|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Scholarly Insights and Revelations
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So, no, the Gospels are not historical because the writers had theological intentions that would disqualify their writings as objective historical accounts.
I disagree fundamentally with this. It seems to me that there is no reason on earth why the events described in the Gospel are not eyewitness historical occurrences.
I do agree, however, that the 4 writers have chosen the events and in the case of John, on occasion, have rearranged their chronological order (e.g. the cleansing of the temple) in order to highlight spiritual truth and to create a document that teaches or makes an apologia of the Gospel.
Something that was witnesses - "seen with our own eyes, touched with our hands" - can have a tremendously profound spiritual meaning. I cannot see, however, that there can be a spiritual meaning in something that never happened. If there was we might as well worship the gods of Olympus.
To me, God works truth through narrative. Have you ever told a story to your children/grand children (Red Riding Hood, Cinderella)? Those stories are profoundly true even though they are fictional.
If the Gospel writers created a story because it tells how Jesus Christ means to them, why is that a bad thing? I think equating "creating a story" with "telling a lie" is a problematic assertion.
But this goes against the doctrine (and the reality) of the Incarnation. What is the point of being Incarnate of God never said or did anything that was actual or historical? Sounds like a load of Gnostic bunkum to me. 'Oh as long as you know the spiritual truth who cares whether any of it happened in the flesh?'
Passages like this might help to affirm that the apostles wrote about what actually happened.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I'm not discussing or arguing for inerrancy. I'm responding to this in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Whereas one figures that the gospels are not literal eyewitness testimonies through and through, or at least are as flawed as any eyewitness testimony is. Whereas it is evident that the early church was undergoing a political process of self definition that meant that stories were massaged into a narrative that was suitable for mass consumption and digestion.
Yes the gospels are as flawed as any eyewitness testimony. There are numerous variations between them. Mostly unimportant and all reasonable versions of events that they either experienced or heard about.
What I don't like is the idea that they were massaged into a narrative according to a political process of self-definition.
It makes more sense to me that God guided their understandings to produce a harmonized message that was genuine.
The reason that this makes more sense is that the alternative negates virtually everything about these accounts. If the message was not genuine then this suggests that every supernatural claim in the accounts is false or merely primitively superstitious. Then Jesus is not the Son of God, no miracles ever happened, etc.
The literal accuracy of the accounts is not required for the events themselves that are reported to be real. The writers were making their best attempts at reporting what happened, and interpreting it, and God worked with those best attempts.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Gospel writers created a story because it tells how Jesus Christ means to them, why is that a bad thing? I think equating "creating a story" with "telling a lie" is a problematic assertion.
The big problem I have with this (at least pushed to its extremes) is that as far as I can see, to have the power it claims to have, the Good News requires at least some stuff to have happened in actual historic reality, and to have had the meaning ascribed to it in the gospels and epistles - most notably the crucifixion (I would add: the resurrection, but I'm trying to keep this to a bare minimum).
There is a lot of truth in the Lord of the Rings and the triumph of little, ordinary people over great evil. I certainly find it inspiring. But it does not have the power to put me right with God in the way the cross is claimed to.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And the reason that Jesus could / would not have shared his experience with the disciples is...?
No reason, but then it isn't an eyewitness account, is it. By definition it is at least a second-hand account.
quote:
And as far as the individuals being told not to tell anyone, were these occasions all totally private or may at least a couple of the disciples have been there?
I think if we read carefully we will find several occasions when the events can only have been recorded if the account had been repeated.
quote:
As far as the Gospels not actually claiming to be eyewitness reports, well much of it evidently is - from statements such as 'John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.' through to incidental details that add nothing to the story whatever, certainly not the spiritual truth, but point to 'I was there'.
OK, so I'm assuming you are only taking John as gospel, then.
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Scripture serves, with the enlightening of the Spirit, to guide us into truth. I think that probably implies an assumption of honest intentions on the part of the writers, but I don't think it rules out what some people might call "bias".
[the following is not against you, Euty, just got me thinking on the issue...}
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I would take bias as a God-blessed given for literature of this sort. They have a Gospel to proclaim, not bare historical facts to report in a detached tone of voice. THey have a world to convert, not readers to prepare for a history exam. I myself have a bias when I shout to my son, "Get out of the street! There's a semi coming!" No one would expect me to say (as an interesting observation), "I notice that there is a truck of the larger sort proceeding down the street in an easterly direction. This truck will intersect with your current location in approximately two seconds."
Of course, bias in any text becomes a problem when it leads to falsehood. But I see no sign that the Gospel writers' enthusiastic endorsement of Jesus as Savior and God has led them to falsify the facts they report.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would take bias as a God-blessed given for literature of this sort. They have a Gospel to proclaim, not bare historical facts to report in a detached tone of voice.
Yes. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped is entirely right. The gospels are not historically neutral documents, were never intended to be. I really love the end of Chapter 20 of John's gospel, which sums them up perfectly.
quote:
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The gospels do not provide a balanced weighed biography of the life and times of one Yeshua bar Joseph, sometime carpenter and more lately prophetic charismatic healer from "oop North in Galilee". They were never intended to do that.
[ 11. February 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Yes, Barnabas, they were never intended to do that.
So to go back to the OP's question:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
what is a Christian to do with the damned-close-to-fact that the Bible was written by people who had a story of their own to tell?
Yes, they had a story to tell, but it was God's story, not theirs.
Believing this requires a belief in God and also in the possibility that the supernatural things that are said in the gospels to have happened, and to have been at work, are real.
If such supernatural things are not really possible then, yes, the Bible becomes a political document that does not transcend the politics and biases of the authors' personal superstitious agendas.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@pydseybare. You noted:
And another point - several times in the gospels, Jesus specifically commanded individuals to 'tell nobody' about what has happened to them. Given that we're reading the stories now, that clearly means that the individuals disregarded a direct command from Jesus Christ.
Seem to remember that the usual reaction to Jesus asking for but of P and Q is that people concerned went off blagging about their experiences to all and sundy so Jesus couldn't get a minute's peace.
Jus' saying... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
But this goes against the doctrine (and the reality) of the Incarnation. What is the point of being Incarnate of God never said or did anything that was actual or historical? Sounds like a load of Gnostic bunkum to me. 'Oh as long as you know the spiritual truth who cares whether any of it happened in the flesh?'
I think you are oversimplifying. I think to posit history and narrative as polar opposites to each other is problematic.
I believe that the core of the Gospels is "historical" in the sense that there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth who lived 2000 years ago, who had a ministry of healing and proclamation and ended up crucified by Rome. That, I would maintain is historical fact.
Now, any atheist can affirm what I have just written.
The Gospel writers however imbue that historical core with meaning and narrative. Meaning and narrative is poetic, not factual.
So, what is the problem with poetry? Shall we throw away the Psalms?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Gospel writers created a story because it tells how Jesus Christ means to them, why is that a bad thing? I think equating "creating a story" with "telling a lie" is a problematic assertion.
The big problem I have with this (at least pushed to its extremes) is that as far as I can see, to have the power it claims to have, the Good News requires at least some stuff to have happened in actual historic reality, and to have had the meaning ascribed to it in the gospels and epistles - most notably the crucifixion (I would add: the resurrection, but I'm trying to keep this to a bare minimum).
There is a lot of truth in the Lord of the Rings and the triumph of little, ordinary people over great evil. I certainly find it inspiring. But it does not have the power to put me right with God in the way the cross is claimed to.
I believe it was JR Tolkien who called Christianity the best myth because it was the myth that is true.
No one will ever prove the Resurrection or Incarnation to be historical fact. Those things can only be accepted by faith. Because of that, I don't think it is good Christian apologetics to go around proving such things to be historically true. I don't believe that we create faith, faith is only a gift by the Holy Spirit.
We can however, witness to the power of the Resurrection in our lives. The Resurrection is true, not necessarily because of an empty tomb or people can't find the body. The Resurrection is true because the risen Jesus is in my life, and in the lives of many faithful believers throughout the century. That moves apologetics away from proving history and more to focusing on testimony and witness.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat
Very good post. I think that attempting to show that the various miracles are historically verified is not a good plan for Christians. Most historians that I read, just ignore miracles, but accept the life and death of Jesus. Hence faith cannot be derived from history, or turned into history - that is a kind of hybrid, which sits uneasily.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And the reason that Jesus could / would not have shared his experience with the disciples is...?
No reason, but then it isn't an eyewitness account, is it. By definition it is at least a second-hand account.
quote:
And as far as the individuals being told not to tell anyone, were these occasions all totally private or may at least a couple of the disciples have been there?
I think if we read carefully we will find several occasions when the events can only have been recorded if the account had been repeated.
quote:
As far as the Gospels not actually claiming to be eyewitness reports, well much of it evidently is - from statements such as 'John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.' through to incidental details that add nothing to the story whatever, certainly not the spiritual truth, but point to 'I was there'.
OK, so I'm assuming you are only taking John as gospel, then.
I said 'such as'. There are other instances in other Gospels.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the Gospels not actually claiming to be eyewitness reports, well much of it evidently is - from statements such as 'John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.'
Though chapter 21 is widely regarded as an addition to the original gospel.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So, no, the Gospels are not historical because the writers had theological intentions that would disqualify their writings as objective historical accounts.
I disagree fundamentally with this. It seems to me that there is no reason on earth why the events described in the Gospel are not eyewitness historical occurrences.
I do agree, however, that the 4 writers have chosen the events and in the case of John, on occasion, have rearranged their chronological order (e.g. the cleansing of the temple) in order to highlight spiritual truth and to create a document that teaches or makes an apologia of the Gospel.
Something that was witnesses - "seen with our own eyes, touched with our hands" - can have a tremendously profound spiritual meaning. I cannot see, however, that there can be a spiritual meaning in something that never happened. If there was we might as well worship the gods of Olympus.
So, if I get this, you think that whether it has spiritual weight is more important than whether it is accurate. If it's not accurate, it has no spiritual weight. If it has no spiritual weight, then everything implodes and you might as well be an atheist?
Is this where you're coming from?
Seems to me that you're not arguing from fact but from desire.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also one of the items of ammunition used against us by atheists. They cry with laughter when they see us tying ourselves in knots trying to explain the Bible away and the accusation is that we can't believe our own book so why do we expect others to believe it?
I don't think that I try to "explain the Bible away" as you put it. I try to receive it as it is, not as what I wish it were.
And I know a few atheists who at the very least respect me and my walk in life. I do not imagine shouting at them per fundamentalist evangelicals would be persuasive, for I know what these people make of fundamentalist evangelicals. It makes your description of their attitude toward so-called liberals downright flattering.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not discussing or arguing for inerrancy. I'm responding to this in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Whereas one figures that the gospels are not literal eyewitness testimonies through and through, or at least are as flawed as any eyewitness testimony is. Whereas it is evident that the early church was undergoing a political process of self definition that meant that stories were massaged into a narrative that was suitable for mass consumption and digestion.
Yes the gospels are as flawed as any eyewitness testimony. There are numerous variations between them. Mostly unimportant and all reasonable versions of events that they either experienced or heard about.
What I don't like is the idea that they were massaged into a narrative according to a political process of self-definition.
It makes more sense to me that God guided their understandings to produce a harmonized message that was genuine.
The reason that this makes more sense is that the alternative negates virtually everything about these accounts. If the message was not genuine then this suggests that every supernatural claim in the accounts is false or merely primitively superstitious. Then Jesus is not the Son of God, no miracles ever happened, etc.
The literal accuracy of the accounts is not required for the events themselves that are reported to be real. The writers were making their best attempts at reporting what happened, and interpreting it, and God worked with those best attempts.
Funny, one thing I thought the author of Zealot got right (and admittedly he's not alone in this assertion) was that Jesus's status as a wonderworker was not what made him special. There were a lot of magicians and healers wandering around in the desert. Miracle stories were par for the course in that day and age.
I don't know if the historicity of the miracles is really the foundation of our faith. It's something to be wrestled with, and taken very seriously, but that's not the same thing as taking it literally.
This might move toward answering my own OP.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure it's a case of 'explaining the Bible away.'
I heard a sermon on Job recently in which the preacher claimed that some people tried to 'explain away' the Book of Job by suggesting that it's some kind of parable - as though the literal historicity of the story of Job was really important and that the whole thing fell apart if if wasn't ...
How does that work?
Job is so obviously a poem, a work of literature ...
Ok, so there may well have been a real, live, living, breathing human being called Job but it's pretty darn obvious that it's some kind of 'midrash' or mythological/novel style account ...
As it happens, I do take the Gospel stories literally - allowing for a certain amount of literary leeway. We're presented with something of a different order to a TV documentary or newspaper account - and those are edited constructs too, of course.
How does it in any way 'dismiss' or diminish the Book of Job if we see it as some kind of parable?
I really don't see how that follows.
As the old adage goes, 'The Bible is true and some of it actually happened ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
There were a lot of magicians and healers wandering around in the desert. Miracle stories were par for the course in that day and age.
I don't know if the historicity of the miracles is really the foundation of our faith.
Good point. I think the real question is not whether the miracles made Jesus exceptional but whether they are really possible. That is, are the supernatural claims made in the Gospels genuine?
If we don't believe that there is any real basis for the supernatural claims that are made on every page of the gospels then this changes everything. It's not really a question of whether this or that really happened or was accurately described. The question is whether ANY of it, the supernatural parts, could have happened.
Because if any of it could happen, then why get picky about the details?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Regarding miracles, my NT professor argued that we can be pretty sure that Jesus was a healer. Healers and exorcists were active throughout Palestine and the ancient Near East and the notion that Jesus is a healer is attested by all the Gospels (satisfying the criteria of multiple attestation) and fits the context (satisfying the criteria of contextual credibility).
When it comes to determining historicity, I lean heavily on the criteria of multiple attestation (whether an incident or saying of Jesus is attested in multiple sources) and contextual credibility (does Jesus's actions/words make sense in the context of first century Palestine)
For nature miracles, my NT professor is much more skeptical. He argues that walking on water and calming the storm are features more aligned with Greco-Roman divine heroes. So he argues, and I think that he makes a good case, that the Gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as a divine hero to their Gentile audiences. As such, since there is an apologetic reason for the story, we have to at least allow for the possibility that the writer invented it and that it does not trace back to the historical Jesus.
Christians may rightly say that a thing can be both historical and useful for apologetic purposes. This is true, but it does bring in the questions of genre: were the Gospel writers interested solely in historical accuracy the way that we moderns do, or were they interested in crafting a narrative to present Jesus in the best light to their audiences?
My approach to the New Testament and faith is not "these things all REALLY, REALLY HAPPENED." My approach is that there was a man 2000 years ago who impacted people so much with his love, energy and compassion, that his followers in their reciprocal love, crafted stories about him. The apologetic intent isn't to prove the Bible's accuracy, it's to preach that this same person who inspired love and witness, is still the same person today and we can encounter him.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The argument the author is making, I think, is that realistically, Jesus was one of John's disciples who later took John's teachings to another level. John was really the greater figure in many ways, and had been Jesus' teacher.
How is that realistic? Is there some other source of roughly-contemporary information about Jesus to which only Reza Aslan has access?
His "realism" is just another form of bias, even if he sees it to be correcting the bias inherent in the texts of the Gospels. Unless you believe that all the God-stuff in the gospel accounts are so much fictitious blah-blah-blah, I don't see the point.
I also don't really see how this book is making any kind of contribution to the field, except as a popular digest of things that were said by other people. Not to mention that his thesis only works if you decide a priori to just ignore any contrary evidence.
[ 11. February 2014, 17:53: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
When it comes to genre, we have to be wary of imposing onto the gospel writers our own assumptions of biography and history.
Our beliefs about what is true and what is false is itself culturally conditioned. Whenever we imply that historical accuracy= true, we are already making an assumption based on our post-Enlightenment, rational, culture.
The Gospel writers were concerned to get the story, right, I would agree with that. But I don't think it meant that they were concerned that every single detail was historically accurate. I think that they were concerned to "get the story" right, in that they wanted to present Jesus truthfully as how they understood him and his impact. So, it was like trying to describe a person you deeply love, to someone else who you never met. You try to remember things that happen in connection with this person, but humanly of course, you adjust, and you change the details if necessarily in order to make the story presentable. The aim is to get the essence of the person right, not whether or not the tiny tiny details of the story is correct.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
there was a man 2000 years ago who impacted people so much with his love, energy and compassion, that his followers in their reciprocal love, crafted stories about him.
To me this is little more - or perhaps even less - than the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy version of the gospel:
quote:
2000 years ago one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change
If that's all there is, I feel like I'm wasting my time.
But consider 2 Peter 1:16-18
quote:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
or 1 John 1:1-3
quote:
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
I cannot for the life of me think of a literary genre - other than pure fiction - in which that makes sense other than if it is understoood as referring to actual, historical events with a supernatural dimension. If these people are merely "crafting stories", they are doing so in such a way as to be deliberately deceitful.
I can agree that each author brings "bias" (Lamb Chopped, you seem to have understood me to be saying the opposite), and I can live with the idea of various miracles not being exactly as they are portrayed in the Jesus™ film (in fact please God, no), but not with the idea that this is all after-the-fact embroidery for ends only tangentially related to what Jesus actually said, did and intended.
[ 11. February 2014, 18:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For nature miracles, my NT professor is much more skeptical. He argues that walking on water and calming the storm are features more aligned with Greco-Roman divine heroes. So he argues, and I think that he makes a good case, that the Gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as a divine hero to their Gentile audiences.
So I guess the idea that Jesus is actually the God of the Universe is out of the question?
I thought that was a basic Christian belief.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
There were a lot of magicians and healers wandering around in the desert. Miracle stories were par for the course in that day and age.
I don't know if the historicity of the miracles is really the foundation of our faith.
Good point. I think the real question is not whether the miracles made Jesus exceptional but whether they are really possible. That is, are the supernatural claims made in the Gospels genuine?
If we don't believe that there is any real basis for the supernatural claims that are made on every page of the gospels then this changes everything. It's not really a question of whether this or that really happened or was accurately described. The question is whether ANY of it, the supernatural parts, could have happened.
Because if any of it could happen, then why get picky about the details?
Also good point, and I'd just add that "None of it is factual" is also an option. If you allow a weasel word, I may add "purely" or perhaps "objectively" before factual.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'd just add that "None of it is factual" is also an option. If you allow a weasel word, I may add "purely" or perhaps "objectively" before factual.
That's more than a weasel word, it's a huge difference (as far as I'm concerned).
The Gospels and Acts are clearly narrative, so it is quite allowable, and indeed to be expected, that they are not purely factual or objective in the way that, say, a scientific test report or an international standard is designed to be. The fact that individual personalities are involved and show through is part of the whole nature of the thing.
That is a million miles from asserting that they are in no way factual, which to me suggests they do not concern themselves with at least some actual, historical facts as opposed to being, um, pure invention, in similar fashion to, say, the Arthurian legends.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Eutychus, do you think, with Matthew's account, that (a) the earth went black (b) there was an earthquake (c) the bodies of saints rose up out of the grave at the crucifixion is historically accurate?
My personal instinct is to answer "yes" to all three questions, but I'm not too hung up about the answers.
My personal interpretive framework doesn't stretch to ascribing those aspects to dramatic enhancement to make a theological point, but I don't have much quarrel with anyone who takes that line.
That's because to my mind, the symbolic importance of these particular details stands irrespective of whether they actually happened.
(I could entertain the idea of them being added in a way that was legitimate at the time of writing and correctly understood as being solely symbolic by those familiar with the genre).
Where I would start to have problems would be, say, if one was to argue that Jesus' explanations of his impending death were solely after-the-fact additions put into his mouth with no basis in anything he actually said, or that Peter didn't really mean that bit about hearing a voice from heaven on the mount of the Transfiguration. As far as I can see if such details have no basis in fact, they are devoid of symbolic meaning too.
And no, I'm not sure where the dividing line is.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Is it not a reasonable conjecture that this could be dramatic license in play - particularly given the timing of the crucifixion is one of the areas which do not match between the gospels?
What do you mean by "dramatic license"? 1st century Jewish narrative regularly embedded meaning within the text. Whilst I am not claiming to offer you a genre check on these passages, the comment does have a bearing on the issue of facticity.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To my mind there is a clear distinction between what today we would term "dramatic enhancement" (which has some basis in an actual fact) and pure (Bullfrog's word ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) invention, and it is the difference between licence and fraud.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Which part of the passage are you talking about? If you are talking about the part in Matthew you asked about, then as I say it doesn't bother me for the reasons I've outlined, although I don't tend to share your view.
But if the authors added content directly relating to events that are only meaningful if they actually happened, or pass off as explicitly true something they have invented (e.g. the Transfiguration experience), then I think either it was designed as fiction or it is fraud.
[ 11. February 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me ask a question back, psydebare. How do you understand the two passages I've quoted here?
Do you think these are intended as statements of fact?
As purportedly truthful in an attempt to defraud?
As the product of deluded minds?
As some literary artifice that would have been instantly understood by the contemporary reader as meaning "this doesn't really mean what it says" (and if so how would this be understood?)
Or what?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes the gospels are as flawed as any eyewitness testimony. There are numerous variations between them. Mostly unimportant and all reasonable versions of events that they either experienced or heard about.
Variation between different accounts is a hallmark of eyewitness testimony. Different people see different aspects of an event, remember different things about it, and draw different significances from it. If you have different people giving accounts that match perfectly in all detail, you can be certain that you are dealing with pre-arranged and prefabricated lies and deception.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For nature miracles, my NT professor is much more skeptical. He argues that walking on water and calming the storm are features more aligned with Greco-Roman divine heroes. So he argues, and I think that he makes a good case, that the Gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as a divine hero to their Gentile audiences.
I am struggling to think of any Greco-Roman divine heroes who either walked on water or calmed storms.
There may be an apologetic aim that compares Jesus to the spirit of God in Genesis 1.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Gospel writers however imbue that historical core with meaning and narrative. Meaning and narrative is poetic, not factual.
That's rather like saying this car is four wheel drive, not made in Japan.
Poetic and factual are not exclusive categories. They're not even comparable categories. Something can be poetic and factual, poetic and not factual, factual and not poetic, or not factual and not poetic.
There are influential theorists who would argue that narrative and poetic imagery are contraries. Narrative is musical, pushing forward in one direction; poetic imagery is painterly, reflecting out in all directions.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Gospel writers however imbue that historical core with meaning and narrative. Meaning and narrative is poetic, not factual.
That's rather like saying this car is four wheel drive, not made in Japan.
Poetic and factual are not exclusive categories. They're not even comparable categories. Something can be poetic and factual, poetic and not factual, factual and not poetic, or not factual and not poetic.
There are influential theorists who would argue that narrative and poetic imagery are contraries. Narrative is musical, pushing forward in one direction; poetic imagery is painterly, reflecting out in all directions.
"My love is a red, red rose." Unless you have a fetish for flowers, I don't think you can call that factually true.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Eutychus, do you think, with Matthew's account, that (a) the earth went black (b) there was an earthquake (c) the bodies of saints rose up out of the grave at the crucifixion is historically accurate?
My personal instinct is to answer "yes" to all three questions, but I'm not too hung up about the answers.
My take is similar to Eutychus.
I would explain it by saying that this was the subjective experience of those who witnessed it. I believe that what really happened was that the time of the crucifixion involved a great disturbance in the dividing line between physical and spiritual reality. People subjectively observed spiritual phenomena. But no graves were opened, no earthquake happened, nor was the light of the sun blotted out.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think in the end, I agree with Marcus Borg, "Whether or not you believe this happens or not, what is its' meaning and how does it impact on us today?"
Because in some quarters, believing in the historical accuracy of everything in the Bible is often taken as a litmus test for right belief.
So, I have no problem if some Christians think that everything in the Bible is historically accurate. I do take issue of when those same Christians use that belief as a hammer against other Christians who may or may not have the same beliefs.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anglican Brat:
quote:
"My love is a red, red rose."
I think you'll find it's 'my love's like a red, red rose'.
Sorry, I know it's a bit irrelevant to the argument, but someone had to say it.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For nature miracles, my NT professor is much more skeptical. He argues that walking on water and calming the storm are features more aligned with Greco-Roman divine heroes. So he argues, and I think that he makes a good case, that the Gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as a divine hero to their Gentile audiences.
I am struggling to think of any Greco-Roman divine heroes who either walked on water or calmed storms.
There may be an apologetic aim that compares Jesus to the spirit of God in Genesis 1.
Indeed, as far as I am aware the 'water' episodes were included to 'impress' Jewish readers, not Greeks. The Jews feared water (lakes and the sea) because of its inherent evil - chaos monster, etc.
The historical event of Jesus walking on water and calming the waves simply reassures the reader that Christ is Lord over creation and of chaos. The common belief that the deep is inhabited and controlled by demons is addressed by 'even the winds and waves obey him.
And this rather makes my point.
If the Church believes that Christ is Lord over creation then to 'prove' its point it needs to do better than simply make up a story about it.
A fictional story ascribed to a vaguely historical figure does not make his Lordship a reality - indeed it confirms his non-Lordship because the story is a human literary concoction.
I like Nelson Mandela but if, in wanting to make him seem better I devised a story that he was such a good president that all black people in SA's townships were given a job, then it would do nothing for his reputation because it is totally and evidently not true!
But if I said he was a great president because he was the huge figure in ending white minority rule then people will have to acknowledge his greatness because that's actually what he did do!
In the stilling of the storm, Christ is not Lord over creation because we think he is and therefore we (being the Church) made up a story to 'prove' it, Christ is Lord over creation because he proved it one day by actually stilling the storm, and the Gospel writers simply recorded the unadorned episode with no extravagant flourishes and no commentary to allow the reader simply to join them in believing that if Jesus did that then he must be Lord.
Logic dictates that if Jesus didn't really do that then he is not Lord of creation no matter how much we claim that he is (with no evidence).
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My take is similar to Eutychus.
I would explain it by saying that this was the subjective experience of those who witnessed it. I believe that what really happened was that the time of the crucifixion involved a great disturbance in the dividing line between physical and spiritual reality. People subjectively observed spiritual phenomena. But no graves were opened, no earthquake happened, nor was the light of the sun blotted out.
I'm not sure how far this resembles Eutychus' views, but I totally agree with your last sentence here. The mangling of theology necessary to accommodate graves opening is too great for me, and given the lack of supporting evidence, I don't believe it happened. Quite possibly individuals were trying to express the spiritual phenomena that they experienced.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Let me ask a question back, psydebare. How do you understand the two passages I've quoted here?
Do you think these are intended as statements of fact?
As purportedly truthful in an attempt to defraud?
As the product of deluded minds?
As some literary artifice that would have been instantly understood by the contemporary reader as meaning "this doesn't really mean what it says" (and if so how would this be understood?)
Or what?
Transfiguration - not sure. Inclined to believe that was added for spiritual rather than historical reasons. If the former, that doesn't affect my faith - as I am happy to reflect on the spiritual message that is being given by the passage (which itself is quite problematic if taken literally).
Jesus' prophecies regarding his death appear to me to be consistent with the thrust and direction of the accounts.
As a sidenote, the story of the woman caught in adultery is widely held to have been added subsequently to the text, but I am very happy to see that as an accurate account of Jesus Christ and very likely to be historical. Even if it was totally made up, that is the kind of God I want to believe in.
I think there are other categories other than delusion and lies on the one hand and historically accurate truth on the other. It does not affect my faith in the slightest to suggest that the bible is an imperfect reference to the gospel, mostly because Jesus Christ is the word of God, not the written words contained in the bible.
[ 12. February 2014, 07:02: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the stilling of the storm, Christ is not Lord over creation because we think he is and therefore we (being the Church) made up a story to 'prove' it, Christ is Lord over creation because he proved it one day by actually stilling the storm, and the Gospel writers simply recorded the unadorned episode with no extravagant flourishes and no commentary to allow the reader simply to join them in believing that if Jesus did that then he must be Lord.
Logic dictates that if Jesus didn't really do that then he is not Lord of creation no matter how much we claim that he is (with no evidence).
No, not really. Logic does not suggest that Jesus Christ was God because he is shown to be by a historically accurate description in the bible.
In fact, there is no logic involved. He could still be the Lord of Creation even if that story was made up.
In fact, I think it is quite problematic whenever Jesus Christ is shown doing things that have a dramatic effect on nature - because I think that portrays him as a supernatural human. Of course there is an inevitable contradiction between being a deity and being a man, but if he retained the ability to affect nature whilst being a man then the two natural questions that follow are a) in what sense was he fully human and b) why didn't he use those powers for other purposes.
My belief stems from the fact that Jesus Christ was the perfect image of the Creator God, but cast off the powers and abilities of the godhead whilst living on earth.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Poetic and factual are not exclusive categories. They're not even comparable categories. Something can be poetic and factual, poetic and not factual, factual and not poetic, or not factual and not poetic.
"My love is a red, red rose." Unless you have a fetish for flowers, I don't think you can call that factually true.
It's not poetry either.
As M points out, what Burns wrote is 'My love is like a red, red, rose'. That is a iambic tetrameter. 'My love is a red red rose,' isn't anything.
I'm inclined to say that if that kind of mistake doesn't stick out at someone like a sore thumb then that someone neither knows nor cares what 'poetic' actually means.
Besides, an example of poetic and not factual doesn't disprove my point at all.
Lewis uses Burns' line as an example in one of his essays:
He compares 'My love is like a red, red rose' with Wordsworth's 'A violet by a mossy stone, half hidden from the eye', and points out that we know something about the different personalities of the two different women.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Pydseybare: thanks for your answers, much appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Transfiguration - not sure. Inclined to believe that was added for spiritual rather than historical reasons. If the former, that doesn't affect my faith - as I am happy to reflect on the spiritual message that is being given by the passage (which itself is quite problematic if taken literally).
If it's added for "spiritual rather than historical reasons", I don't know what to make of Peter's testimony in the epistle.
quote:
Jesus Christ is the word of God, not the written words contained in the bible.
With this I agree, and indeed I never use the expression "Word of God" as shorthand for the Bible, although many people in the circles I move in do.
However, we only know of Jesus as the Word through the Scriptures. Your unqualified assertion of this suggests you think the Scriptures are at least reliable enough to support it.
[ 12. February 2014, 07:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
My belief stems from the fact that Jesus Christ was the perfect image of the Creator God, but cast off the powers and abilities of the godhead whilst living on earth.
And your source documents for this belief are...?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
