|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Moses exist and does it matter?
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Here is an aside about the Transfiguration: If you want to take it as a literal event, then you need to explain how the witnesses (Peter, James and John) were able to identify Moses and Elijah by name. Were they known to the disciples by description? Were they identified by name in the conversation?
Maybe it was their distinctive appearances?
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I lost a reply somewhere ... I'll try again.
With the best will in the world, EE, I'm not sure you are understanding the point I am trying to make.
Look up C S Lewis's 'Myth become Fact'.
In a nutshell, as far as the OT goes - and some of the NT too - I'm with the wise old RC priest who said, '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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It may help if you try to regard 'myth' not as some kind of craftily or sneakily concocted fable or some kind of pack of lies and whatever else you seem concerned about but as a vehicle of conveying ultimate and divine truth - irrespective of whether it is historically and objectively true or not.
I think you can see this happening in the NT too.
For instance, to a pagan or Jewish observer, Herod's sudden and unpleasant death (and all the historical evidence suggests that it was singularly unpleasant) could have been interpreted in lots of ways. He may have offended the gods or God. It may simply have been an unfortunate premature death.
To the early Christians, in a view transmitted by Luke, it was seen as divine retribution for the execution of James and an overweening hubris ...
The historicity of his untimely death is unquestioned. Was he literally struck by an angel and eaten by worms and died?
Does it matter?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ananias and Sapphira ... sure does look like summary execution by the Holy Ghost. Or two amazingly dodgy tickers.
Again, nowt ter do wi' us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@SvitlanaV2, I'm sure a lot more clergy-people understand certain Bible stories as myths (in the C S Lewis sense) than might be thought.
Let's get away from this disparaging attitude towards myth. Myth doesn't mean that something isn't true.
I suspect the reason why many clergy-people don't present such a list - even if such a thing were possible because myth and history were/are often entwined in the scriptures - is because they would run the risk of being misunderstood and people might 'go off on one' as EE does at times because he misunderstands what is meant by the term and sees it as implying that something isn't true but a pack of lies ...
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect the reason why many clergy-people don't present such a list - even if such a thing were possible because myth and history were/are often entwined in the scriptures - is because they would run the risk of being misunderstood and people might 'go off on one' as EE does at times because he misunderstands what is meant by the term and sees it as implying that something isn't true but a pack of lies ...
It's because they don't want to lose their congregations - let's be honest. A theologian told me he advised ordinands against talking about this stuff because they'd probably do it badly and damage people's faith. Not a great vote of confidence in their communication skills!
If myth is wonderful then congregations need to be told why. We need to be inspired by this message. Otherwise nothing will ever change, and clergymen and theologians will always have to moan about literalism in the pews and lifelong church members with a Sunday School-level faith.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I suspect the reason why many clergy-people don't present such a list - even if such a thing were possible because myth and history were/are often entwined in the scriptures - is because they would run the risk of being misunderstood and people might 'go off on one' as EE does at times because he misunderstands what is meant by the term and sees it as implying that something isn't true but a pack of lies ...
Actually, Gamaliel (whoever or whatever 'Gamaliel' is), 'you' could be right. Myth is obviously true, so I think I will be inspired by it and apply it to real life. 'You' have convinced me that there is no such person as 'Gamaliel'. Gamaliel is 'true', of course, but ha ha ha, how stupid to think that such a person actually exists behind that name! I feel quite embarrassed and ashamed to think that I once believed in the literal Gamaliel. My crime of 'woodenness' is something that surely deserves punishment, but I am sure the literary gods will forgive me for my impertinence.
It's such a relief to know that Gamaliel is just a myth. A truth, yes, but a truth communicated in the form of a parable. This 'parable' that the internet has been generating has communicated many 'truths' to me, not that the 'Gamaliel' programme itself has communicated much that is true (in fact, much of it has been twaddle), but it has provoked me to consider various truths, and has confirmed me in my own solid convictions. So thank you, dearest internet, for this ground breaking and innovative programme of deep irony.
I also feel the blushes coming on ( ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) when I think about any personal comments I have made against a mere myth and parable. But I guess that is the beauty of 'myth' - this 'truth' (objective though it is not) draws us into its mystical embrace and draws forth from the well of honesty, which we try so hard to suppress in the damnable world of evil objective reality.
Now where's my medication... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
<Gosh, this thread has zoomed on without me since I last looked at it! I can't quite summarise my response to all the above, I fear...>
I have an oddly divided feeling about mythology, that has probably been influenced too much by reading Paradise Lost and the Fathers. I accept that the Fall, the First Murder and the Sacrifice of Isaac are 'true' in some way shape or form, even if Cain and Abel were not specific people. The image of the exile from Paradise is particularly strong, and I recognise that it winds up in my sermons again and again.
But the problem is, if we start taking mythology too far...say, if the Transfiguration never happened then what about rest, well that starts to have implications for the Church.
I like mythology. I find it interesting. I might pay a few pounds to hear a lecture on it, but it probably won't change my life. When the shit hits the fan (as it did during what I thought was a health scare a few months ago) then reality is needed. I wouldn't give up my life for mythology (martyrdom), I wouldn't give up comfort for mythology (ministry), I wouldn't give up a considerable portion of my money for it either (stewardship.)
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel in various places:
Come, come, EE, if anyone is bipolar around here is certainly isn't Gamaliel. I'll stop there before a Host intervenes.
...
It's not me who is being bipolar round here.
...
Au contraire, EE, you clearly haven't read what I've written. You've been highly selective. And indeed, as belligerent as ever.
Play the ball, not the man.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I have complete faith in the Transfiguration. Whatever that was.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
* Although even an atheistic interpretation makes the Israelites look bloody stupid, considering that they spiritually beat themselves up in relation to a (projected) God who appeals to their gratitude for his wonderful work in pretending to deliver them from an imaginary period of slavery! And if the Israelites were really so utterly moronic, then where does that leave all the other inhabitants of the Ancient World?
It seems to me your position also assumes that all the other inhabitants of the Ancient World were "morons" for believing in and sacrificing to "projected" gods. On this point, the only difference between your position and that of an atheist is that you think the Israelites were uniquely not deluded in their faith; the atheist doesn't need a special explanation for why the Israelites were different.
The point I was making is that atheists cannot assume the worst of the Israelites without applying the same criterion to all other inhabitants of the Ancient World. Therefore the events recorded in the Bible have no less veracity than events recorded in any other source from that period of history. If the Israelites were so deluded - or were collectively wilful liars - and were willing to project that onto their God, whom they viewed - to their considerable hurt - as the source of all righteousness, then where does that leave other peoples? On what basis can we believe anything at all from the Ancient World?
It leaves other peoples in the same situation, of course. We don't imagine that Alexander was actually the son of Zeus, however sincerely he may have believed that himself. quote:
You claim that I am suggesting that the other inhabitants of the Ancient World were 'morons' on the basis of what I have said about the views of those who don't give any credence to the history recorded in the Bible. There is absolutely no logic to that view at all. Given that I do not regard the Israelites as morons, then why should it be assumed that I think that about other peoples of the period? Don't impute to me views which are the very antithesis of what I believe, and what I have clearly expressed on this thread.
The view I'm imputing to you is that you do not believe in the veracity of the founding myths of all ancient peoples - only that of the Israelites. If the only alternative to accepting as true sincerely held ancient beliefs (with no archeological or other corroborating evidence) is to consider the believers to be "morons" (your word), then it seems you necessarily must have a pretty low regard for all those poor heathens.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect the reason why many clergy-people don't present such a list - even if such a thing were possible because myth and history were/are often entwined in the scriptures - is because they would run the risk of being misunderstood and people might 'go off on one' as EE does at times because he misunderstands what is meant by the term and sees it as implying that something isn't true but a pack of lies ...
Yeesh, if you weren't being patronising before, you were here. EE doesn't misunderstand, EE gets that if Jesus was mistaken about a man who lived around 1500 years before He did, we have no intellectually consistent basis for believing that Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, performed miracles of a far greater order. How can you think Moses is a myth, yet believe in the Resurrection? It's no meaningful compromise with atheism to say, for example, 'okay, the swine thing didn't happen, but I maintain Lazarus was raised'. To an atheist, it all sounds inconceivable. One miracle is no more or less impossible than thirty. EE not being interested in going down that road seems perfectly fair to me, as I'm not interested in going down it either. If your faith requires believing Moses was a myth, fine, I'm not saying you or anyone shouldn't, but don't make it sound like we're not up to speed.
Lots of people go to church because they believe in the words of the Nicene Creed, repent of their sins, recognise their need for salvation and have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. They would not be misunderstanding if they questioned how much they had in common with a priest who reeled off a list of stuff s/he didn't believe; the priest would be misunderstanding the gravity of faith. We don't do this for fun, and we aren't praying to a poetic conceit or an empowering story.
[ 09. September 2013, 04:22: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Believe in and/or accept one miracle and you have the framework for believing/accepting them all
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose I'm not interested here in discussing the old canard that because Jesus refers to these people as if they were 'real' then they must have been - the idea of 'kenosis' enables us to handle that one adequately, it seems to me.
Many years ago a venerable Brother told me that there could only have been one Isaiah, because the Lord referred to passages from Chs. 1-39 and Chs. 40-66, and in both cases attributed them to Isaiah.
What you see as an indication of “kenosis”, I would see rather as an example of “accommodation”.
Kenosis explains ignorance but not error.
Assuming that Moses was not historical (which I am not necessarily prepared to concede), Christ could have simply been referring to him in the same way as we might say, “Hamlet said…”, or “Mr Pickwick said…”, without needing to spell out that they are fictitious.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, Kaplan - bang on.
I don't have an issue with there being one Isaiah, I don't have an issue with there being 2 or 3 Isaiahs ...
It's what the Book contains that makes the difference.
I'll back up a big. Yes, I have been patronising to an extent but would claim - well, I would, wouldn't I - in my defence that it has been in response to some wind-up techniques from my old sparring partner EE. I'm aware of the tight-rope I'm walking here and will abide by Ruth's warning to play the ball and not the man.
Incidentally, I did find EE's thing about the mythical 'Gamaliel' funny and thought it was one of his best posts so far ...
I think, Plique-de-Jour, that you're taking what I'm saying and making rather more of it than I intend.
I can say the Nicene Creed without my fingers crossed behind my back. I do accept Christ as Lord and Saviour and repent of my sins. Back in the day, my evangelical credentials would have been impeccable.
I'm certainly not liberal in my theology - although I am certainly more liberal than many evangelicals.
Of course I can accept that if we accept the veracity of one miracle we can accept the veracity of them all. That's not the issue.
But the way things have been couched by some posters here strike me as unnecessarily binary. As if to concede any possibility whatsoever that there are mythological elements in the OT is to undermine the whole edifice and see it crashing down into atheism and apostasy.
I don't see it that way.
I can't see why we can't have a mythological Moses (to some extent) and an historical Christ. After all, all we have is the Christ of faith when all is said and done - and I believe that the Christ of faith is the same as the Christ of history. Any attempts to reconstruct or posit a separate Christ of history is doomed to failure, it seems to me, because, as has been wisely said, as soon as we do that and look down the well, all we see is our own reflection looking back up.
The 19th century German liberal theologians did that and ended up with a Christ of their own making.
So please, don't misunderstand me.
I like Kaplan's point about 'accommodation' and I think that accommodation and kenosis go together and are not necessarily opposed.
We find accommodation throughout the scriptures. We see it in the way that the Covenant with Israel was pitched in the form of contemporary vassal-treaties and so on. That doesn't make it any less divine in origin.
That's where the both/and thing comes in.
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that EE and Plique-de-Jour are Quixotically tilting at windmills that they imagine I'm setting p not at what I'm actually saying.
I am not a liberal, I am not an atheist, I am not apostate.
We can hold things in tension surely?
I really don't see any logical issue with, say, a belief in the miracle stories in the Gospels and Acts as literal occurrences and an acceptance that elements of the OT miracle stories might be mythic.
I really don't.
So, for instance, the story of Jacob setting the peeled hazel rods and so on in front of the breeding flocks to ensure that his were stronger than Laban's seems very odd indeed. Could it be some kind of mythic folk-memory of selective breeding techniques given a supernatural gloss?
Who knows? Of course, one might say that it's no more incredible than someone being raised from the dead ...
YMMV.
Same with the story of Elisha and the Captains of 50 at the start of 1 Kings - how each progressive captain and his 50 men get zapped by fire from heaven until the third one manages to obtain a stay of execution ...
I can't be the only one who sees the repeated tripartite structure here as 'mythic' - in literary terms it has all the hallmarks of the sort of thing that happens in folk-tales - think Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears or The 3 Little Pigs - straw house, stick house, brick house - and the Billy Goats Gruff for populist examples.
That isn't to say that Elisha did not exist, of course, but it is to acknowledge the literary and mythic elements of the story.
I really don't see why that is a problem and how it necessarily undermines any belief in the Creeds, in the life, death and glorious resurrection of Christ or in any other key tenet or cornerstone of Christian doctrine.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Kaplan -
'Assuming that Moses was not historical (which I am not necessarily prepared to concede),' ...
I'm not necessarily prepared to concede that either. I don't think I've ever categorically said on this thread that Moses did not exist. All I've said is that I am open to the possibility that there is mythology involved.
I don't see what's so bad about conceding that possibility.
'Christ could have simply been referring to him in the same way as we might say, “Hamlet said…”, or “Mr Pickwick said…”, without needing to spell out that they are fictitious.'
Well yes, absolutely.
I s'pose if I were asked to nail my colours to the mast - as a concession to full-on literalists as EE and Plique-de-Jour appear to be - I would suggest that Moses was an historical character but that mythological elements accrued around the stories about him.
The same with the Patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the same with figures like Job and Jonah.
Where's the big problem with that? What's the big deal?
It only becomes an issue if we insist, for whatever reason, on the entire salvation-story as having to be literally and objectively and historically true in every single aspect for it to have an efficacy whatsoever.
I don't see it in such binary terms.
--------------------
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
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose if I were asked to nail my colours to the mast - as a concession to full-on literalists as EE and Plique-de-Jour appear to be - I would suggest that Moses was an historical character but that mythological elements accrued around the stories about him.
I get what Gamaliel is saying because I take a somewhat similar view ... and I'm evangelical through and through.
A few months ago we preached through the book of Jonah. One of my fellow Readers said he took the line that the book of Jonah was 'a story' - a wonderful, vivid, Spirit-inspired story, but a story nonetheless. My vicar's eyebrows (he's charismatic but no theological lightweight) went up a bit. I said something like, "The way I see it, the book of Jonah is describing a real historical event but in story form, not literally." My vicar smiled and said, "Diplomatically put!" ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
That's my view. Jonah is much more than just a story. It is in Scripture for a reason. It is part and parcel of God's dealing with Israel. Etc etc etc etc.
I do accept both Moses and Elijah as real people, by the way.
I have no time for the type of liberalism which explains everything in the Bible away. But I do think it's important to realise that for the ancient biblical writers, 'fact' did not mean the exact same thing as it means to a 21st century reader.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes ...
I'll probably get sniped at for saying this, but I also think that we should bear the literary aspects in mind as well.
Some people seem to find it hard to accept that there are 'literary' aspects and considerations when dealing with the scriptures - other than in those places where it clearly points out that there's a parable.
Ancient and even medieval writers didn't make those distinctions to the same extent as we do - although I certainly accept as per Plique-a-jour's comment that they could distinguish fact from fiction and so on.
Take Marco Polo's account of his trip to China. In one passage he describes how Kubla Khan could apparently levitate cups of wine onto his table through the magical powers of his wizards and necromancers.
Is this something that Polo actually witnessed? Are we to believe that Kubla Khan possessed occult powers?
Given that some historians doubt that Polo even visited China but simply collated an account from merchants and others that he dealt with from his trading post near the borders, it could simply be hearsay.
He doesn't mention foot-binding, for instance, or other distinctive features of Chinese life and dress. But again, some historians say that it would have been perfectly possible for him to have spent considerable time in China without becoming aware of the practice as women tended to be kept concealed at court etc. Or it could be that he did observe it but didn't feel it necessary to note it.
We pays our money, we makes our choice.
Ultimately, it's a faith issue. That's not to say that our faith isn't based on solid fact - such as the existence of Christ or his life, death and resurrection.
I can certainly understand how Plique-a-Jour and EE might consider that I'm on some kind of slippery slope towards increasing levels of liberalism and ultimate apostasy. But I don't see things as black-and-white and binary as that. There's a lot of wiggle-room between Westboro Baptist, say and Spong.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 3 Little Pigs
Now, come on Gamaliel - you've gone too far this time. The 3 little pigs a myth? What would the Orthodox Church say about that?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'll probably get sniped at for saying this, but I also think that we should bear the literary aspects in mind as well.
Any evangelical scholar I've ever read who is worth their salt always says 'bear the literary aspects in mind'. The Bible is full of very different literary genres!
quote:
Some people seem to find it hard to accept that there are 'literary' aspects and considerations when dealing with the scriptures - other than in those places where it clearly points out that there's a parable.
As an Eng Lit undergraduate, learning to appreciate the Bible as literature deepened my understanding and love of it. Approaching the Bible in this way (it's not the only way, of course, but an important way) also helped to make it more accessible. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
There's a lot of wiggle-room between Westboro Baptist, say and Spong.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Well, er, quite.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I don't see things as black-and-white and binary as that. There's a lot of wiggle-room between Westboro Baptist, say and Spong.
Well, you pays your money and you takes your choice about that. Well Gamaliel, what do you do when it is black and white - create your own grey?
In an earlier post you referred to evangelical and liberal belief. The thing is, we can (and do) describe ourselves by whatever label we feel fits us. Fine and dandy but that doesn't necessarily mean we are that when someone else comes to describe us.
You can call yourself an evangelical but that doesn't mean you are one by anyone else's definition (based on a certain set of beliefs and doctrine). If you claim, as you do, to be more liberal than an evangelical - then when push comes to shove most evangelicals will see you as liberal simply because you don't share the beliefs (and in your particular instance) the certainty of whatever core beliefs they may consider necessary for evangelicalism.
These labels are all debased because post modernism suggest you can - and people do - make them mean what they want them to. I've come across people who deny the divinity of Christ yet refer to themselves as Evangelicals. This is all the reason why I no longer will accept any label of theological belief, other than Christian. Anything else is basically meaningless and in some cases is intentional smoke and mirrors.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
EE doesn't misunderstand, EE gets that if Jesus was mistaken about a man who lived around 1500 years before He did, we have no intellectually consistent basis for believing that Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, performed miracles of a far greater order. How can you think Moses is a myth, yet believe in the Resurrection?
Well, In that case anyone who doesn't believe in a literal Adam (and by extension a 6 day creation) is a liberal (otherwise you make a mockery of Paul AND Jesus).
Anyway your comparison is not an exact one - it's not as if Gamaliel is cherry picking between the miracles of Christ, it's rather a matter of deciding which genre the various parts of the Bible consist of.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I appreciate all of that, ExclamationMark.
I'm certainly not regarded as an evangelical by various 'High Church' types I know. So I s'pose I ought not to refer to myself in those terms.
I'm sort of post-evangelical (or pre-catholic as one wag once put it) ...
I'm coming from an evangelical background and paradigm so evangelicalism in the broadest sense is the platform I'm operating from - and I probably wouldn't disagree with EE on the Eytemological aspects ie. a concern for the Evangel, for the Gospel ...
As Christ IS the Gospel then to that extent I think I can still call myself an evangelical ... but I take your point.
As for what the Orthodox would say about the mythological aspects of the 3 Little Pigs ... well, that would very much depend on whether there was any Patristic commentary on the matter ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
More seriously, of course, from what I can gather, there's no definite 'requirement' within Orthodoxy as to whether one has to accept Moses or the OT Patriarchs or even various Saints and so on as genuine historical figures any more than there is such a 'requirement' within Anglicanism or any of the other Western churches.
I suspect there's a similar range of views on this one among the Baptists and that's fine too.
I'm not trying to 'represent' any particular position, movement or denomination on any of these things. My default position is historic Creedal Christianity as it is found (with minor variations and emphases) across all mainstream Trinitarian churches - whether Protestant, RC or Orthodox.
But you already knew that ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Laurelin - on the issue of evangelical scholarship accepting literary considerations.
Absolutely.
I am well aware of that.
I am also well aware that some of the evangelical posters on this thread aren't scholars.
The problem is, they don't realise that themselves.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Apparently I am now a "full on literalist"!!
I never knew that!
The mythical Gamaliel programme says so, so it must be true (whatever 'true' means).
I don't suppose that 'Gamaliel' is programmed to consider that perhaps my appearance of literalism on some issues is just a kind of 'parable', and not to be taken literally? But then again, I suppose one could argue that this last sentence was also 'mythic', so don't take it too literally either. And so on ad infinitum...
Back to sanity...
It's generally pretty obvious which bits of the Bible are symbolic and are parabolic, and which are not to be read in that way. If we really cannot see the difference, then, frankly, anything goes. To be quite honest about this, I suspect (based on previous performance) that a certain contributor emphasises myth, parable and metaphor etc, as a cunning device to avoid debate, hence: "Oh you are just being woodenly literal." End of argument. It's one huge spiritual and theological cop-out.
No one can reason with such a person. If we can't even establish the rules of debate, then debate becomes impossible. If we can't even agree on how language works and how texts are to be interpreted, then no discussion is possible. We are not playing the game; no, we are just standing on the sidelines wrangling about the rules. No, actually it's worse than that: we're wrangling about the literary form and style in which the rules should be codified.
It's pointless. But, hey, welcome to the surreal world of post-modernism. Or is it now post-post-modernism? I can't keep up with the continual repackaging and reheating of subjectivism. Whatever it is, it's killing the Church.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. I'm sort of post-evangelical (or pre-catholic as one wag once put it) ...
2. As for what the Orthodox would say about the mythological aspects of the 3 Little Pigs ... well, that would very much depend on whether there was any Patristic commentary on the matter ...
3. But you already knew that ...
1. A liberal then! You'll be saying you like Brian McClaren and Rob Bell next - and acquiring a set of geeky glasses
2. There isn't one? (Screams)
3. Thinking is so important Baldrick (E Blackadder)
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heh heh heh ...
I'm sure we could find some Orthodox comment on the 3 Little Pigs if we looked hard enough.
Let's see, ah yes, Heiromonk Fr Silouan Pliadoupolodollopodopodes ...
'Ze story of zee t'ree leetle peegs is an instructive parable designed to teej us zat zee West has departed from zee Patristic tradeetion ... why, ze reason ze weeck-ed volf - an emblem of ze Papacy - vass able to demolish ze house made of straw and ze house made of steecks with a seengle breath vass because ze deed not hev domes ... eet ees essential for zese beeldings to have domes. Not spires as een ze West, but domes ... not zese 'ow you say, chapels or meeting-houses either - but beeldings viz domes ...'
Sorry, I'm straying onto Mousethief territory and he does this - and much else besides - far better than I can.
Meanwhile, @EE ... who is playing the man and not the ball now?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The reality of course, EE - and I emphasise this - the reality - is that some contributors appear to know a lot more about myth, literary styles and how ancient histiographies work than you do.
Not that this is difficult.
There's not theological sleight of hand or cop-outs involved. It's about handling ancient texts as ancient texts and not as if they were pages out of yesterday's newspaper.
Heck, I'd imagine you'd read yesterday's newspaper with rather more sophistication than one might assume from your posts.
At least, I hope so.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
if Jesus was mistaken about a man who lived around 1500 years before He did, we have no intellectually consistent basis for believing that Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, performed miracles of a far greater order.
For me that smacks of Monophysitism. Jesus the finite man was restricted to having contemporary bog-standard human knowledge and experience unless things were specifically revealed by the Holy Spirit. He gave up his omniscience as well as his omnipotence. It's even possible he made a mistake when recalling scripture.
In Jesus the Divine and human natures collided. His miracles primarily came out of that divine nature. His knowledge of Moses came out of the mundane experience of humanity. He learnt about Moses the same way as we do, by reading and discussing the scriptures. He wasn't born with some special full-knowledge of the universe including how historically accurate the stories of Moses were.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Meanwhile, @EE ... who is playing the man and not the ball now?
I was actually making a serious point. On the basis of your way of thinking, how can anyone discuss anything with you, because anything you just happen to disagree with is dismissed as 'woodenly literal'? End of argument.
Are we playing the game, or just wrangling about the rules, or rather the literary form of the rules?
You have complained about the subjectivity of charismatics, but from your comments (and I can only go on what you say) the most flaky charismatics seem far more respectful of evidence and logical argument than you seem to be. They at least believe something, and believe that the Bible does actually say something about various topics. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stressed how ambiguous it all is, and it could be this or could be that, but we don't really know, and how could we?... etc... etc...
If you want to discuss something substantive on the basis of evidence and logic, then great. But we're getting nowhere with this nihilistic merry-go-round of total scepticism, which is far more destructive to the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ than the actions, attitudes and thinking of the most flakiest of flaky chandelier swinging charismaniacs! (And if you feel like reading a bit of CS Lewis - whom you like to refer to - then read his essay on "The Poison of Subjectivism" in his book "Christian Reflections").
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm making a serious point too, EE.
On the 'woodenly literal' tag ... well, there aren't that many people I attach that one too. Perhaps I've been wrong in doing so in your case, but from my perspective you sometimes sound as if you find some difficulty in holding 'truths in tension' ... it either has to be literally or objectively true, from what you appear to be arguing, or else it's a pack of lies.
I'm suggesting that it is nowhere near as binary.
That because something might be mythological it doesn't make it not true. It is true in a different way.
You appear to have some difficulty appreciating how that might be the case.
You also persist in dragging things in from other and previous discussions and arguments - such as the charismatic issue which isn't what we're debating here.
Sure, I find some charismatics to be overly subjective and flakey. But by 'some' I don't mean 'all'.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to have a very oppositional and either/or approach. At least that's how it comes across to me.
So, again, forgive me if I'm wrong, you are unable to countenance a situation whereby we accept that some incidents (or even personages) in the scriptures are mythological to some extent then that means that the whole thing must tumble down like a pack of cards.
I don't see how that necessarily follows.
I am genuinely non-plussed as to why you find that such a difficult concept to deal with.
Hence the times I have resorted to the 'woodenly literal' epithet. I will desist from using it if it causes offence.
But literalism is as literalism does.
I'm not trying to end any argument but it can be difficult to argue with a bloke who apparently believes that everything he says is entirely logical when it doesn't appear that way to other people.
Of course I can see that by suggesting that the story of Moses may contain mythological elements we could - I stress 'could' - end up denying the NT stories about Christ. That is a danger.
But it doesn't necessarily follow as night follows day.
You see the difference and the point I'm trying to make?
Frankly, I suspect the problem is that you believe your arguments to be irrefutably logical when in fact they are nothing of the kind.
Sometimes they are or sometimes they can be, but not always.
What you seem to do, as far as I can make out, is to make 2+2 = 5.
Therefore, because Gamaliel suggests that parts of the Bible are mythological it means that Gamaliel doesn't believe that the Bible has anything to teach us whatsoever.
If you actually read C S Lewis on 'myth' you would see the distinction I've been making between mythology in its highest form and what you consider to be 'a pack of lies.'
That's where the problem lies, it seems to me. You haven't really understood the concept of 'myth' and think of it as fantasy or some kind of attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes.
Of course parts of the Bible are ambiguous. That doesn't mean they aren't true.
Something can be both ambiguous and true at one nd the same time.
The bottom line for me in all of this is the Incarnation. If Jesus can be both fully God and fully man at one and the same time then surely something that is 'mythological' in the C S Lewis sense can be both mythological and true at one and the same time.
Both/and.
Not either/or.
I am happy to discuss something substantive on the basis of evidence and logic. I am waiting for you to supply something on those bases.
Read.my.lips ... and better still, do me the favour of reading what my posts say and not what you think they say.
I have asserted all the way through this thread that I believe in the historic Creeds, that I believe in the Gospel accounts, that I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
No ambiguity there.
But as soon as I suggest that some of the OT stories may contain mythology and that mythology and history are entwined in ancient writings - including the scriptures - you go ape.
I can only conclude that you find it difficult to hold two apparently contradictory concepts in tension at one and the same time.
I quite fancy reading some C S Lewis. I suggest you do the same.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think it would be useful to mention some of the myths of the OT which are deeply true.
I think the creation story is the best example.
It speaks of God, his character, his love, his creative and sustaining power. It's true in the deepest possible sense.
It didn't 'happen' but it's true.
I think Jonah, Job etc come under the same banner. With them there is bound to be some history too, but whether they happened in detail has been lost in the mists of time.
To answer the OP - no, it doesn't matter at all!
My question - why would it matter?
The gospels all have their writer's 'take' on what happened (particularly John) so I am sure that some of the details of what happened will have been lost in the recount too.
We need to take in the truth of the message imo, not the 'facts' which can never, ever be verified anyway.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I think our respective mileages will vary in terms of how much we take to literally and objectively true and how much falls into the 'mythological' category which - as C S Lewis argues, can convey the highest forms of truth even if it is are not 'historically accurate' in terms of what actually took place.
I suspect this thread has gone round in circles to some extent.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.
CS Lewis - from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (emphasis mine)
CS Lewis' understanding of 'myth' is nothing to do with denying the historicity of the Christian faith, but rather to appreciate the value of some of the stories within pagan religions, which cohere with elements of the Christian message. Lewis did not take the naive bipolar view of "either ... or" which is being promoted on this thread, but he had a far more mature and nuanced understanding. He most emphatically did not deny the historicity of the events that form the basis of the Christian faith. Therefore to appeal to Lewis to support a contrary position is, at best, ill-informed, and at worst, dishonest.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Fact is that "myth" conveys Truth but not in historical terms.
When it comes to "history" there is no such thing as objective reporting of facts.
We only ever have facts + interpretation. And the interpretation varies according to the reporter.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think Jonah,
I think Jonah especially. In a way, if it really happened historically, then for me, it loses some of its power.
By choosing the Ninevites to repent, the author was being deliberately provocative to certain Jewish attitudes, in exactly the same way that Jesus did by choosing a Samaritan to be the hero of his story.
Jonah, who should be the protagonist - the prophet chosen by God, spoken to by God, a member of God's chosen people, consistently disobeys and thinks he knows better than God.
The Ninevites, who were some of the most wicked and corrupt of the Gentiles, repent at the first tiny opportunity. That's the last thing that the Jewish audience would have expected (probably with good reason).
Jonah turns the whole concept of chosen and righteous on its head, and reveals God as one who cares for all. Even the way that the book ends with a question suggests that it was written as a "what if?" story to confront and challenge certain Jewish elitist attitudes that existed because they were the chosen people.
Because the inspired author had such an important message to bring (with Job it's similar), they wrote this challenging story. Like the parable of the good Samaritan, its power is that it's a narrative that challenges preconceptions and prejudice. For me, it reads like a fable (just like Job and many parts of Genesis, and unlike 'history' books like Kings). That stories like that can challenge us through the way they were crafted and written is more powerful than if they were just a list of things that happened.
With Jesus, I see the gospels as much more historical. The only part that seems to really stand out as myth is the temptation in the desert. I can quite believe that this was dramatised based on the disciples' interactions with Jesus and things he said. They represent the kinds of temptations Jesus faced. They didn't necessarily happen as three distinct events in a desert.
I disagree with the notion that the books in the bible are all part of the "same body of ancient writings". Genesis and Exodus are part of the same body of ancient writings. Luke and Mark are part of the same body of ancient writings. Genesis and Luke aren't. And so the idea that everything holds together as some tight-knit congruous entity, or else it all falls apart, isn't an understanding that I find persuasive. You approach each book on its own merits, rather than fitting them all into one archetype.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.
CS Lewis - from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (emphasis mine)
CS Lewis' understanding of 'myth' is nothing to do with denying the historicity of the Christian faith, but rather to appreciate the value of some of the stories within pagan religions, which cohere with elements of the Christian message. Lewis did not take the naive bipolar view of "either ... or" which is being promoted on this thread, but he had a far more mature and nuanced understanding. He most emphatically did not deny the historicity of the events that form the basis of the Christian faith. Therefore to appeal to Lewis to support a contrary position is, at best, ill-informed, and at worst, dishonest.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question - why would it matter?
My problem is, if God never actually does anything other than put his stamp on a range of edifying fictional stories, then why does God matter? The mythologising discourse seems to render God rather lazy. E.g. we're told that he could have given succour to a Moses figure, but he probably didn't. So what did God do, then? If he didn't help the people of Israel in any way that resembles the OT accounts, then how exactly did he help them?
The Bible makes great claims for God. Miraculous claims. We in the modern world, especially in the West, rarely see or experience anything that offers the kind of wow factor that the ancients supposedly experienced. There's a kind of trade-off going on here; we don't have these experiences but we trust in God because the Bible shows that for him, these experiences are possible. Questioning the actuality of these events inevitably disrupts that trade-off.
Ironically, a religion that retreats from God as a Miracle Maker of old requires more rather than less faith. More faith yet lower expectations of that faith. But maybe it was inevitable that Christianity was going to move in this direction.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Do you actually read my posts, EE?
'CS Lewis' understanding of 'myth' is nothing to do with denying the historicity of the Christian faith,'
Who is doing that?
I don't see anyone here denying the historicity of the Christian faith - even Boogie who is to the 'left' of me in theological terms.
Where do you get the idea that myself - or any other poster for that matter - is out to deny the historicity of the Christian faith?
Equally, I don't know what naive, bipolar "either ... or" view is being promoted here either. I'm certainly not doing that. My mantra of 'both/and' has been echoing throughout this thread.
The only either/or position I can see comes from your keyboard or your own imagination.
I submit, then, that your position is, at best, ill-informed, and at worst, dishonest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My 'does it matter?' question isn't so much about whether we can get by without a supernatural religion and simply exchange it for some nice, edifying thoughts ... far from it.
What I was wondering about was the extent to which we 'need' to have some of the OT material (or NT come to that) to be objectively and historically true.
If, for instance, a belief in a literal 6-day Creation isn't essential to our salvation - although some US-style fundamentalists would argue that it was - then is a belief in a 'literal' Moses essential - or 2, 3 or even 4 Isaiahs ... etc.
I'm quite happy to accept Moses as an historical figure. I'm simply asking whether we 'need' to have him as such to stop the whole edifice collapsing in a heap.
I suggest that we don't.
The Pentateuch stories were passed on and ultimately written down at some point many centuries after the events that they depict. They are not a record of contemporaneous events. They form the essential 'foundation-myth' of the people of Israel.
As such, they take great pains to point out the divine origins and the particularity of their calling and protection.
Whether this is objectively true in contemporary historical terms is a secondary issue. And EE still has to prove that C S Lewis understand them in that literal way. I'm not convinced he did.
My own take is that there is a mix of objective historical fact and of mythologising - but that in no way diminishes their potency, importance or application. At some point in their development the ancient Semites encountered YHWH - the One True and Living God. Through that encounter the rest of us have become aware of that same One True God. And the Christian revelation flows out from that.
This would be the same whether Moses was a real, live historical figure or some kind of literary cipher or a combination of the two.
He could be all these things at one and the same time.
Why not?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
quote:
I'm quite happy to accept Moses as an historical figure. I'm simply asking whether we 'need' to have him as such to stop the whole edifice collapsing in a heap.
You're looking for a theological answer, which well-informed people on the Ship will provide. My more practical response is that the Church as a whole would suffer if we all went down the mythologising road (indeed, you could say that's already been an issue), but it can withstand a certain number of intellectuals who do so, especially since they provide the public face of religion as a reasonable and rational choice in the modern age. They provide a counterweight to the fundamentalists, so they have a role to play.
From my perspective, if Moses becomes an entirely fictional figure then it's not clear what role God has to play in that aspect of Jewish history. I don't see myself as a creationist, but evolution is problematic to the extent that it seems to expunge any role for God. Maybe our intellectuals have engaged with these problems, but they do so well away from the Church, which means they provide very little guidance to ordinary Christians. This is where the 'edifice' would be very weak.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
My more practical response is that the Church as a whole would suffer if we all went down the mythologising road (indeed, you could say that's already been an issue)
I think this is a concern - and if one is to go down the road of what amounts to tearing down the foundations that someone else is basing their beliefs on, one then has to give them space and time to rebuild their beliefs on something else.
That said - I do think that this is already an issue in wider culture (not specifically with moses) where there are a fair number of people who are familiar with the problems associated with traditional explanations, and so simplistic answers just won't wash any longer. They are accepted within the church - but that is largely because of a constituency which seems to be rather dishonest about what critical scholarship they'll actually accept.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Very few would deny that Moses was an historical figure. As one scholar said "If Moses didn't exist it would have been necessary to invent him".
What is at question is to what extent the later generations interpreted (and retold) the Moses story in the light of the "faith" which underlay the purpose in their retelling.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
From my perspective, if Moses becomes an entirely fictional figure then it's not clear what role God has to play in that aspect of Jewish history.
Well, if Moses were fictional, then God would be a God not rooted and active in human history. His appeal to His people repeatedly referred to a definite act He performed, namely, delivering them from Egypt. This act is referred to throughout the whole of the Old Testament, and if this event did not happen, then God is relegated to nothing more than an experience of human consciousness - perhaps an inter-subjective corporate experience, but certainly not a God who actually objectively exists. If He does exist (which I certainly believe and, short of indulging in some form of hyper-Cartesian doubt, which I know), then why would the God of all truth lie? Why would He constantly refer to an imaginary event as if it really actually happened? There is no logic to the idea that God is merely conveying some spiritual or psychological 'truth' through the idea of the exodus, because the reference to it concerns what God actually DID.
Of course, the exodus can be viewed as a 'myth' in the CS Lewis sense of an actual historical event from which we can draw all sorts of spiritual truths, and see it as an allegory of our own personal deliverance, and so on. Fine. Both... and. Not: either... or.
So the historicity of Moses matters. It matters a very great deal.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's generally pretty obvious which bits of the Bible are symbolic and are parabolic, and which are not to be read in that way.
.. but there are some parts of the Bible that aren't as clear cut as that. Look at the various parts which appear at first to be some kind of primitive history - which later prove to parallel etiological stories from other cultures from the same era.
Do we assume that the list of Noah's son's descendants give us a picture of descent for the entire human race, or are they intended to populate the immediate background of Canaan in which the rest of Genesis takes place.
At that point the objective truth - or otherwise - of the list of generations is an interesting one - but beside the point in the context of that particular book.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If myth is wonderful then congregations need to be told why. We need to be inspired by this message. Otherwise nothing will ever change, and clergymen and theologians will always have to moan about literalism in the pews and lifelong church members with a Sunday School-level faith.
I think the "myth is wonderful" position is a cultural default that needs little explanation. It's a much stranger position to identify truth with historicity and to dismiss everything that does not conform to modern standards of historiography as mere fiction.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I actually quoted the '... it would be necessary to invent him' thing in the OP - right at the outset, Shamwari.
I think EE and myself have been at cross-purposes and talking past each other to a certain extent ... probably because we have some 'history' here aboard Ship.
Leo seems to think that we are both 'fundamentalists', at least, if I read his intervention correctly that is.
I'd certainly distance myself from such a charge ...
To back up a bit ... I'm certainly not arguing for a complete 'mythologising' approach. Far from it. Christianity is a grounded faith and is grounded in historical events in the ancient Middle East. You can still feel the sand between its toes ...
I'm not out to debunk the gritty primacy of the 'foundation-event' that lies behind the story of the Jewish people ... although I might, perhaps, suggest that we shouldn't always approach it in Cecil B De Mille terms.
I shiver everytime I sing those words at Christmas, 'In olden times didst give the Law/In cloud, in majesty and awe ...'
I certainly don't want to lose that.
Nor would I suggest that it's simply about the goose-bumps.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It didn't 'happen' but it's true.
I'm intrigued. How do you actually know? Where's the facts for your rejection?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
