thanks for the respectful repy!
I think that when Paul says that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures", he means things in the ot.
I appreciate your consistency in that you read the nt with the same "malleability" that you use for genesis.
if you don't believe that Christ died for the humans who were condemned because of the sin of the first human, then I think it's reasonable to say that you don't believe that Christ died according to the Scriptures as Paul uses that phrase.
so, and I want to say this with all respect, it sounds like you're not really into biblical christianity, but more like a "compile your own" form.
Yeah I think it is quite likely he was referring to the old testament, it's hard for me to know to what extent I'd agree or disagree with the "according to the scriptures" portion because I'm not sure what verses he's actually referring to. I'd say that's a fair assessment though.
so, and I want to say this with all respect, it sounds like you're not really into biblical christianity, but more like a "compile your own" form.
I don't take offense to that at all!
Just to clarify, I am coming to the text from a very different perspective than what most people would be used to. I think the essence of what you're saying is very true though and it's an important point to make. Personally I'd rephrase this as I'm not really into traditional christianity, I deviate pretty far I think from Pauline christianity which is the root of most modern christian sects, though there is still a great deal of overlap. At the same time I don't think it's entirely subjective either, I think people should be able to make up their own minds about the text but should also be able to give reasons for their ideas and defend them.
I specifically use the historical-critical method as much as I can when evaluating the bible, and I realize that probably seems very foreign to the general public. I don't mean by "criticism" that I'm trying to argue against the text however, I mean a different definition "the scholarly investigation of literary or historical texts to determine their origin or intended form." Historical-criticism is specifically an attempt to apply historical criteria to the bible to try to reconstruct the past. This is not to say that other ways of reading it are wrong, taking everything the bible says to be inerrant on faith is another way to read it. A faith based approach is likely how it was intended to be read and that could also reveal things about the text that might not be as apparent to me because I don't have that vantage point.
This is simply the set of criteria I apply because I find it to be useful. I want to know more about the origin of the bible, the history of early christianity and judaism, the historical time period itself, when different parts were written, what can we know about Jesus and his teachings from a historical perspective. This is an interesting field for a variety of reasons, primarily to me the fact that the archaeology of the Levant, linguistics and text criticism have all made considerable progress in recent years and I find the subject to be fascinating. To me that only allows me to appreciate it more, it doesn't subtract from an understanding of the text, it only can add a new perspective that perhaps I hadn't considered before. That doesn't mean of course that I'm going to restrict myself to the result obtained when these criteria are applied. It also doesn't mean that I confuse the "Historical Jesus" with the real person in the past, who we do not have direct access to. I simply acknowledge that the past no longer exists and we can't hold up our reconstruction of him to him to determine what he was actually like. This is only one method among many that biblical scholars use to try to investigate the bible.