|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Did the Devil literally walk into God's office one afternoon to file an accusation against him over his servant Job
No but what is the right question?
Is it.. ‘was there an encounter between God and Satan over the status of God’s servant Job?’
If not, then why is one asserted?
A literary device to set the scene for the morality play which ensues? I'm always amazed people take it to be a story about a real person; for one thing, God comes across pretty badly in the scenes with Satan.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Parables are not narrative stories and not what I was talking about. They are illustrative fictional cautionary tales. Not denying their place or function but neither Jonah nor Job narratives are parables.
I didn't say they were. I rhetorically noted that the parables are authoritative despite not being accounts of events that actually happened. The non-rhetorical question is: Why would the authoritative nature of the stories of Job or Jonah be undermined if those stories are not accounts of events that actually happened?
And I did not say you said they were.
It is a red herring to mention them.
Gamaliel: If they are not intended as narratives that happened, then what are they intended as?
You see there are only 2 possibilities really; they are either true narrative stories or fictional accounts that purport to be true and therefore fraudulent and deserving of no authoritative status.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, this is where you keep going wrong in my view. You reduce things down to two bald possibilities:
- It's either an objective representation of the facts.
Or
- It must be fictitious and therefore fraudulent.
You wouldn't say that Paradise Lost was 'fraudulent' because Milton made it up, would you? No, you accept it as an epic poem on its own terms.
Why assume that Job is a 'factual' narrative? What grounds do we have for doing so?
Why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity?
I'm fully prepared to accept that Job existed and that terrible things happened to him, that he became a byword for patient endurance and that his story presented an early scribe / midrashist with material to develop into an imaginative work that raises issues of suffering and theodicy.
It's largely written in verse for a start, which should tell us something about the author's intentions.
You are applying notions of how you think scripture should work onto the text in order to make it fit your particular inerrantist schema.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity
And what evidence do you offer for insisting on this possibility?
And
If what you say is true why should The said fictional story be accounted the status of scripture rather than seen as fraudulent?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
What about Jonah?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And I did not say you said they were.
It is a red herring to mention [the parables].
No, it’s not. It’s an acknowledgement that divine revelation occurs in a variety of writings: narrative of history, stories told to illustrate a point, poetry, and others. If Jesus can use stories to tell us about who God is, who we are and who we are called to be, then why can’t the Holy Spirit?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity
And what evidence do you offer for insisting on this possibility?
You’re the one who has asserted that there are only two possibilities—a narrative of somethg that actually happened or a fraudulent writing. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems to that requires imposing a claim on Job and Jonah—that they are telling a story that really happened—that the writers of those books do not make themselves.
quote:
If what you say is true why should The said fictional story be accounted the status of scripture rather than seen as fraudulent?
Because it contains divine revelation, as recognized by the community of faith—the covenant people—over the years.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Jamat having gone silent on the Dead Horse thread on inspiration I wandered over here; I almost wish I hadn't*.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity
And what evidence do you offer for insisting on this possibility?
The evidence I would offer, again, is that insisting it is literally true in all respects is that it creates problems that far, far outweigh those aspects this view claims to uphold.
Insisting on it does not enhance the integrity or depth of Scripture, it distorts it beyond all recognition, and it raises theological difficulties that appear to me to be insuperable, notably the assumption that God must have dictated Scripture as objective reportage to its human authors, with all the DH problems that implies.
There is simply no benefit in insisting thus.
==
*It was worth it for this, though:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie, emphasis mine:
I do believe, for example, the resurrection of Jesus actually happened (though I'm less and less keen on those books that try to prove it). But I think we underestimate the very real power of story, even invented story, to bring home truth.
So true. As B62 says on the quiescent DH thread; quote:
I don't believe the polemicists. I believe the witnesses.
[ 05. February 2018, 13:22: 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
|
|
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
If Jesus can use stories to tell us about who God is, who we are and who we are called to be, then why can’t the Holy Spirit?
No reason at all. However, how would you know that was the intention? Jonah and Job stories are not parables but present as factual narrative accounts.
quote:
You’re the one who has asserted that there are only two possibilities—a narrative of somethg that actually happened or a fraudulent writing. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems to that requires imposing a claim on Job and Jonah—that they are telling a story that really happened—that the writers of those books do not make themselves
On the basis of the texts themselves and the way they present in terms of background, setting and character. Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken. He had a fairly realistic sounding wife. His friends are identified by location.
There is no indications of who the authors are but they purport to retell factual accounts.
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Finally, parables are completely different in that we are clearly told when something is a parable. Parables do not use names of real people normally and proclaim themselves as such. They are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons. If you cannot acknowledge that then nothing I can say will help and I am sorry about that.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus :The evidence I would offer, again, is that insisting it is literally true in all respects is that it creates problems that far, far outweigh those aspects this view claims to uphold.
Insisting on it does not enhance the integrity or depth of Scripture, it distorts it beyond all recognition, and it raises theological difficulties that appear to me to be insuperable, notably the assumption that God must have dictated Scripture as objective reportage to its human authors, with all the DH problems that implies.
There is simply no benefit in insisting thus
How wise and erudite this sounds and how empty it actually is.
These insuperable difficulties..what are they?
These distortions. What are they?
In what way does it imply God literally dictated scripture? No one thinks this. It is a straw man.
The DH problems are also unspecified.
ISTM that most objections to scriptural integrity in this wee puddle are not to do with consistency. Rather they are about the justice of God..his character. Is this also true here?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Jamac: If what you say is true why should The said fictional story be accounted the status of scripture rather than seen as fraudulent?
Nick Tamen : Because it contains divine revelation, as recognized by the community of faith—the covenant people—over the years
Really, this is an appeal to tradition. It is a roundabout way of begging the question. I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not? My own belief is that God oversaw and selected the writings we count to be scripture and tradition should be judged against it.
You cannot say a writing is divine because the divine community (whoever they are) uphold it. This is simply because there is no way of defining who, in the hydra of church history, that community actually is. While the canon of the NT was hammered out at Nicea, this suggests only that God guided the selection process. The OT was never AFAIK the issue there but was and is to this day endorsed by Jewish sources.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
These insuperable difficulties..what are they?
Well for starters, the fact that they lead you to believe that any alternative interpretations to yours are ipso facto wrong. I'd say exclusivism is a pretty big difficulty. And to stick with Job, you have the problem of just who recorded the conversation between God and Satan.
quote:
These distortions. What are they?
I think we need look no further than your desperate attempts (which you finally admitted were misguided) to get 'almâ to mean virgin, but if we must then we could look back at your categories almost beyond number of the redeemed of the Lamb, inside the city, outside the city, occasionally visiting, etc.
quote:
In what way does it imply God literally dictated scripture?
See on Job. What is your view on how the exchanges between God and Satan have come down to us?
quote:
The DH problems are also unspecified.
That's because you've stopped answering down in DH.
quote:
ISTM that most objections to scriptural integrity in this wee puddle are not to do with consistency. Rather they are about the justice of God..his character. Is this also true here?
In what way do you think anyone here has challenged the justice of God?
--------------------
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 Jamat:
Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken
Are you seriously suggesting that a real-life setting for events in literature requires that the events themselves must be true? quote:
He had a fairly realistic sounding wife.
Do I detect your second gratuitous mysogynistic swipe in less than a week?
quote:
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) What? Nobody here is suggesting that and I would have thought you knew in any case that proving a negative is virtually impossible.
Once again this statement of yours suggests that if all of Scripture is not found to be, and defended as being, absolutely literally true (except where it explicitly states otherwise), its credibility is somehow damaged. Whereas most of us seem to take the view that trying to make it true in ways it's not claiming to be is damaging its credibility far more.
[ 05. February 2018, 18:26: 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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
History suggests more of a symbiosis than a sequential relationship as the history of the canon demonstrates.
quote:
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not?
Do they? Such as?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
You’re the one who has asserted that there are only two possibilities—a narrative of something that actually happened or a fraudulent writing. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems to that requires imposing a claim on Job and Jonah—that they are telling a story that really happened—that the writers of those books do not make themselves
On the basis of the texts themselves and the way they present in terms of background, setting and character. Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken. He had a fairly realistic sounding wife. His friends are identified by location.
There is no indications of who the authors are but they purport to retell factual accounts.
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Finally, parables are completely different in that we are clearly told when something is a parable. Parables do not use names of real people normally and proclaim themselves as such. They are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons. If you cannot acknowledge that then nothing I can say will help and I am sorry about that.
Let's look at the parable of the good Samaritan. Now Samaria was a real place, and a priest and a Levite were real people. So the 3 identified main characters are presented with these connections with reality. The valley is a real place as are Jerusalem and Jericho. and indeed Jesus starts his narration by saying:
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers.
Note that it says that Jesus goes straight into saying that the man was going. Not started by His saying "let me tell you a story" or some such.
Now this has never been read as a real event being described, but always as an example invented by Jesus to make his point, to give His lesson. How is that any different to the opening of either Job or Jonah?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
To add quickly - the fact that Jesus was not describing a real event does not detract one little bit from His message. Similarly, the messages of Job and Jonah depend not a whit upon the events of their narratives having actually occurred.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat, emphasis mine:
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Wait, I think this might be even worse than I thought it was. You seem to be saying that if it were demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that, say, Niniveh never existed, then that would call into question the credibility of Scripture, so... we should simply ignore any such hypothetical discovery just so it doesn't impact the credibility of Scripture?
That rather than question whether we've been understanding Scripture properly in the light of fresh evidence we should just double down and triple down no matter how flat-earth-society convoluted our explanations become?
If so, there's an editorial opening for you at the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy: quote:
“The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To add quickly - the fact that Jesus was not describing a real event does not detract one little bit from His message. Similarly, the messages of Job and Jonah depend not a whit upon the events of their narratives having actually occurred.
I think Jonah is more powerful because it was made up. The author was trying to counteract the arrogant ‘chosen ones’ mentality of his/her fellow Israelites, so chose the most unrepentant wicked people as the villains of the story, with the expected Jewish hero. Only then, it’s turned on its head, and the protagonist becomes the villain, and the damn Ninehvites repent at the drop of a hat.
It’s powerful because the listeners’/readers’ first response would be “no way would that happen!”. It’s supposed to be far-fetched and unbelievable. That’s the whole point. It’s an attitude-challenging story, like the Good Samaritan. “Samaritans don’t act like that! Ninehvites don’t act like that! We should be the heroes! Jews are the goodies!”. It ends on a cliffhanger because it’s good storytelling, not history. It leaves the audience with a question and a challenge.
If it was just history, the challenge is accidental, rather than intentional.
And as for Job. Of course it’s fiction. It begins with an operatic heavenly realm opening, and the whole thing’s a poem, for goodness sake. Even if there’s some basis in a real person’s life, the words the characters speak cannot be historical, unless they were a strange group of friends who spoke in solely in poetry.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the basis of the texts themselves and the way they present in terms of background, setting and character. Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken. He had a fairly realistic sounding wife. His friends are identified by location.
There is no indications of who the authors are but they purport to retell factual accounts.
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Finally, parables are completely different in that we are clearly told when something is a parable. Parables do not use names of real people normally and proclaim themselves as such. They are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons. If you cannot acknowledge that then nothing I can say will help and I am sorry about that.
I'm sorry, Jamat, but this is simply an empty argument, for reasons that Eutychus and Gee D point out. The suggestion that it must be a narrative of historical event because real places are identified and the people involved have names seems to me to border on absurd, I'm afraid. How is that possibly an indication of historical accuracy?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really, this is an appeal to tradition. It is a roundabout way of begging the question. I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
Sorry again, but I think that needs an emphatic No! The church, which existed before any of the NT was written, is built on and emerges from Christ, to whom Scripture witnesses.
quote:
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not? My own belief is that God oversaw and selected the writings we count to be scripture and tradition should be judged against it.
And how did God inform the Hebrews or the church which writings were selected? Could it possibly have been through the activity of the Spirit assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation.
quote:
You cannot say a writing is divine because the divine community (whoever they are) uphold it.
Nor did I.
quote:
While the canon of the NT was hammered out at Nicea, this suggests only that God guided the selection process.
And again, I ask, how did God guide the selection process? By moving in the church to enable the church to see which writings could be accepted as divine revelation and which could not.
And yes, there was debate about the OT as well.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I ask, how did God guide the selection process
You better ask him that.
Regarding the riposte, ‘for reasons others point out’
That is mere cant for the simple fact is that much sniping has occurred but no cogent evidence is presented by anyone against the assumption of the factual, narrative truth of Biblical stories that purport to be such.
Everyone demands I answer their issues but I am not the naysayer here. No one is able to answer my assertion as to why, say, Jonah, just for instance,should not be a real true story ..it just took a miracle after all and believers are supposed to deal in those.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is mere cant for the simple fact is that much sniping has occurred but no cogent evidence is presented by anyone against the assumption of the factual, narrative truth of Biblical stories that purport to be such.
But Job and Jonah don’t purport to be such, and the argument you have mustered to support your assertion that they do isn’t convincing in the least, the dismissiveness of any position you don’t agree with notwithstanding.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is mere cant for the simple fact is that much sniping has occurred but no cogent evidence is presented by anyone against the assumption of the factual, narrative truth of Biblical stories that purport to be such.
But Job and Jonah don’t purport to be such, and the argument you have mustered to support your assertion that they do isn’t convincing in the least, the dismissiveness of any position you don’t agree with notwithstanding.
It is not I who am asserting anything. I just believe that the stories are true. But you assert that they are not..right?
OK,perhaps you can tell me what they do purported to be?
They are certainly not parables are they? If they are fictional narratives why is it that Jonah presents as a Hebrew, the son of Amittai, a worshipper of the God most high who made the earth and the sea.
Jonah is also referenced in 2kings14:25 as well as multiple times by Jesus notably in Matt12:40. Is 2kings fictional as well? Did the son of God get it wrong?
[ 05. February 2018, 23:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
(skipping the first point for another occasion)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really, this is an appeal to tradition. It is a roundabout way of begging the question. I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
Sorry again, but I think that needs an emphatic No! The church, which existed before any of the NT was written, is built on and emerges from Christ, to whom Scripture witnesses.
This is of course the classic RCC argument and by the 1400s that had, I submit, led to a right mess! Plus that basic idea would also be true of the "OT Church" Israel. But in that case once there was agreed Scripture, a Word recognised as God's Word, tradition had to take second place and be governed by Scripture rather than the other way round, as Jesus said in Mark 7, particularly in the classic example of how the Pharisees had used 'tradition' to nullify the Word of God about the 'Corban' custom. That is Jesus' own example of the relationship between 'church' and Scripture.
The NT effectively comes from/through the apostolic witness to Jesus - and the later Church has no authority to contradict that. Sure it has authority to go beyond Scripture to meet new situations - but it needs to do that in line with Scripture and constantly testing its ideas against Scripture.
quote:
quote:
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not? My own belief is that God oversaw and selected the writings we count to be scripture and tradition should be judged against it.
And how did God inform the Hebrews or the church which writings were selected? Could it possibly have been through the activity of the Spirit assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation?
Yes of course it is through the Spirit "assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation?" But that's not the same thing at all as giving the Church the right to simply contradict Scripture. That would be somewhat like a suggestion that a person who discovered and authenticated a Shakespeare text would also be the only person entitled to infallibly interpret it.
And yes, the Church is in fact given interpretative authority; but the authority is given to the Church in the sense of 'ekklesia', the assembly of believers, rather than just to what might be called 'institutional bosses'. And there's a further point there, to which nobody's yet given me a satisfactory answer - once under Theodosius the actual definition of 'The Church' had been changed, from "the born again by faith called out of the surrounding society" to instead the "born again by infant baptism and essentially the whole of a society of nominal believers", how can that very different organisation truly carry the authority given to the original Church??
quote:
quote:
You cannot say a writing is divine because the divine community (whoever they are) uphold it.
Nor did I.
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it; it would actually technically still be divine even if the 'divine community' rejected it. Yes in fact the Spirit did guide the Church what to accept, but the Church must not give itself airs of being over rather than under the Scripture which it has recognised.
quote:
quote:
While the canon of the NT was hammered out at Nicea, this suggests only that God guided the selection process.
And again, I ask, how did God guide the selection process? By moving in the church to enable the church to see which writings could be accepted as divine revelation and which could not.
And yes, there was debate about the OT as well. [/QB]
[/QUOTE]
Although the NT was finalised at Nicea I think it fair comment that much of the decision actually goes back rather to the time when Marcion challenged the then 'canon' and wanted to cut huge chunks from it to suit his prejudices. But again it is rather the point that the Church making that decision was recognising the divinity of the Scripture rather than creating that divinity, and that it was also recognising an authority over itself.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
How is that any different to the opening of either Job or Jonah
It is no different. In Luke 10, Jesus does not say it was not a true story so it could have been either a parable or an anecdotal true illustration that he knew about. I’m inclined to think it was the latter though it certainly serves the purpose of a parable. The parables of the kingdom in Matthew are a bit differently referenced from some of the stories in Luke, eg in Luke 16 ..the rich man and the beggar. The ones in Matthew 13 state that the purpose of Jesus is to actually hide spiritual truth.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is not I who am asserting anything. I just believe that the stories are true. But you assert that they are not..right?
Nope. I assert that whether they are historical narratives or not is irrelevant to the revelation they contain.
quote:
perhaps you can tell me what they do purported to be?
They purport to be stories. Nowhere does the writer say, directly or indirectly, that they are stories of things that actually happened, and nowhere does the writer say they are not—because whether they are or not is irrelevant to what the writer is saying.
quote:
If they are fictional narratives why is it that Jonah presents as a Hebrew, the son of Amittai, a worshipper of the God most high who made the earth and the sea.
How does that possibly establish anything one way or the other? A story that isn’t historically accurate can’t have characters with names, nationalities and fathers who worship God?
By the way, "fiction" is your term. I’d say calling it "fiction" is anachronistic, applying a modern "fiction/non-fiction" distinction to an ancient writing from a time when people thought in different terms. They’re stories.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes of course it is through the Spirit "assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation?" But that's not the same thing at all as giving the Church the right to simply contradict Scripture.
Who said anything about the church having the right to contradict Scripture? Not me.
quote:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it; it would actually technically still be divine even if the 'divine community' rejected it. Yes in fact the Spirit did guide the Church what to accept, but the Church must not give itself airs of being over rather than under the Scripture which it has recognised.
Who said anything about it being okay for the church to give itself airs of being over Scripture? Not me.
quote:
But again it is rather the point that the Church making that decision was recognising the divinity of the Scripture rather than creating that divinity, and that it was also recognising an authority over itself.
Which is exactly the point I was making, at least the first part is.
As to the second part, I was disagreeing with Jamat's statement that the church is "built on" and "emerges from" Scripture. That's a different statement from recognizing the authority of Scripture. I made no comment at all in the quoted post on the authority of Scripture, though I have regularly in this thread referred to Scripture as "authoritative."
Seriously Steve, your lecture seems to have little to do with what I said and a lot more to do with your own hobby horses.
[ 06. February 2018, 01:09: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Jamat: perhaps you can tell me what they do purport to be?
Nick Tamen: They purport to be stories. Nowhere does the writer say, directly or indirectly, that they are stories of things that actually happened, and nowhere does the writer say they are not—because whether they are or not is irrelevant to what the writer is saying
If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
You and others are trying to suggest that none of this matters. But I think that if we can write Job off as fictional then we can also write his suffering off as fictional and whatever we choose to take out of it, we can also choose to reject what we do not like.
A story that is just a story has no more authority than a fairy tale or a nursery rhyme. The truth of the story is not irrelevant to what a writer is saying, it IS what the writer is saying. Unless something is clearly signalled as a figure of speech or literacy device, then it must stand or fall on its truth value.
[ 06. February 2018, 02:11: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Jamat, I simply do not know what else to say. I think you significantly underestimate the power of story and story-telling. The idea that a story cannot have meaning or authority unless it is factually true, or that God cannot speak through it unless it actually happened, is just foreign to me and seems flatly contrary to Scripture and the culture in which Scripture took shape.
But at least please stop mischaracterizing the positions of others. I have not “written off” anything as “fiction.” As I told you, “fiction” is your word, not one I would use of one that I think fits. And I have not “written off” any of Scripture, nor, I think, has anyone else here.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
that a story cannot have meaning or authority unless it is factually true, or that God cannot speak through it unless it actually happened, is just foreign to me and seems flatly contrary to Scripture and the culture in which Scripture took shape
And I have not denied any of those things. Stories are powerful etc and have their place. I think that God’s stories in particular, Daniel, Moses,David,Jonah, Joshua, Samson Jesus the Christ, Paul etc etc are all historical. I think that if they are part of the great meta narrative of the Bible, they must be and if they are not then we are relying on very tenuous support for our faith.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is not I who am asserting anything. I just believe that the stories are true.
No you don't. As I've said before, you're quite entitled to your convictions. What you do beyond asserting them is consistently refer to others' objections you can't answer along the lines of quote:
That is mere cant (...) much sniping has occurred (...)
and so on. Every time you find an objection too difficult to deal with, you either ignore it outright or trash it in terms as you have done above.
Goperryrevs has given what I see as a fascinating insight into Jonah above, so much so that I'm strongly tempted to make Jonah the subject of my next preaching series. It takes me much further in my walk with God than speculating on how exactly Jonah could have been swallowed by a fish (in this respect see this great piece of documentary research).
To throw out insights such as Goperryrevs' as "cant" or other insults for want of any actual argument is to miss so much truth.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Jamat: perhaps you can tell me what they do purport to be?
Nick Tamen: They purport to be stories. Nowhere does the writer say, directly or indirectly, that they are stories of things that actually happened, and nowhere does the writer say they are not—because whether they are or not is irrelevant to what the writer is saying
If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
You and others are trying to suggest that none of this matters. But I think that if we can write Job off as fictional then we can also write his suffering off as fictional and whatever we choose to take out of it, we can also choose to reject what we do not like.
So far, you've not dealt with the lack of any historical basis for the events of Luke 10 30-35. Nowhere does Jesus say that this is a story he's telling to make clear his message. In fact, as I've pointed out, the start of the parable is that Jesus says that a man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. No suggestion in that that this is an invented story. Much the same can be said for other parables.
You then go on to say:
quote:
If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
You and others are trying to suggest that none of this matters. But I think that if we can write Job off as fictional then we can also write his suffering off as fictional and whatever we choose to take out of it, we can also choose to reject what we do not like.
The truth of the story does not affect its standing as scripture. What is important is the truth of the message set out.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: No you don't. As I've said before, you're quite entitled to your convictions. What you do beyond asserting them is consistently refer to others' objections you can't answer along the lines of
No YOU don’t.
This is totally upside down. It is not up to me to solve anyone’s issues with scripture that I do not share. No one has any substantial reasons for doubting the veracity of scripture or I am sure they would have put them out there by now. It is all a case of needing to adjust what is written to the various theological non negotiables.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No YOU don’t.
It is patently obvious that you don't "just" hold to your version of what Scriptural truth is. Over and above holding it, you insist in dissing everybody else's without any supporting arguments. My words in response to your assertions may not be tender but they are not devoid of argued support.
quote:
It is not up to me to solve anyone’s issues with scripture that I do not share.
No it's not, but it would be decent of you either to state your objections (rather than just fling invective) and respect others' opinions as professed believers rather than assert they are all part of an agenda to undermine the credibility of Scripture.
quote:
No one has any substantial reasons for doubting the veracity of scripture or I am sure they would have put them out there by now.
Agreed. I don't think anybody here doubts the veracity of Scripture.
What we differ on is whether its veracity relies on it being literally and historically true at all points where it is not explicitly stated to be otherwise. quote:
It is all a case of needing to adjust what is written to the various theological non negotiables.
And what theological non negotiables might these be?
Earlier on you said something similar about it all being to do with people's ideas of God's character and justice and I asked you what you might mean by that, but like so much else on this thread the question has gone unanswered.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Jamat, I don't have an issue with Job or Jonah being historical characters. Henry V was an historical character. Does that mean that Shakespeare's play of that name is historically accurate in the modern sense?
You can't answer any of these issues without falling back on some 19th century view of scripture which collapses as soon as some blows on it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Not just Anderson in the 19th century. One of Cromwell's Puritans interpreted the pouring out of the 4th as a foreshadowing of the forthcoming publication of one of his works! Such modesty.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
I’d just given an answer to that before you even asked the question. But, as others have said, unless you’re willing to apply the same standard to Jesus’ parables, your questions are kind of empty.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]A story that is just a story has no more authority than a fairy tale or a nursery rhyme. The truth of the story is not irrelevant to what a writer is saying, it IS what the writer is saying. Unless something is clearly signalled as a figure of speech or literacy device, then it must stand or fall on its truth value.
Again, as others have said, Jesus doesn’t specifically mark out the Good Samaritan as a parable. So... Do you think it was a parable, or was it a real historical event? Careful, because however you answer, you’ll either end up calling your own criticisms in yourself, or making the same argument that has been made against you.
Besides, there are clear signals that, for example, Job is fiction. It’s written in poetry. And the opening is a clue. But, let’s stick with the poetry thing. How historical does something have to be to be historical? Do you believe that a) the historical characters actually spoke in poetry, or b) the poetry is a rough estimate of their actual opinions and interactions. Unless you really think A, which would be pretty funny, then you’d agree that a certain amount of poetic license in the inspired writing is valid...
...which means that the question is not the binary one you’ve made out (fact or fiction), but that there is a fuzzy line that must be drawn somewhere between the two with regards to whether something actually ‘happened’. Look at most Hollywood representations of “true stories”: multiple characters get merged, sub-plots get tweaked and changed. That’s part of story-telling. Things are not as black and white as you make out.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it;
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed, and for someone who used to teach literature, Jamat appears to have a very 'low' view of his own discipline.
Can we not gain moral lessons from War & Peace, say, or Great Expectations because they are novels, or The Tempest or Ki g Lear or The Crucible because they are plays?
Where do we get this idea that everything has to be literally true in a documentary sense in order for it to qualify as scripture? Not from scripture itself.
Yes, I'm sure Jesus and his contemporaries - Jesus in a kenotic sense - took the Creation story and other OT stories more literally than we might but that doesn't mean they were 'wrong' or the writers 'fraudulent'. What a bizarre way to look at things.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
One more point, sorry for the barrage of posts.
Jamat, you said, “Unless something is clearly signalled as a figure of speech or literacy device...”
My questions would be, “how”, and “to whom”.
It’s my understanding that the Jewish response to Nineveh’s repentance in Jonah would have been, “Bwa ha ha ha! Nineveh? Repent? Haw haw haw!”
So to the original audience, that plot device alone would have CLEARLY SIGNALLED that the story is a literary device to get them to think about their attitudes. Because Nineveh repenting is so obviously not history; they lived in that time. They knew Nineveh.
But here we are, so many centuries later, and our cultural ignorance means that the story doesn’t hit us in the same way that it hit the original audience.
And what’s a ‘clear signal’ to one person is evidentially not so clear to another. To me, it’s farcical to see the two Genesis creation myths as anything but parables - from clear signals in the text (let alone science). However, there are plenty of Christians that see otherwise. So I have to accept that what is abundantly clear to me might not be so clear to others. That’s usefully humbling.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Yes, I've been thinking this for some time now.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it;
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Not actually disagreeing with you, I think. But coming at things from a different angle to oppose a different problem.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it;
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Not actually disagreeing with you, I think. But coming at things from a different angle to oppose a different problem.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In which case, why assert that God 'wrote' it?
God didn't 'write' the scriptures. People did.
Inspiration doesn't mean that he dictated it in some way. I know you understand that but your posts can sometimes suggest otherwise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
hink Jonah is more powerful because it was made up. The author was trying to counteract the arrogant ‘chosen ones’ mentality of his/her fellow Israelites, so chose the most unrepentant wicked people as the villains of the story, with the expected Jewish hero. Only then, it’s turned on its head, and the protagonist becomes the villain, and the damn Ninehvites repent at the drop of a hat.
It’s powerful because the listeners’/readers’ first response would be “no way would that happen!”. It’s supposed to be far-fetched and unbelievable. That’s the whole point. It’s an attitude-challenging story, like the Good Samaritan. “Samaritans don’t act like that! Ninehvites don’t act like that! We should be the heroes! Jews are the goodies!”. It ends on a cliffhanger because it’s good storytelling, not history. It leaves the audience with a question and a challenge.
If it was just history, the challenge is accidental, rather than intentional.
And as for Job. Of course it’s fiction. It begins with an operatic heavenly realm opening, and the whole thing’s a poem, for goodness sake. Even if there’s some basis in a real person’s life, the words the characters speak cannot be historical, unless they were a strange group of friends who spoke in solely in poetry
So boiled down:
Jonah is obviously fiction because it uses reverse psychology so well..oh and by the way the Ninevites did not repent..I know cos I just do.
Job is a poem so obviously it is a dramatic fiction that has all the hallmarks of stagecraft..and everybody should know that poems never reconstruct genuine narratives..right.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Ah, so we're allowed "dramatic reconstruction", are we?
Where do you draw the line between "dramatic reconstruction" and "dramatic licence"?
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
oh and by the way the Ninevites did not repent..I know cos I just do.
Hey, I’m sure you can point me to some extra-biblical corroborative evidence that they did! Oh no; you know it’s historical cos you just do.
Actually, the difference between us is that if it turns out that Jonah is historical it won’t damage my worldview one iota. But your whole systematic theology is dependent on its own rigidity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Job is a poem so obviously it is a dramatic fiction that has all the hallmarks of stagecraft..and everybody should know that poems never reconstruct genuine narratives..right.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t read my later posts, but if you did, thanks Eutychus for restating the question. Where’s the line in dramatising history? No glib dismissals, please - what is acceptable when turning ‘history’ into a poem or another form of literature?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt
That's generous.
Once again I am on the wrong side of 'prove this!'
The text says what it says.
The text is scripture.
The contention is that the text is non historical.
It is NOT my job to prove the contention.. It is the contender's.
I just believe the text viz:
There was a Jonah, there was a Job. They were real people and their experiences are depicted as real history.
You say no. I do not think you have made your point.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Once again I am on the wrong side of 'prove this!'
The text says what it says.
The text is scripture.
The contention is that the text is non historical.
You’re avoiding again, Jamat.
We all agree that the text says what it says and that it is Scripture. But the problem is the text doesn’t say one way or another whether it is accurately recording actual events or is a semi-historical or non-historical story. The text just tells the story.
The contention made by others is not that the text non-historical, but rather that the text can easily be read as non-historical, and maybe should be read as non-historical, but that ultimately in doesn’t matter one way or the other in terms of the text’s meaning or authority as Scripture. And others have supported that contention.
You, on the other hand, have contended that the text can only be read as historically accurate and must be so read, or else its authority is called into question.
That’s your contention, and the burden is on you to support your contention.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
You, on the other hand, have contended that the text can only be read as historically accurate and must be so read, or else its authority is called into question.
I merely assert that they are historic; there are obviously all sorts of ways to read them.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I merely assert that they are historic; there are obviously all sorts of ways to read them.
You have done more than merely assert that they are historical, Jamat. Just yesterday, you said:
quote:
I think that God’s stories in particular, Daniel, Moses,David,Jonah, Joshua, Samson Jesus the Christ, Paul etc etc are all historical. I think that if they are part of the great meta narrative of the Bible, they must be and if they are not then we are relying on very tenuous support for our faith.
So, why "must" Job and Jonah be historical, and why is support for our faith tenuous if they are not?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
