally suited for the purpose and Greek the ideal language through which to promote it.

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.

I think the authority of the Bible comes from the belief that what you're reading is the actual word of God, written down by sages. So, the authority comes from the personal beliefs of the reader, and the assumptions that you have when reading.

Another important observation is that when you have finished reading the Bible partially or completely, you may have additional beliefs. And it is very likely that you adopted them because of the authority you assign to the source material, that is the Bible.

Also, these new beliefs can be called divine revelation, as they were adopted because of the reading and perceived authority of a religious text.

And your personal beliefs about the authority of the Bible have then indirectly caused you to accept its contents. This indicates that what an individual considers divine revelation depends heavily upon their initial beliefs.

A possible answer to the question of authority, then is that the authority of the Bible comes primarily from assumptions you have when reading.

Sorry if what I said is redundant.

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.

Well, I don't usually trust mainstream papers either. I only posted the DM link because I thought it presents the issue in a clear and convincing way without resorting to too much speculation. There are other articles in National Geographic, Biblical Archaeology and other publications.

The point has been made by other historians and Egyptologists who have observed that when two populations share a geographical and cultural space, their national memory may to some extent coalesce to form a common narrative and in most cases the smaller and less powerful population tends to adopt the narrative of the larger and more powerful or influential one.

Certainly, the sumptuous palaces and temples described in the OT are more consistent with what you would find in Egypt than in a small Hebrew kingdom. King Solomon's legendary wealth, his many wives including the Pharaoh's own daughter (1 Kings 3:1), etc., tend to lend credence to an Egyptian interpretation of some OT accounts.

But I agree that philosophers, and people in general, should try to see what is behind the surface of mainstream narratives and in many cases the findings are very interesting and enlightening. And I believe that this is what philosophical inquiry is about, even if sometimes it takes "detours" to the general bus journey to realize it.

A critical difference is that philosophy relies on reason, the biblical religions on revelation. — Fooloso4

F4,

While it is accurate to say philosophy itself lives in reason, not all biblical accounts live in Revelation. The OT/Wisdom Books are much about reason, pragmatism, and Greek/Christian philosophy... .

The Bible does not prove the belief in God or defend it, it presumes it. — neoshaman2012

The Christian Bible proves Jesus existed just as any other historical figure.

Of course, Jesus was known to be part God and had a consciousness like humans. Christian philosophy becomes relatable to the human condition in many ways. Most of which of course is illogical and/or transcends logic itself. It's certainly a consistent paradox, using reason, that we find the descriptions and explanations of the physical world beyond reasonable explanations.

Think of it this way, if it wasn't, there would be little need to invoke or posit God to begin with. The irony is that over 75% of philosophical domains in philosophy posit same. Similar to why someone posits the concept of evil. If nothing else, it's a criteria or axiom. Unity of opposites, etc..

I just had a look at the issue of 'Philosophy Now', and most of it appears to come down to the debate between theism and atheism. — Jack Cummins

Is that the case for the Les Reid 'Review of the Bible' ?
The article I posted was only the response to his - the original review that I would like to read...

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 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.

not all biblical accounts live in Revelation. The OT/Wisdom Books are much about reason, pragmatism, and Greek/Christian philosophy... . — 3017amen

The wisdom books were written long before Christianity. There is in them some influence from or common to Greek thought, but there is also resistance. When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord it means something quite different from the Greek notion that depends on reasoned thought and argument.

The Christian Bible proves Jesus existed just as any other historical figure. — 3017amen

The existence of Jesus the man is something very different from the claims of his divinity. There was no need to prove that Jesus the man existed, it was not doubted, but in any case stories about him prove nothing.

quote="3017amen;558014"]Of course, Jesus was known to be part God and had a consciousness like humans.[/quote]

This was not known, it was believed by his pagan followers. It was also believed that others were half god half man, children of gods carried by human women.

Think of it this way, if it wasn't, there would be little need to invoke or posit God to begin with. — 3017amen

There is no more need to invoke or posit God than there is to posit the gods.

Similar to why someone posits the concept of evil. — 3017amen

The existence of evil and the existence of Evil as an entity are two different things. As it is used in the Hebrew Bible it means bad, adversity, affliction, calamity, and so on.

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. — Jack Cummins

No worries. It will soon be July, a new month :wink:

Similar to why someone posits the concept of evil. — 3017amen
The existence of evil and the existence of Evil as an entity are two different things. As it is used in the Hebrew Bible it means bad, adversity, affliction, calamity, and so on. — Fooloso4

:100: :up:

Think of it this way, if it wasn't, there would be little need to invoke or posit God to begin with. — 3017amen
There is no more need to invoke or posit God than there is to posit the gods. — Fooloso4

Why do you suppose that is... ?

not all biblical accounts live in Revelation. The OT/Wisdom Books are much about reason, pragmatism, and Greek/Christian philosophy... . — 3017amen
The wisdom books were written long before Christianity. There is in them some influence from or common to Greek thought, but there is also resistance. When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord it means something quite different from the Greek notion that depends on reasoned thought and argument. — Fooloso4

Sure, but it was included in the Bible for some reason... . (Example, Ecclesiastes was the historical antecedent to Salvation.)

The Christian Bible proves Jesus existed just as any other historical figure. — 3017amen
The existence of Jesus the man is something very different from the claims of his divinity. There was no need to prove that Jesus the man existed, it was not doubted, but in any case stories about him prove nothing. — Fooloso4

They prove he existed. Otherwise, history books should not be believed.

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. — Jack Cummins

It's been argued that that is one of the appealing things of Christianity v. other 'religions'. I personally embrace other religious philosophy like Taoism, but they don't have quite the 'human condition appeal' and the relatable angst... .

I have just managed to look at the Les Reid article, so I will draw out the main ideas. He argues that 'statements and attitudes in the Bible are expressed in the Bible that are troublesome in themselves, without reference to facts and opinions derived from other sources.'.He also says that there are no agreed canons, in the interpretations. Reid suggested that, 'If the great spirit is really concerned about humanity, as it is claimed, then one would expect communications to be open, regular and clearly genuine. If there really was a benevolent spirit looking over us, its communication would be as clear as the sun in the sky'.

Reid also suggests that,'Yahweh is a biased God. As Hume pointed out(Enquiry S.10) Biblical assertions that Yahweh favoured one tribe over above the rest of humanity..' He also queried the change from the Yahweh of the Old Testament to the New Testament, whether it would mean that God is changing. His overall conclusion is that, 'The religious paradigm was a human invention and its central narratives are fictions.

I am aware that I looked at the discussion of the original article, so I will look at the review again. One idea which I am aware of is how Reid questions whether God is actually changing, which I am aware was one arising in the perspective of Jung in, 'Answer to Job'. But, here I am just laying out the ideas expressed by Reid, with a view to how they contribute to the debate about thinking of the Bible from a philosophy viewpoint.