homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Did Moses exist and does it matter? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Did Moses exist and does it matter?
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A point which is still abstrusely made old stick. And riddled with category error. Who's talking about the risen Jesus?

The mythical Jesus who cried and died had a typical 2000 year old Jewish epistemology AND a uniquely transcendent one.

That IS part of our work here in the postmodern.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
A point which is still abstrusely made old stick. And riddled with category error. Who's talking about the risen Jesus?

The mythical Jesus who cried and died had a typical 2000 year old Jewish epistemology AND a uniquely transcendent one.

That IS part of our work here in the postmodern.

Everybody (except, apparently, you) has been talking about the risen Jesus up until now. That's why it was meaningful to talk about the limits of Jesus's human knowledge in relation to this subject in the first place.

You've just reworded what you said before but with 'the mythical' attached. But if Jesus is a myth, it's a nonsensical statement. You don't need to explain with reference to the storyline why one mythic character is in the same 'universe' as another from the same tradition. The Green Arrow has heard of Batman. We don't need to know how one heard about the other if we know they're both published by DC Comics.

The use of 'myth' on this thread reflects an idea of the role of myths in people's lives that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What morally serious work can be done with reference to a myth that can't be done without it? Come to that, what moral seriousness is possible, in the intellectual presence of a myth, that wouldn't be stronger without it? Is this just a kind of pragmatism – without at least suspending your disbelief, you won't do all the good you think you ought to, so you'll continue to picture your moral decisions in that framework even as you acknowledge that only your choice puts them there? Whatever it is, it bears no resemblance to how people use the stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur, for example.

If you say that the substance of the myth, the reason it still matters, is the ethical stuff that doesn't require belief, then again, why call yourself a Christian?

It's hilarious that you'd call my point 'abstrusely made' when you've cultivated such a cryptic writing style. I can't see how I could have been plainer.

[ 17. September 2013, 18:10: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No . they . haven't.

The myth of Jesus is a matter of fact. Of definition. I happen to believe every word of it as gospel truth. His moral authority gets stronger and stronger for me.

And as for what morally serious work can be done with myths, parables, metaphors, similes, litotes, hyperbole, allegories, poems, stories ... yeah take them all out of the Bible and see what you have left.

And all of this isn't about that is it, oh transparent one?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No . they . haven't.

The myth of Jesus is a matter of fact. Of definition. I happen to believe every word of it as gospel truth. His moral authority gets stronger and stronger for me.

And as for what morally serious work can be done with myths, parables, metaphors, similes, litotes, hyperbole, allegories, poems, stories ... yeah take them all out of the Bible and see what you have left.

And all of this isn't about that is it, oh transparent one?

What are you raving about now?

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's the second time you've conceded.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once again, you attest to the intellectual incoherence of your position.

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But it's you who can't count.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

And as for what morally serious work can be done with myths, parables, metaphors, similes, litotes, hyperbole, allegories, poems, stories ... yeah take them all out of the Bible and see what you have left.

I think that's a really good point.

The Bible (especially the OT) is chock full of them - what is more, Jesus and his contemporaries were very used to them and spoke in them. It's us modern lot who struggle with the nature of myth.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But it's you who can't count.

Not making yourself understood isn't an achievement. Speak plainly. We were talking about the risen Jesus. You have switched horses because you missed the point. Do you want to say something coherent, or is it all going to be veiled, vaguely ominous shite from here on?


quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

And as for what morally serious work can be done with myths, parables, metaphors, similes, litotes, hyperbole, allegories, poems, stories ... yeah take them all out of the Bible and see what you have left.

I think that's a really good point.

The Bible (especially the OT) is chock full of them - what is more, Jesus and his contemporaries were very used to them and spoke in them. It's us modern lot who struggle with the nature of myth.

No, nobody is struggling with the nature of myth. Martin is struggling with the nature of the English language, but I'm assuming he knows what he means when he claims that Jesus is a myth, and so do I. I've asked him:
'What morally serious work can be done with reference to a myth that can't be done without it? Come to that, what moral seriousness is possible, in the intellectual presence of a myth, that wouldn't be stronger without it?'

By definition, you can't consciously believe in a myth. A people call a myth a myth when they no longer believe in it. It's not the same kind of storytelling as a parable, or a fable - to say that Jesus is of the same order of reality as the good Samaritan is a serious statement. I'm waiting to hear what faith in something known to be false means, and how this active belief in a mythic Christ is distinct from bad faith.

[ 18. September 2013, 12:15: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What are you raving about now?

This is a bit on the personal side for Purgatory. Toes on the other side of the line, please.

RuthW
Temp Purg Host

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Certainly, if Martin will explain what he meant by calling me 'oh transparent one', assuming he can remember.

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The answer is ironically eponymous.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well done Martin! Thank you. Now, would you like to try explaining the difference between what you've been talking about doing, and bad faith?

[ 18. September 2013, 23:29: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

And as for what morally serious work can be done with myths, parables, metaphors, similes, litotes, hyperbole, allegories, poems, stories ... yeah take them all out of the Bible and see what you have left.

I think that's a really good point.

The Bible (especially the OT) is chock full of them - what is more, Jesus and his contemporaries were very used to them and spoke in them. It's us modern lot who struggle with the nature of myth.

I've seen this asserted many a time but not once have I seen it demonstrated. It's just speculation at best or a device to justify ones own disbelief.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm surprised you're saying that from an Orthodox perspective, Ad Orientem. The Orthodox liturgies and prayers are full of figures of speech, poetry and so on ...

Just because something isn't 'literally' true (whatever that means) doeesn't mean that it isn't true. That's the whole point about myth, it often conveys truth at a different level.

Not that I'm saying that Christ is mythological or anything of that kind.

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not arguing against figures and allegories etc. Indeed, the Old Testament, for example, is full of them. I'm arguing against the idea that the events recorded in the sacred scriptures should be relegated to mere figures and allegories and the notion that this is how the ancients viewed them too. They most certainly believed that they were literal but that they were also figures and allegories. This is how the Fathers understood the scriptures snd how I would too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, it's not cut and dried that the Fathers understood all these things in literal terms any more than it is that the Rabbis did. I suspect there was some wiggle-room and leeway - although, on the whole I suspect you are right that ancient people's did understand these stories in a literal sense.

Although I'm not so sure they would have made the same distinctions between literal and allegorical/mythical as we do.

One of the things that intrigues (and sometimes infuriates) me about Orthodoxy is that it isn't always possible to tell whether people take things literally or not. I've heard Orthodox priests use hagiographies of the Saints in sermons, for instance, in a way that sounds as if they are presenting some of the more fabulous elements as sober historical fact. Although I know from conversations with priests and laity that not all Orthodox take these stories that way - indeed, I've come across Orthodox who are exceedingly surprised that these stories have been presented that way in sermons.

I don't know whether this is a 'convert' thing - or whether it's a featur that can be found across Orthodoxy as a whole.

Our nearest Orthodox priest has a large pebble-like stone in a basket alongside the iconostasis in his church. It was given him by the rector of a medieval Anglican church which has a collection of them. They were believed to have once been loaves that an Anglo-Saxon Saint turned into stone when tempted by the Devil to break a Fast.

He appears to take this story literally and lovingly looks after what another Orthodox priest I know chucklingly refers to as, 'his pet rock.'

So the mileage seems to vary within Orthodoxy as to whether stories should be taken literally or figuratively.

Our mileages vary.

I suspect it did with the Fathers too to a certain 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      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Just because something isn't 'literally' true (whatever that means) doeesn't mean that it isn't true. That's the whole point about myth, it often conveys truth at a different level.

As far as accounts of events are concerned, "literally true" means that those events actually physically occurred.

Was John F Kennedy literally the President of the USA?

Yes, meaning he actually really physically was.

If he was not literally the President but only mythically, then in what sense is it 'true' to refer to Kennedy as the US President?

At what level is this kind of "mythical truth" being conveyed? And at what point do we start referring to some claim as being "not true"?

I can imagine that the 'mythical' definition of 'truth' would be ideal for people like Harold Camping:

Objection: "The world did not end in 2011".

Camping: "It is certainly true at a certain level that the world did end in 2011. It ended mythically."

Likewise, all the flaky words and pictures shared in charismatic meetings can be justified with reference to the same device.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are not comparing like with like.

A more analogous situation would be the following:

Q: Did a hermit called Bertoline or Bertram, Bartram or Bartholomew live in 8th century Mercia?

A: We can't know for sure but he might well have done judging by the number of stories that still exist about him.

Q: How likely is it that he turned loaves of bread into stone in order to thwart an attempt by the Devil to cause him to break a fast?

A: Well, it would appear that this is a legendary or mythical aspect of the story of St Bertram (or Bertoline). It has echoes of the story of Christ being tempted in the wilderness to turn stones into bread, so the story acts as a kind of inversion of that.

So, you see there a story which may have a kernel of historical veracity - a bloke called something like Bertram who became a hermit and was noted for his piety - and mythological elements.

You can see the same thing in the stories of St David, St Columba, St Aidan ... all the rest of them.

Why should that be so surprising?

It's nothing like the example of JFK. There's footage of him being shot, for goodness sake.

If we were comparing like with like - ancient stories, accounts, folklore, myth etc etc then we might be getting somewhere.

Comparing accounts, footage and documentation about a 20th century US President and a Biblical figure like Moses or an hagiographical figure like, say St Columba, is to commit a category error.

--------------------
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      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was actually answering the question as to what the phrase "literally true" means. There seemed to be some doubt about it.

So no category error in the context of the purpose of my post.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps not, but I still think you are not comparing like with like.

Something can be true without being literally true.

A fable or a parable, for instance, but of course you're aware of that and this isn't the issue.

I think we'd all agree that in some instances there might be a mix of fact and fable, as it were - as in the case of the prototypes for 'King Arthur' perhaps. I can't see what the problem is with the idea of the Patriarchs and other Old Testament figures - Moses, David, Elijah and Elisha, Jonah, Job etc being real, live, flesh and blood historical human beings and the stories about them containing elements of 'cold', literal history as it were, and mythical elements.

Good King Wencelas was a real bloke. Did he actually go out to alleviate the lot of 'yonder peasant' when the snow lay round about, deep and crisp and even?

The point is the moral of the story, not whether it actually took place.

Admittedly, we are onto more serious and crucial territory when it comes to the Exodus and so on but it seems axiomatic to me that ancient writings contain both historical and mythic elements.

Was there a battle between the Picts and the Romans up in the Grampians somewhere? Most probably, yes. Almost certainly, I'd say. Did Calgacus, King of the Picts say the words that Tactitus attributes to him before the conflict?

That's far less certain.

--------------------
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      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think we'd all agree that in some instances there might be a mix of fact and fable, as it were - as in the case of the prototypes for 'King Arthur' perhaps. I can't see what the problem is with the idea of the Patriarchs and other Old Testament figures - Moses, David, Elijah and Elisha, Jonah, Job etc being real, live, flesh and blood historical human beings and the stories about them containing elements of 'cold', literal history as it were, and mythical elements.

I have no problem with this. I accept the patriarchs - and matriarchs [Cool] - of Israel as real people in the ultimate salvation history of God's dealings with Jew and Gentile. I also accept the miracles. But as to whether each and every single miracle in the OT is 'literally' true ... I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that's even the right question or the right approach. Which doesn't lessen the power of these stories for me. Neither does it weaken my conviction that actually God does sometimes act miraculously. (I don't presume that He does this every day, at least not the way as written in the Bible.)

A book I like in this regard is Thomas Cahill's 'The Gift of the Jews'. Cahill writes from a liberal Catholic perspective and although I am rather more theologically conservative than he is, it's a book I found helpful.

And when I preach, I never suggest that this is anything other than real stuff, real faith, a real God, God's actual dealings with human beings. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be preaching. Heck, I wouldn't be in church. Full stop. Otherwise why bother?

Also, I view my faith through the prism of the Resurrection ... which I do take literally. And if people ask (very reasonably) why I would take the Resurrection (and Second Coming) literally and not (necessarily) some of the other biblical miracles, well the way I see it, the Resurrection is the thing that changes everything. IMO.

--------------------
"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
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin
I also accept the miracles. But as to whether each and every single miracle in the OT is 'literally' true ... I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that's even the right question or the right approach. Which doesn't lessen the power of these stories for me.

I understand what you are saying, and from a purely empirical point of view, I can't obviously say whether every miracle recorded in Scripture was actually a miracle (meaning an event that involves the operation of laws which overrule the laws of nature). But I have no definite reason to doubt that they were, given that nothing is impossible for God. So, yes, we can hold the miracles provisionally, and certainly believe them on the basis of our faith in God, but I don't understand why any Christian would feel the need to assume that any were definitely not actual miracles.

Unless I have good reason to question the veracity of biblical accounts, then I just give the Bible the benefit of the doubt (on the basis that I am already confident that the general message of the Bible is true). Why not? I don't see why a problem has to be created for no apparent reason. This is what seems to be the case with the general thesis of this thread. What is the evidence that would lead one to question the historical accounts of the Bible?

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I understand what you are saying, and from a purely empirical point of view, I can't obviously say whether every miracle recorded in Scripture was actually a miracle (meaning an event that involves the operation of laws which overrule the laws of nature). But I have no definite reason to doubt that they were, given that nothing is impossible for God.

I think this misses the point. The reason to doubt some but not all of the miracles is not because of a doubt about the abilities of God to perform miracles, but about the abilities of humans to write objective history without coloring or embellishing it.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, that is if we were discussing an ordinary historical work. However, the sacred scriptures aren't merely an attempt by "humans to write objective history" because even though there is a human element - men put pen to paper, so to speak, etc, etc. - they did so under divine inspiration, that is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[ 19. September 2013, 16:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, of course, no-one here (apart perhaps from some of the very liberal types) is saying that the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the writers of scripture.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the Genesis account is 'factual' nor that the Exodus story happened in every detail as it is described.

We are not dealing with history in the modernist sense. I keep coming back to that point.

It's missing the point to treat scripture that way because that's not the way that scripture works.

I completely agree with Laurelin and I also agree with Mousethief, this has got nothing to do with doubting God's ability to part the Red Sea if he so wished or to perform miracles of healing and so on ... but it is to acknowledge how ancient writings work.

Heck, more than that, it's to acknowledge how ANY writing works ... ie. it's always from a particular perspective, always from a particular viewpoint, always has 'designs on us' to some extent or other.

How could it be otherwise?

To acknowledge as much isn't to undermine or cheapen scripture, to deny inspiration or to deny the supernatural or deny anything else. It's simply to acknowledge how these things 'work'.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yeah, that is if we were discussing an ordinary historical work. However, the sacred scriptures aren't merely an attempt by "humans to write objective history" because even though there is a human element - men put pen to paper, so to speak, etc, etc. - they did so under divine inspiration, that is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's just it. It wasn't an attempt to write history, as we today understand it, at all. Therefore demanding that everything the Pentateuch says about Moses must be historical in the modern sense or we're denying divine inspiration is a category error.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yep. Spot on.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yep. Spot on.

Every now and again I manage to pull it off. Spot-onnity, I mean.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What, he could but he didn't? It's just made up. That's essentially what is being said. I would argue this: If, considering Moses is a figure of Christ, God did not do those things then neither was Christ risen from the dead. No parting of the Red Sea, no Resurrection. As for us, no hope.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Ad Orientem: What, he could but he didn't? It's just made up. That's essentially what is being said. I would argue this: If, considering Moses is a figure of Christ, God did not do those things then neither was Christ risen from the dead. No parting of the Red Sea, no Resurrection. As for us, no hope.
A beautiful illustration of "if any part of it isn't true, then none of it is true". I personally find this quite damaging.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Frankly, I don't really know what this discussion is supposed to be about in practice. Like I said, I don't have any reason to doubt the historical accounts in Scripture (setting aside any controversy concerning the DH subject of origins), so I generally give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, allowing for a certain latitude in the use of language, the interpretation of which is based on context. Unless solid evidence is presented to convincingly disprove any account of the Bible, then I don't see any reason to indulge in this "might be... could be... may be... what if" sort of theorising. It doesn't really seem to achieve anything, as far as I can see.

In the absence of contrary evidence, I think it is right for Christians to operate on the basis of a working assumption that the historical accounts are essentially true (in the literal sense). For example, some months ago I brought up an issue with reference to Abraham and Isaac. There was an objection to my argument based on the claim that the whole Abraham story was a myth. But here we are constantly told that "it doesn't really matter" whether such accounts are literally true or mythic; we can still derive the same teaching from them. Well clearly on that thread it did matter, because the supposed mythic status of the account was appealed to, as a means of dismissing my argument! Clearly therefore it does matter!

Therefore I find this constant plea that "what's the big fuss?" and "it doesn't matter" and "what's the big deal?" highly misleading (to put it in the most civil way I can).

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In the absence of contrary evidence, I think it is right for Christians to operate on the basis of a working assumption that the historical accounts are essentially true (in the literal sense).

But we're not IN a state of absence of other evidence. We have plenty of evidence that the world contradicts various bits of Scripture. The world is not suspended immovably in space. It was not created in six days. It is not possible for the sun to stop in the sky. And so on; you and I both know I could fill reams with this.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What, he could but he didn't? It's just made up. That's essentially what is being said. I would argue this: If, considering Moses is a figure of Christ, God did not do those things then neither was Christ risen from the dead. No parting of the Red Sea, no Resurrection. As for us, no hope.

Just made up the way Jesus made up the parables: as stories to teach us about God and God's kingdom. There are lots of things that God COULD do but DOESN'T. He could have stopped the Shoah before 11 million people were killed. But he didn't. Why? We don't know. But the fact that there are things that God COULD do but DOESN'T doesn't prove anything about squat, and in particular doesn't prove anything about the Bible.

LeRoc has already responded to the all-or-nothingism. This is a form of fundamentalism that is quite foreign to Orthodoxy. It's a pity it keeps getting dragged into our Church as baggage from former fundies. We have enough internally-generated pollution to last until the Parousia without importing any.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On what basis, then, do you believe in a literal resurrection?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Ad Orientem: On what basis, then, do you believe in a literal resurrection?
Faith.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Except when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Noah or Adam and Eve?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What have those mythagos got to do with the fact of the Incarnation? Of the breaking of God on our rack?

I'm 'happy' to assume they are ALL true. And therefore all describe a virtiginously pragmatic God THE Killer.

What He has to do with Himself incarnate I no longer know nor care. That's the only example I've got to go on.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Except when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Noah or Adam and Eve?

None of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, or Eve died for my salvation. My salvation is not dependent upon anything in their stories, even their historic (in the modern sense) existence. So I don't understand why you make the comparison you do. If you think Moses died for your sins, you really don't understand Christianity.

The nature of the texts we have about Moses, let alone Adam and Eve, are quite different from the nature of the texts we have about the earthly life of Jesus. The gospels were written by people who had seen Jesus, or who knew people who had. The Pentateuch was not written by somebody who had seen Adam and Eve, and it's extremely unlikely it was written by Moses, even if he did exist (which, by the way, in case you haven't caught it, I don't doubt).

Let me turn this back on you: why does it matter so much? Whence do you get the idea that it has to all be true or none of it's true? Which of the Fathers said this? At which Ecumenical Council was this proclaimed?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Ad Orientem: Except when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Noah or Adam and Eve?
What mousethief said.

The real existence of these people isn't crucial to my faith. They are a different kind of stories; they were never meant as accurate historical descriptions in the modern sense of the word. The fact that the first man is called 'Mankind' is already a dead giveaway. These stories teach important lessons about our relationship with God, and that's why they're important.

In the case of Christ's Ressurrection, things are different though. This event is crucial to my faith, in ways I can't fully explain. That's why in this case, I make a leap of faith.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Except when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Noah or Adam and Eve?

None of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, or Eve died for my salvation. My salvation is not dependent upon anything in their stories, even their historic (in the modern sense) existence. So I don't understand why you make the comparison you do. If you think Moses died for your sins, you really don't understand Christianity.

The nature of the texts we have about Moses, let alone Adam and Eve, are quite different from the nature of the texts we have about the earthly life of Jesus. The gospels were written by people who had seen Jesus, or who knew people who had. The Pentateuch was not written by somebody who had seen Adam and Eve, and it's extremely unlikely it was written by Moses, even if he did exist (which, by the way, in case you haven't caught it, I don't doubt).

Let me turn this back on you: why does it matter so much? Whence do you get the idea that it has to all be true or none of it's true? Which of the Fathers said this? At which Ecumenical Council was this proclaimed?

Ah! The old evidence from silence fallacy.

My argument has been this, that if God never actually did any of those things then why should we believe that Christ actually rose from the dead? Indeed, we see the same line of thought in the scriptures. First in the Old Testament concerning the unfaithful Israelites, God constantly reminds them, did I not lead you out of Egypt? That is, actually, so why are you, the Israelutes, still unfaithful? It's the same in the New Testament, why Christ has a go at the Jews, you had all these signs, things God actually did for you, yet you still do not believe. There's never any sense that these things never actually happenned, and thst's why we can be sure too that Christ rose from the dead. We don't believe in a God of myth but in a God who, although he transcends creation, is immanent and who acts.

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Ad Orientem: Ah! The old evidence from silence fallacy.
I don't think you know what this fallacy means.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, fallacy. An argument from silence is fallacious.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Ad Orientem: Ah! The old evidence from silence fallacy.
I don't think you know what this fallacy means.
What LeRoc said.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Basically what you're saying, Ad Orientam, is that you have taken a principle from fundamentalist Protestantism, which you admit has never been a part of historic Orthodoxy, and made it so much a part of your personal belief system that without it your entire faith would collapse. May I respectfully suggest you let go of your pre-chrismation baggage, and embrace the Orthodox faith?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The argument you're making, it seems, that the Orthodox faith (and, indeed, the ancients in general) doesn't distinguish between historicity and myth when it comes to the Old Testament. This has not been demonstrated. There is no indication from the Fathers that they viewed the Old Testament as such. They understood it in both a literal and figurative sense (that is, prefiguring the New Testament).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The argument you're making, it seems, that the Orthodox faith (and, indeed, the ancients in general) doesn't distinguish between historicity and myth when it comes to the Old Testament. This has not been demonstrated.

A negative cannot be demonstrated. YOU are claiming that if the entire OT isn't historically accurate, then there is no reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I am asking you to prove that any of the Fathers believed this to be the case.

I have already given a list of things the OT says that even YOU don't believe are literal. By your own logic, you have absolutely no reason to believe in the resurrection.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What list? Anyway, I'm not arguing for a wooden literalism, only against a hermeneutic which reduces the Old Testament to largely myth as opposed to literal and figurative at the same time.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What list? Anyway, I'm not arguing for a wooden literalism, only against a hermeneutic which reduces the Old Testament to largely myth as opposed to literal and figurative at the same time.

You'll have to explain what's the difference between "wooden literalism" and "literal and figurative at the same time." If you insist that everything written about Moses must have happened, how is that NOT wooden literalism?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And what difference does it make what and HOW 'the fathers' with their pre-modern epistemology believed? As for Jesus with His?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is Orthodox talk, Martin. The Fathers matter to us.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools