Stephen Fry on meeting God ...

I expect that's true for some people petallus, although I'm inclined to think a lot more are open-minded.

Thank you soontobe for clarifying why you think God didn't plan when he created the world and later changed the rules. (I am not sure why you suggest that I would think Hebrews is an Old Testament book of the Bible but I managed to find the passage you refer to without trouble and, in fact, re-read the whole book as it is short.)

Surely the letter is about how Jesus supersedes all the previous High Priests because he is the eternal Son of God and the eternal High Priest. The mere human priests of the Old Testament and their merely human rituals and sacrifices could only foreshadow true salvation and Jesus represents the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel.

The unknown writer also makes it clear that Jesus is the superior of angels – reassuring for some Christian communities of the time and, presumably this one (also unknown) – because they were believed to presage the end of the world.

He also makes a big point about Jesus being superior to Melchizedek, the eternal High Priest of the Old Testament. This is clearly important to the troubled Christian community to whom the letter is addressed because this superiority to Melchizedek confirms Jesus's superiority to the Levitical priesthood.

The letter's purpose seems to be to encourage the faith in a wavering community. It declares that Jesus is God's final revelation, completely the opposite of a change of rules and a change of plan.

This is not really the place for such a discussion and it will bore the pants off other Gransnetters. I shall, therefore, shut up now! [resounding cheers]

I wonder if the difference might be that we know through scientific and archaeological research that the Creation, Adam's rib stuff is not (pre)historical fact, but as yet there is no concrete proof either way regarding Angels, miracles etc?

Fundamentalism = taking the bible (or any other religious text) literally.

Why is it bad? I think we have clear evidence in front of us every day on the news.

That was interesting, absent. I wonder whether soontobe agrees wit your interpretation of the passage.

with

I think that absent is partly or mainly right, so am happy to agree with her to leave it there.

Mishap - did you read Ana's link on the other thread?
Everyone now seems to be on the same page as regards the word, except for you.

[I dont know if taking religions, other than Christianity literally, is peaceful or not].

Oh bother. I got the words in the wrong order.

[I dont know if taking relgions literally, other than Chrstianity, is peaceful or not]

Hope this makes sense. I must go to bed.
Goodnight all

That's an oversimplification IMO mishap

Ana I thought my comment about knowledge gained since the 11th century pretty well covered people who believe in the exclusive and literal truth of the Bible? absent I like your last post but don't agree that this isn't really the place for that kind of discussion. People who are bored won't go on reading.

Lilygran Thank you, but it was a bit of a skip over an impressively well-written and well-thought-out piece of scriptural writing. However, I don't think this thread is the place for detailed scriptural analysis and I am pretty sure that I am not up to it anyway. My thoughts were really just passing comments.

I agree with * lilygran* that absent's post was excellent. You've given us a useful and thoughtful summary.
I agree that very serious detailed biblical analyses would be hard for most to digest but this was a very good compromise between that and the oversimplified and sometimes banal comments we've read.
If posters wish to discuss this issue then they'll carry on. Opting out is an easy choice for those who don't.

The letter's purpose seems to be to encourage the faith in a wavering community. It declares that Jesus is God's final revelation, completely the opposite of a change of rules and a change of plan

Very interesting Absent I wonder why Soontobe chose this particular extract

Lilygran , absent and others have shown how the Bible can be read, interpreted, understood and related to our modern experience at the same time. That is the antithesis of " fundamentalism" and makes a refreshing change.

The bit you quoted is part of what I dont agree with Soutra.
But I respect the fact that absent doesnt want to discuss it further.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I am glad you did Ana.
I cant be bothered to read all his/her post.