dazzledbycarrie asked: If you take what some of the new testement says "with a grain of salt" then you have to take the whole bible that way since we are told it is the inspired word of God. If thats not true for some of it, then who is to say its not true for all of it. That being said I really appreciate what you said about seperating the OT and NT. People don't remember that we aren't under the OT anymore as much as they should. :)
Thanks for the question Dazzled. I appreciate it. And think in someways I used a poor choice of words (and have actually edited my post a bit after thinking about your question).
Ultimately, my point really was that I don’t think we can take the every word of the New Testament in a literal sense just like I argued about the Old. Yet, I am not saying it is all a story. I think the Good News that is proclaimed in the NT represents God’s Truth, but it does not all have to be true in a factual sense. There are lots of contradictions just between the four gospels which cause problems; and I certainly believe that inspired or not, John’s gospel really does have a tendency to embellish at times.
I would strongly recommend David Lose’ book Making Sense of Scripture, in his second chapter, which deals the narrative truth of the bible, and explores the arguments - in words much better than I ever could.
Yet, I too believe that there is a central core that absolutely has to be true, (i.e., Jesus’ life, death, resurrection) otherwise you do not have christianity.
I also believe that Paul’s statements subordinating women, or acknowledging slavery - or condemning homosexuality (of which Jesus is attributed as having said nothing about) need to be taken in the context of the time they were written, to the audiences he was writing to, and do not have to speak as God’s truth to us in the 21st century.
The question of the gospel writer’s being divinely inspired is a good one too; and I think they were; but I also think that decisions about what made the “canon” and what did not is just as much the result of clerical politics of the third and fourth century. Why these four and not the Gospel of Thomas?
