Thread: Did Moses exist and does it matter? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026053

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I was struck by Mudfrog's comment on the thread about the Simon Schama series on the history of Jewry that it had the same-old, same-old academics on insisting that Moses didn't actually exist.

His comment made me chuckle and I remembered our suspicion in a Baptist church back in the South Wales Valleys during an interregnum when a visiting preacher made the off-hand comment, 'If Moses hadn't have existed it would have been necessary to invent him ...'

We were horrified. It probably hadn't occurred to most of us that there was any doubt about the issue. I was aware of liberal theology but that was something that happened somewhere else.

30 years later, I find myself wondering what difference it actually makes whether Moses was an historical figure or a 'mythical' one in the C S Lewis sense ...

I mean, if it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and not sign up for Young Earth Creationism - and I certainly don't - then why should it be so outrageous to suggest that some of the OT characters may combine mythic and 'historical' aspects - or even be completely mythic.

How does that alter or undermine anything?

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.

Neither am I suggesting that it is completely outside the realms of possibility that Moses was an historic figure in the accepted contemporary sense.

I'm easy either way.

I don't have any problem accepting that the Patriarchs, for instance, were actual people but with 'mythic' elements in the stories about them - nor Job, or Jonah, Noah or anyone else in the OT for that matter.

But I find myself wondering why it would be necessary to INSIST on the absolute historicity of the Exodus account or an a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch ... with Joshua conveniently writing the coda at the end in order to sidestep the issue of how Moses could have written about his own death ...



I mean, what do we lose exactly? What unravels and falls apart other than an overly literal viewpoint in the first place?

In what way does it or doesn't it affect our salvation and the way we conduct ourselves in the workaday world?
 

---

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
Well, the non-existence of Moses does make exposition of the Transfiguration a little tricky...

x

AV
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
If we can handle the mythic value of Genesis, or the uncertainty about Abraham (let alone the rather childlike boasting about "our Methuselah is older than any of your old guys, so boo!Yeah!)then I'm sure the mythic value of Moses will carry us along.

There does seem to be a certain vagueness about who actually went across the Red Sea, given the lack of any Egyptian mention of the disaster of the killing of Pharaoh and his army, or of the loss of all the first-borns.

But, whatever floats your boat...oh, that was Noah, wasn't it?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed Ahleal V - unless one takes the story of the Transfiguration in more 'mythic' terms too, of course.

But that causes just as many problems as it resolves.

Ever wondered how the disciples knew that they were apparently seeing Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration? Was it obvious from the conversations?

These things are profound mysteries, of course, and I can live with that and with the ambiguity.

Just as I can live with the possibility that Moses was an actual bloke and with the possibility that it's all part of an elaborate foundation myth developed by the Hebrew people ...

Either view seems to 'fit' to me.

I s'pose what I'm angling at is what, if anything, do we actually lose if we regard it as the latter - ie. mythic - rather than in 'physical' historical terms?

Ultimately, it's all a question of faith and although I don't doubt that there is an historical background out of which these stories emerged, do we have to believe that they happened in the way they are recounted?

I'll hold up my hand - it's work in progress. I can live with a certain level of agnosticism on this one. But you're right, Ahleal V, the Transfiguration is an intriguing one in the light of this. And indeed in many ways besides ...
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I mean, what do we lose exactly? What unravels and falls apart other than an overly literal viewpoint in the first place?

In what way does it or doesn't it affect our salvation and the way we conduct ourselves in the workaday world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Of course, I'm aware of the danger that if we regard Moses as mythic then we could take the same kind of approach to Christ. But again, how does that necessarily follow? One being mythic - in the terms I'm thinking of here - doesn't necessarily mean that the other is.

---

quote:

---

But I would have problems reading scripture if everything gets made "mythic" . Otherwise we can pick & choose what we believe , or not

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trickydicky
Picking and choosing is utterly subjective. But scholarship isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
the existence of both are affirmed by the same body of ancient writings

---

quote:

---

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.

...

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.

...

Also it was I who brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Those who make the claim that the exodus from Egypt was a myth need to ask why the writers of the biblical accounts felt the need to refer to an event, which they knew to be a fantasy. Or perhaps one could argue that they themselves were deceived into thinking it was true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
No, it doesn't matter if the accounts were literally true. It's the story and what we learn from it that matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
Was Homer deluded, or a liar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]
(In other words, your question is irrelevant in the context of this discussion).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
No, it isn't. I'm asking you if you see the value of myth, given that every ancient culture seems to have indulged in it.

If myth is valuable, then the Pentateuch is valuable for that reason, which I shall call reason V.

As for the prophets referring to the exodus, if it's legitimate for the writer of the Pentateuch to refer to it for reason V, then as far as I can see it's also legitimate for the prophets to refer to it for reason V.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Of course God isn't a liar and of course God isn't lying about salvation. For reasons best known to himself, the Almighty has chosen to put these things forward in narrative form - he tells us a story. Christ - God incarnate - did the same in his parables. God tells stories. He knows what we are like - he formed us after all - and knows that stories and poetry, allegory and song are the ways to engage us.

Of course the story of the Exodus is referred to by the prophets and so on all the way down to Christ - how could it be otherwise?

The whole thing serves as an immense parable or picture of salvation and deliverance - the people are taken from slavery into freedom, they pass through trials and testing ... they are transferred from one condition or domain into another.

That's what makes the story so rich and so
resonant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Church authority and authenticity seem to be undermined when the churches admit that their teachings are based on myths.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I wish I had a better knowledge of the ancient classical world to go on but I am inclined think Gamaliel is the modernist here rather than Etymological Evangelical, because the idea that the ancients didn't have a strong distinction between things considered true in a factual sense and things considered true in a mythical sense seems to me to have been invented in the 19th and 20th century by people for whom it was inconvenient to have to believe the same things the ancients believed.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Come, come, EE, if anyone is bipolar around here is certainly isn't Gamaliel. I'll stop there before a Host intervenes.

Read what I've written.

I've not categorically stated that the Exodus didn't happen and that Moses didn't exist. I've simply said that I am open to the possibility of the story having mythic properties. I really don't see what is so contentious about that.

Most people accept that the Creation account contains mythic elements and isn't a daily six-day blow-by-blow account of what happened on any one particular 'day'. I thought we'd all moved beyond that.

Why should it be so extraordinary to take a similar approach to Exodus - with the caveat and proviso that there may well be historical events behind the stories themselves.

Other posters here have suggested as much.

How does that make a mockery of the entire witness of the OT?

I won't start a tangent on which scriptures were believed to constitute the canon when the NT was written - because there wasn't a clearly defined OT canon at that stage - as we can see by the references to non-canonical books (such as the Book of Enoch) in some of the NT epistles.

But sure, there was the 'Law, the Prophets and the Psalms' and these were considered authoritative.

But to be authoritative, why does something have to be literally true?

Even at the time of Christ not all the Rabbis took the OT stories entirely literally. Some took a more allegorical approach. There was no one, set, definitive approach to these issues then any more than there is now.

Even if all the events of Moses's life were parables or allegories and so on, how does it then follow that the same is true for the stories of Christ?

That would be like saying that because Charles Dickens wrote novels then the work of all 19th century writers were also in fictional form. So Ruskin's 'The Stones of Venice' or Carlyle's philosophical works or Newman's 'Apologia pro Vita Sua' or the poems of Browning or Hopkins should be read in the same way that we read Dickens.

How does that follow?

As it happesns, I believe in the Incarnation, passion and Resurrection. I've never said otherwise anywhere on this thread.

Who is saying that the Pentateuch is a 'pack of lies'? I'm certainly not.

Read.my.lips. If something is mythical it does not necessarily mean it is untrue. C S Lewis held that 'myth' often conveys deeper truths than objective history.

It's not a case of:

The Pentateuch may contain mythical elements therefore it is a pack of lies and completely unreliable.

How does that work?

It's more a case of:

The Pentateuch may contain mythical elements but it contains and conveys within that marvellous unveilings of the way of salvation ultimately realised in Christ.

It's not me who is being bipolar round here.

Where have I said it either has to be one or the other?

I keep chanting the both/and mantra until people nod off ... you obviously haven't been listening.

For the record, yes, I believe that there probably are historical elements in Exodus but the period is so remote and mysterious that we'll probably never unravel what those elements actually are.

Nevertheless, where there is prosaic history (and history is never prosaic, I would submit) and mythical elements combined the whole thing unfolds a marvellous plan of salvation that is ultimately outworked through the whole divine economy.

Let me turn this thing around, as it may help you ...

Furthermore, EE takes an extremely bipolar view of the exodus. He seems to give the impression that it has to be either one thing or the other: either boring prosaic history or exciting meaningful myth. What ever happened to both ... and?

The claim that an idea can only be rich and meaningful (or 'resonant') if it is objectively and historically true in the modernist sense rather than the product of someone's imagination, is weird, to put it mildly. Do you really find reality so grim, EE?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's precisely because you could do with more knowledge of the ancient classical world, Moonlitdoor - as indeed do I ... a little knowledge is a dangerous thing in all cases.

On the modernist charge - well, yes, I'll own up to that. We're all products of our environment. At least, though, I will admit to the influences that have shaped my thinking. I don't think of them as dropping down out of heaven without any contextual aspect whatsoever.

It's simply not true that people didn't have any concept of myth and so on until the 19th and 20th centuries when it became inconvenient to believe the same things as the ancients believed.

Even St Augustine of Hippo and some of the other early Fathers - of both East and West - didn't always take a straightforwardly literal approach.

It's difficult to prove one way or another, but it has been suggested by some historians that the Egyptians didn't always understand their views of the afterlife in literal terms but may have had a more nuanced or allegorical understanding of some of their burial rituals and so on.

That's the point I was making about Dante's Inferno. Dante clearly believed in Hell but I doubt he really thought of it as a place with farting demons.

It's also been suggested that not all of the Greeks and Romans took the stories about Zeus and Hermes and so on literally. I don't know that much about the Cynics and Stoics and all the other 'movements' and things that went on back then but it strikes me that there were a wide range of views on these things.

As for what Gamaliel may or may not believe that is 'inconvenient' - well, we all have ways of filtering out those things we don't want to do or to take sufficiently seriously - 'sell your possessions and give to the poor' is probably the paradigm example for most of us.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
...the idea that the ancients didn't have a strong distinction between things considered true in a factual sense and things considered true in a mythical sense seems to me to have been invented in the 19th and 20th century by people for whom it was inconvenient to have to believe the same things the ancients believed.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Gamaliel

It's simply not true that people didn't have any concept of myth and so on until the 19th and 20th centuries when it became inconvenient to believe the same things as the ancients believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Come, come, EE, if anyone is bipolar around here is certainly isn't Gamaliel. I'll stop there before a Host intervenes.

Read what I've written.

---

quote:

---

Of course God isn't a liar and of course God isn't lying about salvation. For reasons best known to himself, the Almighty has chosen to put these things forward in narrative form - he tells us a story. Christ - God incarnate - did the same in his parables. God tells stories. He knows what we are like - he formed us after all - and knows that stories and poetry, allegory and song are the ways to engage us.

Of course the story of the Exodus is referred to by the prophets and so on all the way down to Christ - how could it be otherwise?

The whole thing serves as an immense parable or picture of salvation and deliverance - the people are taken from slavery into freedom, they pass through trials and testing ... they are transferred from one condition or domain into another.

That's what makes the story so rich and so resonant.

---

quote:

---

So yes, you are right that the 'entirety of God's plan of salvation cannot be explained without reference to it' but does that mean that it requires the story to have the kind of historicity one might apply to the Holocaust, say, or to the Norman invasion or WW1 or whatever else?

---

Now the only way you can defend yourself against the charge of indulging in a false dichotomy in the context of this particular discussion, is by acknowledging that the answer to your (apparently rhetorical) question in this quotation is 'yes'.

OK, so if you affirm that the answer is 'yes' (with reference to the subject under discussion, namely the exodus from Egypt), then I will happily retract the "bipolar remark".

How about it?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, fair enough, Moonlitdoor, I think we were at cross-purposes to a certain extent.

But to accept that the ancients could and did distinguish history and myth doesn't tell us much, one way or another, about the apparent historicity or otherwise of the Exodus story.

From what I can gather, although everyone in the 1st century would have operated within the context of a 1st century cosmology, the extent to which they took the pantheon of gods and so on literally did vary. The same applied within Judaism. Some Rabbis were more literal in their approach than others. Some took a more allegorical or 'mythological' approach.

The same came to be the case in the early Church too, of course, with varying emphases across the different Patriarchates. Alexandria, for instance, tended to go for a more allegorical approach than Antioch ...

I think we've got a bit cross-threaded to some extent on this thread ... it's easily done.

I could blame EE for that ... but this wouldn't help.

I am tempted to direct at him the self same sentiments he has directed elsewhere:

'Don't impute to me views which are the very antithesis of what I believe, and what I have clearly expressed on this thread.'
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Au contraire, EE, you clearly haven't read what I've written. You've been highly selective. And indeed, as belligerent as ever.

I'm not going to rise to the bait nor pick the fight you are obviously trying to provoke.

Read what I've written. I am quite willing to accept that there are historical elements in Exodus. I am quite willing to accept that there are mythological elements in Exodus. I believe that both are true.

I believe that mythological elements can be true in a different way to historical elements but they are none the less true for all that.

I've said that consistently all along. By isolating some of my comments out of context you are simply not detracting from that but pursuing some agenda of your own and for reasons best known to yourself.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor
What I was suggesting is modernist is the idea that because they had both myths and history, they couldn't tell the difference between them.

---

You're absolutely right.

The Bible is chock full of the distinction between history, on the one hand and story / parable, on the other. Even as far back as Genesis, we can see the distinction. For example, the dreams that Joseph interpreted, when he was captive in Egypt, makes clear the distinction between fantasy visions and interpretations relating to reality. And then later in the gospels: the disciples asked Jesus why He spoke in parables (Matthew 13:10). Why bother asking this question if everything is just one big parable!

The views expressed by certain people on this thread about the peoples of the Ancient World are incredibly patronising, and typical of those who take a naturalistic view of the development of human life, in which we are apparently more evolved than those 'primitive' people. CS Lewis referred to it as "chronological snobbery" - the idea that the more recently an idea or practice was introduced, the more true and valid it therefore must be. All utter hogwash, of course!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You obviously haven't been reading what people on this thread have written but what you think they've written EE.

I've made it very clear all along that ancient peoples took a more sophisticated view of these things than might appear at first sight.

I've mentioned Dante and his farting demons, the ancient Egyptians and their burial rituals - how they may have necessarily understood these things in literal terms ... and much else besides.

It's not me who is being patronising around here.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The irony here, of course, is that C S Lewis saw much of the OT as myth and regarded myth as capable of conveying the highest form of truth - irrespective of its connection with verifiable historic facts (although, like me and the rest of the myth brigade here, he didn't regard the OT as being completely divorced from historic reality).


 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It's mythic by definition. What's the problem? From the word go here I totally agree Gamaliel. I've rotted that far. Even this year. It's just ALL so irrelevant whether any of it is true or not in any degree. The Flood certainly isn't true. Unless it is. And if it is, like a seven day creation, God has gone to inordinate lengths to deny it. To Adam and Eve it you have to go to ... absurd lengths. I know.

As for the myth of Moses, that Jesus had NO option but to utterly completely, unquestioningly accept, what of it? And if it's all true, what of it? And therefore obviously if God the Killer was right on with it? What of it?

Nowt ter do wi' us. We're Christians. Follewers of Jesus ... Ohhhhhhhh! So we have to be early first century Jews and ... transcend that?
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
You obviously haven't been reading what people on this thread have written but what you think they've written EE.

I've made it very clear all along that ancient peoples took a more sophisticated view of these things than might appear at first sight.

---

So that's presumably why you think that the Israelites couldn't cope with God referring to historical reality when speaking to them about the covenant and about their need to return to Him in repentance? Apparently these people were so stupid that they just could not relate to the real world but had to be spoken to in "rich and resonant" words of fantasy by a God who told them that "this is what I did for you" ("even though you know, I know and everyone knows that I didn't actually do it!"). Come off it, Gamaliel.

It's abundantly clear from the Bible that there are parables, visions and dreams, on the one hand, and that there are interpretations of the same, on the other. It's clear that the Bible is full of accounts of detailed historical events, as well as references to symbolism, poetry and the like. All this is clearly laid out in a way that any intelligent person can understand - with the possible exception of the Book of Revelation, where the distinction between symbolism and actual events does, admittedly, get a bit blurred (but that is hardly surprising given that the book itself makes clear that it contains a vision).

As for appealing to the creation account (or accounts), this is a DH subject, but I will say that not even the scientific method - properly applied - can give us absolute certainty about origins. There are hypotheses, which may be testable up to the point of saying "this could have happened", but it stands to reason that events of the distant past are beyond the scope of the method of direct observation and repeatable experimentation. All we can rely on is inference based on certain interpretations of empirical evidence with reference to certain assumptions about the nature of reality. So the best we can do is remain agnostic about the details of creation, rather than make throwaway remarks like "I thought we'd all moved beyond that" (I don't know who the 'all' are that you referred to in this comment, given that some people are indeed biblical literalists on this issue, as you must know. Or are they just personae non gratae?).

To use a controversial passage of the Bible to reason that other passages should be questioned, does not seem to me to be a fair-minded method of hermeneutics, because where will it end? On the basis of the six day creation account, can we not argue that the gospel accounts are all mythic and never actually happened? Why not? Why do you believe in Jesus? Why do you not call His existence into question? I am just using the same reasoning that you apply to Moses. Come on, be honest and consistent. If you are going to fly the flag for this wonderful mythology trip, then why hold back and not apply it to the very core of your faith? What are you so afraid of? If myth is so great and so effective in communicating truth, then wouldn't it be a good idea to apply it to every aspect of the Christian faith?

If you are such a champion of 'myth', then surely it would be in your spiritual interests to interpret the heart of the Christian faith according to this method! Just imagine what amazing truths will be revealed if we could just demolish the stultifying superstructure of historical reality!!!

Come on, Christians! Let's all go the whole hog...
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
The irony here, of course, is that C S Lewis saw much of the OT as myth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Church authority and authenticity seem to be undermined when the churches admit that their teachings are based on myths.

---

But Church authority can also be undermined when the Church insists on the literal truth of things that most people think are nonsense. Do you really think a church that states publicly that Adam and Eve existed, with Eve being formed out of Adam's rib, will be taken more seriously than one that admits that the first two chapters of Genesis contain two different creation myths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed Ahleal V - unless one takes the story of the Transfiguration in more 'mythic' terms too, of course.

But that causes just as many problems as it resolves.

Ever wondered how the disciples knew that they were apparently seeing Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration? Was it obvious from the conversations?

---

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?

---

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 ...

---

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 ( ) 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...



 

---

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
<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
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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 ...

---

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.

---

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!"

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 3 Little Pigs

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

There's a lot of wiggle-room between Westboro Baptist, say and Spong.

---

Well, er, quite.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...



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 ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@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.


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
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.


 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

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)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Meanwhile, @EE ... who is playing the man and not the ball now?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I think Jonah,

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:


My question - why would it matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
As usual, Gamaliel and EE, when you all talk the rhetoric is getting heated.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
It didn't 'happen' but it's true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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 ...'

---

That's rubbish that is. That's an Eastern patristic interpretation and liberal to boot. There were no domes on the piggy's houses and no screen for them to hide behind, only a chimney to climb (Book of Maps ch. 4 vv. 23)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Rumbled ...

On the 'facts' thing, EE. Boogie can no more marshall 'facts' against the historicity of Moses than you, I or anyone else can marshall 'facts' to support his historicity.

There isn't a column around with 'Moses slept here' inscribed on it. Neither is there going to be one with, 'Hey, you know that Moses chap? It's all a myth you know, he didn't actually exist ...'

Now, as Shamwari and others have said, the balance of probability lies in favour of there being a Moses figure around whom later stories developed.

Whether these stories are 'myth' or 'history' and whether it's even possible to differentiate between the two at such a remote period is the moot point.

Without wishing in the least to clash with you or 'talk past' you, I would like to hear what evidence you have for the historical existence of Moses?

And incidentally, I'm not saying that he wasn't an historical character - let's get that one straight.

Earlier you stated that you have never been convinced by the 'evidence' for mythic status.

I'd like to hear what that evidence is from your perspective and what 'evidence' you have to reject it.

My own view is that whatever position we adopt on this it's a faith position. That's not to say that one position is as good a stab at it as any other or that the whole thing is resolved by some kind of nebulous post-modern soup. That's not what I am suggesting at all.

I am more than happy to accept the 'faith once delivered to the saints' and to go with the scriptures as true even though some parts might not be objectively/historically true in the contemporary sense of the term.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

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?

---

I don't actually know. I believe it's true. My heart, mind and senses tell me so, but it's a matter of faith, not knowledge.
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
An interpolation

The Ships software seems to be awry

Items posted don't get a response. So they are posted again. Hence duplicate ( and triplacate) responses
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@EE, of course these different views, such as the New Ager one you've quoted and the Islamic view - or the Jewish view come to that - don't detract from the historicity of Christ.

If anything, as C S Lewis observed, they actually work towards establishing the historical veracity of the Christian story. As per the passage you quoted about pre-Christian and non-Christian stories of incarnations and avatars and so on - that these don't detract from the Christian story of the Incarnation in any way.

So we're on the same page there.

With the Exodus accounts, though, we are in different territory to some extent as there is apparently no external evidence for the death of the Pharoah and his army in the Red Sea and for the Plagues of Egypt and so on. Of course, that, in and of itself, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

All I'm saying is that there is very little external evidence (beyond the Pentateuch itself) for or against the historicity of Moses.

So that throws us onto the literary aspects and onto the faith aspects and our mileage may vary on those elements.

@Berrea ... my comment about 'moving on from that' was in relation to a literal six-day creation. As EE rightly pointed out at the time, not 'all of us' have moved on from that. I would imagine that you still understand the first chapters of Genesis in a literal sense.

EE accused me of being rather dismissive towards those who do take a literal approach to the creation account (or accounts, there are several) - which was probably fair enough as my tone was probably unnecessarily sniffy.

That said, I don't believe that Christian faith requires us to take the creation story in Genesis as objective, historical fact. To do so raises all manner of issues - not just in terms of evolution and the fossil record and so on but also how we deal with a literal talking snake and so on.

And then there's the evident poetic form - 'It was evening, it was morning and the ..th day' and so on.

Some - including leo here on these boards - even detect a liturgical pattern in that.

It's multifaceted and many-layered and to some extent is combatting various pagan creation-myths then prevalent. All that and more.

A bald, literal, dare I say 'wooden' -
- approach doesn't do it justice.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Items posted don't get a response. So they are posted again. Hence duplicate ( and triplacate) responses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A common New Age view of the cross is that it brings together opposites, e.g. time and now, the horizontal and the vertical dimensions....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

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?

---

I don't actually know. I believe it's true. My heart, mind and senses tell me so, but it's a matter of faith, not knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think, Plique-de-Jour, that you're taking what I'm saying and making rather more of it than I intend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't see why we can't have a mythological Moses (to some extent) and an historical Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

- Regard some of it as mythological and some of it as objectively true in historical terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This sounds like "believe this, not because it's true, but for some other reason."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This sounds like "believe this, not because it's true, but for some other reason."

---

Which post, and which bit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This sounds like "believe this, not because it's true, but for some other reason."

---

Which post, and which bit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This sounds like "believe this, not because it's true, but for some other reason."

---

Which post, and which bit?

---

Svit's post above. It's fairly obvious I thought - the argument is "but if it's not historical then this, this and this, and they're bad, therefore we should consider it historical" - argument from adverse consequences.

---

To me it seems more like "if it's all myths, what are we even talking about?"
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Plique-a-Jour - fair enough and guilty as charged. I had admitted that I was being patronising, though, to be fair and I'd have thought the rank of three smilies would have been sufficient to indicate that I was being tongue-in-cheek and also ironic - because I'm no more of a scholar than your good self.

But your points are well made.

I s'pose there was a certain ad hominem aspect too in the sense that I'm afraid that EE's rather binary approach - and I'm not the only one who notices this - does tend to wind me up the wrong way. I suspect I may have been inadvertently tarring you with the same brush.

That I was patronising, yes I accept that.

That I was being nasty and spiteful ... less so, because I was teasing and also being post-modern and ironic ... but then, that's got me into trouble a few times on these Boards as what can appear to me as mild teasing can appear offensive to those on the receiving end.

I apologise if I caused offence.

The other thing I'd say - and this isn't a defence necessarily - is that I'm often thinking on the hoof and my posts can be rambling - I accept that.

I can see how this can be irritating. 'He does accept the historicity of Moses ... oh now he doesn't ... ah, now he does ...' and so on.

I will try to adjust this style in future.

Meanwhile, yes, I accept your rebuff and agree with many of the points you've made. With your permission, I may use them myself elsewhere in a different context.

I'm a bit of a Magpie too, I'm afraid.


 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a bit like the perennial "Did King Arthur Exist" question.

Did a King of all what is now England, Wales and Cornwall exist, who drove the Saxons to the shore as Geoffrey of Monmouth claims at a battle at Badon Hill, held court at Camelot, was born of Uther Pendragon and Ygerna and had a half sister called Morgana and died in battle at Camlan against Mordred?

No.

Did a Romano-British warlord called something like Arturius (or with a nickname based on the Brythonic word for a bear) temporarily halt the Anglo-Saxon takeover and win some skirmishes and inspire some of his people so that they told stories about him for centuries? Quite probably.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This sounds like "believe this, not because it's true, but for some other reason."

---

Which post, and which bit?

---

Svit's post above. It's fairly obvious I thought - the argument is "but if it's not historical then this, this and this, and they're bad, therefore we should consider it historical" - argument from adverse consequences.

---

To me it seems more like "if it's all myths, what are we even talking about?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have already conceded that the Book of Revelation is not clear cut, but that is the exception rather than the rule. As for parallels with stories from other cultures, that argument is often deployed to cast doubt on the historicity of the Bible, but it is just as logical to say that these stories may describe a commonly known historical event, with the accounts becoming embellished when fed through the filter of different religious viewpoints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Karl Liberal Backslider ... just to complicate things, the idea of a mobile cavalry leader called something like Artorius who gave rise to stories about Arthur has recently been called into question.

History works through a cycle of propositions and revisions. The prevailing view these days, from what I can gather, is either that 'Arthur' was conflated with the more historical Ambrosius Aurelianus or with Riothamus, a character who operated on the continent and another, if I remember rightly, of these late/post-Roman usurper figures.

I suspect he's a composite of various different figures.

You'll notice how the fire and sword explanation for the early English settlements have now been modified by many historians to simple and gradual infiltration and not out and out ethnic cleansing/driving the Britons into the West and so on.

Probably both/and ... rather than either/or

As with most things.

---

Yeah I know. And then you've got Stephen Oppenheimer wanting to say there was no Saxon incursion at all and the English, speaking English, had been here all along

Far be it from me to suggest a Biblical parallel with that last point, but I'm going to anyway - Hebrew is a Canaanite language.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Let me clarify what I meant: if Jesus had no way of knowing the truth about Moses, we have no way of knowing the truth about Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Karl Liberal Backslider ... just to complicate things, the idea of a mobile cavalry leader called something like Artorius who gave rise to stories about Arthur has recently been called into question.

History works through a cycle of propositions and revisions. The prevailing view these days, from what I can gather, is either that 'Arthur' was conflated with the more historical Ambrosius Aurelianus or with Riothamus, a character who operated on the continent and another, if I remember rightly, of these late/post-Roman usurper figures.

I suspect he's a composite of various different figures.

You'll notice how the fire and sword explanation for the early English settlements have now been modified by many historians to simple and gradual infiltration and not out and out ethnic cleansing/driving the Britons into the West and so on.

Probably both/and ... rather than either/or

As with most things.

---

Yeah I know. And then you've got Stephen Oppenheimer wanting to say there was no Saxon incursion at all and the English, speaking English, had been here all along

Far be it from me to suggest a Biblical parallel with that last point, but I'm going to anyway - Hebrew is a Canaanite language.
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Let me clarify what I meant: if Jesus had no way of knowing the truth about Moses, we have no way of knowing the truth about Jesus.

---

I don't really see how that follows. Please can you elaborate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Let me clarify what I meant: if Jesus had no way of knowing the truth about Moses, we have no way of knowing the truth about Jesus.

---

I don't really see how that follows. Please can you elaborate?

---

He was nearer in time to Moses than we are to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Let me clarify what I meant: if Jesus had no way of knowing the truth about Moses, we have no way of knowing the truth about Jesus.

---

I don't really see how that follows. Please can you elaborate?

---

He was nearer in time to Moses than we are to him.

---

And we're nearer in time to Robin Hood than we are to Julius Caesar. It doesn't follow that we know more about Robin Hood with more certainty than we do Julius Caesar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Let me clarify what I meant: if Jesus had no way of knowing the truth about Moses, we have no way of knowing the truth about Jesus.

---

I don't really see how that follows. Please can you elaborate?

---

He was nearer in time to Moses than we are to him.

---

And we're nearer in time to Robin Hood than we are to Julius Caesar. It doesn't follow that we know more about Robin Hood with more certainty than we do Julius Caesar.

---

This doesn't work at all. I don't understand what point you think this makes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Let me clarify what I meant: if Jesus had no way of knowing the truth about Moses, we have no way of knowing the truth about Jesus.

---

I don't really see how that follows. Please can you elaborate?

---

He was nearer in time to Moses than we are to him.

---

And we're nearer in time to Robin Hood than we are to Julius Caesar. It doesn't follow that we know more about Robin Hood with more certainty than we do Julius Caesar.

---

This doesn't work at all. I don't understand what point you think this makes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Secondly, our clergy and theologians are normally reluctant to engage ordinary Christians openly with readings of the Bible as myth. I'm always suspicious of any theology that doesn't either reach out to or arise from the ordinary people of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm certainly not saying that flat literalism should be the be-all and end-all of biblical interpretation. I wouldn't want to reject my Methodist and literary background to such a vulgar degree! The multi-layered quality of the Bible is one of the reasons why the world is still interested in it 2000 years later. My own tentative journey so far has been into postcolonial and Black readings of the Bible, and I'd love to go further.

I think I'm suggesting two things. Firstly, that mythologising certain key Biblical stories raises the question of what we can actually expect of God. If God didn't guide Moses (or let's say a Moses-like figure) to lead his people out of bondage, then what did he do for the people of Israel, and what, by extension, can he actually do for us? Have we been fooled into thinking that God will do great things for us, when he probably won't? If so, where does this leave Christianity?

Some scholars say the Israelites actually did quite well in Egypt, that their suffering was exaggerated in the Bible in order to emphasise Jewish specialness. Nevertheless, we still have to try to get to the core of what God did that was so great that we should pay attention 1000s of years later. A story is fine, but if we're talking about real people with real suffering (then or now), then ISTM that our faith rests on a sense that God can and in fact does do great things. The Exodus story is key, because it affirms quite graphically that God gets involved on behalf of the oppressed, not just that he would if he could, or if he was in the mood.

Secondly, our clergy and theologians are normally reluctant to engage ordinary Christians openly with readings of the Bible as myth. I'm always suspicious of any theology that doesn't either reach out to or arise from the ordinary people of faith. As I say, if myth is wonderful then everyone should be encouraged to benefit from that news. Otherwise it's just for the ivory towers, and a few sophisticates on the ivory fringe. That's fine - we all have a different journey - but what has it got to do with the people who sit on the inner city pews next to me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If it's important that God did great things for the Jews in Egypt, what do you make of God's failure to do even the tiniest little thing to help the Jews in mid-Twentieth Century Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Svit - this is still argument from adverse consequences. It's still "if we take it as myth, then the following bad things result". Whether or not those bad things result is moot; whether they do or not tells us nothing about the actual historicity or otherwise of the OT accounts. That is a logical tail wagging its dog.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If it's important that God did great things for the Jews in Egypt, what do you make of God's failure to do even the tiniest little thing to help the Jews in mid-Twentieth Century Europe?

---

A very good question. How do you answer it? Why do you think the Bible gives us all these stories of God doing impressive things if he doesn't want to or can't do them? Is it a cruel trick? I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The liberal thought on this subject is surprisingly binary, to judge from this thread. We either read the Bible for encouragement, or we read for some glimmers of fact, as seen through a glass darkly. But never the twain shall meet!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Perhaps there are indeed evangelicals who believe that without a fully factual approach there's no encouragement to be had in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, to me, the more liberal emphasis so far has been on how the Bible provides encouragement regardless of any factual elements. The implication is that it's improper to want to have something of both. But I fully accept that others may have read the thread differently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jesus didn't claim that the Good Samaritan was a real person, did he?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But I think the main difference is that the Exodus story very much involves God in the action. We can be inspired to do great things by the Samaritan, but Exodus tells us something about God as well as people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

What I need to see is how the mythologising process might work on the ground for the common good, ideally with priest and people striving together to reach an understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Aaaah, but how do you know it did?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Some would say that the tale of the good Samaritan tells us something about God too. Origen seems to have been of that opinion, for example.

Still, if it didn't really happen does that mean that it has nothing to tell us about people or God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
T
What I need to see is how the mythologising process might work on the ground for the common good, ideally with priest and people striving together to reach an understanding.

---

quote:

---

Once we mythologise the whole text, then what God does becomes very unclear.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps God remains an administrator, someone who generates emails, directives, clarifies company policy, so to speak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which is rather the point I was trying to make, ExclamationMark.

Whatever view we take on this it boils down to a 'faith-position'. Whether yours, mine, Boogie's, anyone else's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As I said, I'm not aware of any scholarship that affirms Moses' non-existence.

---

I don't think anyone was saying that there was any particularly - Moses in this context was merely a talisman for a wider issue.

Still - if you don't care whether or not Moses existed as long as the stories affected you on a subjective level why do you even care about this thread ?

Oh .. and truth is not just a *western* pre-occupation.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
SvitlanaV2, whether the stories about Moses are objectively true or 'mythologised' to some extent they certainly arose from struggle and from hands-gettiing-dirty and so on. The whole thing came out of the 'desert experience', if you like - early Semitic tribes with grit and sand between their toes getting to grips with the concept that God is One and not some pantheon of mini-gods which demanded human sacrifice and so forth.

That remains true whether we see it as a progressive development or gradual unveiling in Hebrew thinking or a once-for-all-dropped-down-from-heaven-on-tablets-of-stone thing.

As for who is being binary now, don't you think that you might be heading in a binary direction by insisting that inner-city folks or people enduring hardship, oppression etc etc are the only ones who 'need' the concept of an interventionist God?

I think if I were some aristocrat on some swish estate somewhere and I discovered that my child had leukaemia I might resort to prayer or call upon God in someway - even if my prayers were not subsequently answered.

I can see what you're saying but taken to its logical conclusion it implies that only the poor and the dispossessed have any need of a concept of deity and everyone else can do without it.

Is that what you are saying?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

Still - if you don't care whether or not Moses existed as long as the stories affected you on a subjective level why do you even care about this thread ?

---

quote:

---

Oh .. and truth is not just a *western* pre-occupation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's subjectively meaningful to me that Moses (or a Moses figure) existed

---

quote:

---

Truth isn't necessarily understood the same way by everyone, nor arrived at by the same means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
If the Moses story belongs in the bible, which I think no one here is disputing, then we can still take it as part of a communication from God whether or not Moses was real. In other words, I'd say that either way you can safely take it that what God did for Moses he will do for us, in that sense SvitlanaV2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
It's subjectively meaningful to you that Moses *objectively* existed. After all, otherwise you could find the same solace in the story of Tobit.

---

quote:

---

Everyone has various ways in which they understand truth - and they switch between these depending on context. That a certain range of responses are culturally peculiar is a fairly misleading Orientalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yet the finished product in terms of ordained clergy and actual congregations isn't quite the same thing everywhere. There are other influences at play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
Christians who lead fairly comfortable lives don't actually need God to do very much, other than to affirm our choices, drop a bit of advice sometimes and help us maintain our way of life. From this perspective, a mythologised, less tangible display of God's presence isn't really a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's subjectively meaningful to me that Moses (or a Moses figure) existed, because his and his people's experiences with God help to validate my own search for experiences with God.

There's an old song with a chorus that goes: 'It is no secret what God can do/What he's done for others, he'll do for you.' But the mythologising discourse makes it very difficult to know what he's actually done for others. And if I can't have faith in what he's done for others, why should I have faith that he'll do anything in particular for me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, how often have you needed Red Sea-sized bodies of water parted? While I can appreciate this pragmatic "what's in it for me?" sort of theology, is the death of the firstborn of your oppressors really something you encounter on a frequent enough basis to attribute it to divine agency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we are all actually just "atheists in denial" and the Christian life is really nothing more than spiritual masturbation, then of course we can live with a Bible that makes truth claims that are actually not true. <snip>

I prefer to take the 'literal' approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So your 'small problem' is only a problem if you insist on the story of Moses, say, as necessarily having to be objectively and historically true in every respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If Moses did not exist, it does not follow that Jesus did not exist.

But if we believe that Moses did not exist, despite the Bible giving the opposite impression, then we could argue the same for Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Could you please explain why God would refer to an imaginary event as if it were true? And why would God command his people to repent of their evil (which includes "bearing false witness") by means of a lie?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry, I'm straying onto Mousethief territory and he does this - and much else besides - far better than I can.

---

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. If we really cannot see the difference, then, frankly, anything goes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, to me, the more liberal emphasis so far has been on how the Bible provides encouragement regardless of any factual elements. The implication is that it's improper to want to have something of both. But I fully accept that others may have read the thread differently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps there are indeed evangelicals who believe that without a fully factual approach there's no encouragement to be had in the Bible.

---

Well, I'm actually from the conservative evangelical world, and yes there are loads of these sorts of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb]Once we mythologise the whole text, then what God does becomes very unclear.

---

No one in this thread has claimed the whole text is mythological, not once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But...if God never actually led the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt what's to say that he will actually lead us from the bondage of sin and death? The former is clearly a figure of the latter but if the former is just some myth, that God never actualy did any of those things, then our belief in the resurrection is rather vain too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for who is being binary now, don't you think that you might be heading in a binary direction by insisting that inner-city folks or people enduring hardship, oppression etc etc are the only ones who 'need' the concept of an interventionist God?

I think if I were some aristocrat on some swish estate somewhere and I discovered that my child had leukaemia I might resort to prayer or call upon God in someway - even if my prayers were not subsequently answered.

I can see what you're saying but taken to its logical conclusion it implies that only the poor and the dispossessed have any need of a concept of deity and everyone else can do without it.

Is that what you are saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You are playing the all-or-nothing game here. If Moses is not a historical character (in the plain modern sense of the term), then EVERYTHING in the Bible must be pious fiction as well. Truly this is lazy thinking

---

quote:

---

Moses in this context was merely a talisman for a wider issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My main issue here is with the implication that God helped the people of Israel symbolically, while we expect him to help us practically, if not in life then in the transition to the afterlife.

---

I think this misrepresents the argument. It's not that he helped them symbolically. He helped them literally, and that help is symbolically represented in the person of Moses and the tales about him.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Eh?
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Oh, come on AO. Try it this way. It isn't so much that the "liberals" and the "conservatives" have different answers as that they are asking different questions. The "conservatives" (who, as mousethief pointed out, are actually thoroughgoing modernists) are asking "what do these revealed facts prove, deductively, about how we should believe and worship? (and why everyone else should do it the same way we do)." The "liberals" (I'm using the scare quotes because the "liberal" position is, AIUI, a very mainstream Jewish (and, indeed, Christian) approach to hermeneutics that actually predates the "conservative" one by several centuries) ask "How does this story illuminate God's relationship with his people and what does it mean for us today?" The former is a logical-legalistic mode of reasoning, the latter is more akin to literary criticism.

An analogy might be "What does Hamlet tell us about the law of royal succession in Denmark?" vs. "What does Hamlet reveal about emotional tensions within families?"
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Personally I'm not interested in the liberal v neo-conservative protestant point. My disdain for both is equal. I just don't get the mythologising bit, you know, God literally helped them (what, like lending them a fiver for petrol or something?) and a Moses myth was created around it. Whilst I certainly believe that the same parts of the scripture can be understood in more than way at the same time I'm alarmed at the readiness to disregard the literal approach, and for what? Lack of physical evidence? (Good luck in finding such evidence for the resurrection, by the way). The Fathers must be turning in their graves.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Svit - the death of the firstborn paints God in a rather better light if it's mythological rather than literal - is it really a good God who thinks that killing thousands of children is a good way to punish the leader of a country?

Though I'm aware that here I'm using argument from adverse consequences
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

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.

---

That you should have had to explicate this goperryrevs, astounds me.

A perfect reconciliation of faith and rationality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Personally I'm not interested in the liberal v neo-conservative protestant point. My disdain for both is equal. I just don't get the mythologising bit, you know, God literally helped them (what, like lending them a fiver for petrol or something?) and a Moses myth was created around it. Whilst I certainly believe that the same parts of the scripture can be understood in more than way at the same time I'm alarmed at the readiness to disregard the literal approach, and for what? Lack of physical evidence? (Good luck in finding such evidence for the resurrection, by the way). The Fathers must be turning in their graves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Plique-a-Jour - fair enough and guilty as charged. I had admitted that I was being patronising, though, to be fair and I'd have thought the rank of three smilies would have been sufficient to indicate that I was being tongue-in-cheek and also ironic - because I'm no more of a scholar than your good self.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose there was a certain ad hominem aspect too in the sense that I'm afraid that EE's rather binary approach - and I'm not the only one who notices this - does tend to wind me up the wrong way. I suspect I may have been inadvertently tarring you with the same brush.

That I was patronising, yes I accept that.

That I was being nasty and spiteful ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I apologise if I caused offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The other thing I'd say - and this isn't a defence necessarily - is that I'm often thinking on the hoof and my posts can be rambling - I accept that.

I can see how this can be irritating. 'He does accept the historicity of Moses ... oh now he doesn't ... ah, now he does ...' and so on.

I will try to adjust this style in future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, yes, I accept your rebuff and agree with many of the points you've made. With your permission, I may use them myself elsewhere in a different context.

I'm a bit of a Magpie too, I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Plique-à-jour

In the interest of being eponymous in your holy name together, it is you who are in the dark.

Unless you are radiating beyond the visible spectrum or my eyes are too dim to see.

There is no intellectual inconsistency whatsoever in Jesus' humanity rendering it impossible for Him to transcend the epistemology of His culture while still being the AGENT of the miraculous.

For, being 100% human He performed no miracles whatsoever. Ever.

His 100% divinity transcended the culture 'IT' had shaped, in consciousness only.

Before He was baptized at 30 the Holy Spirit performed NO miracles at His behest.

No intellectual inconsistency there.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But it's you who can't count.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What are you raving about now?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 - 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.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yep. Spot on.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: On what basis, then, do you believe in a literal resurrection?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Except when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Noah or Adam and Eve?

---

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: Except when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Noah or Adam and Eve?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: Ah! The old evidence from silence fallacy.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And what difference does it make what and HOW 'the fathers' with their pre-modern epistemology believed? As for Jesus with His?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
This is Orthodox talk, Martin. The Fathers matter to us.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I know mousethief, but I insist on being included and being inclusive My point stands. The epistemology of the Fathers and Jesus Himself includes unquestioning, unquestionable acceptance of the TaNaKh. So?

Some years ago, in my 'modern' 1950s ... 1850s, 14 year old's, fundamentalist phase, you agreed that the OT should be read as if it were so. They did with no intellectual caveat at all.

You can't be projecting our modernism back on their pre-modernism, surely?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, Ad Orientem, if I understand it correctly, the Orthodox believe that scripture and Tradition are essentially part of the same continuum.

In which case, would you accept as literally historically true (in the modern sense) that:

- St Bertram changed loaves into stone.

- Various Celtic Saints were apparently able to sail from Ireland to Brittany or Wales, Cornwall etc on millstones?

If your 'all or nothing' argument holds then surely we should accept the historical veracity of the stories about St Ursula and the 11,000 virgins and so on.

As Le Roc has said, even Adam's name ('Mankind' or 'Everyman' if you like) gives us a clue as to how to approach the story.

And how do you deal with talking snakes?

I've certainly come across 'fundamentalist' Orthodox like yourself but one of the things that I found most attractive when I first encountered the Orthodox was that they seemed to me to manage to be both conservative theologically (Virgin Birth, Resurrection, the Trinity, Deity of Christ etc) yet without being woodenly fundamentalist.

The more I encounter Orthodox converts online the more that initial impression wanes.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@EE - what is the point of this thread?

The same as any of the other threads on this forum - for discussion and debate, for thinking issues through.

You might not be finding it helpful, presumably because it doesn't reinforce your presuppositions, but I've found it quite helpful.

I can only speak for myself of course.

The OT writers weren't writing history in the way that we know it. You might not like that, but that's the truth of it.

That's how ancient texts work. In fact, that's how any text worked up until modern times ... and I'd suggest that no text is value-free.

Have you ever read Gerald of Wales's account of his journey around Wales in 1188 to recruit for the Third Crusade?

It's a fascinating description of medieval Wales. But that doesn't mean that there aren't tall stories in there - someone attacked in his house and overwhelmed by toads on account of some sin or other, a bloke made pregnant by unnatural acts with a bull ...



Gerald records these stories as if they were sober fact. That's how people thought in those days.

Does that mean that he is an unreliable witness about life in medieval Wales? No, of course not, he's one of the few written witnesses we have of that time and his accounts of his tours of Wales and Ireland are fascinating and extremely valuable historically.

The OT writers, the Fathers, the medieval scribes, they all thought differently to us. We can't project our own views and values back onto them.

I'm not Orthodox but I do have a growing interest in the Fathers. It strikes me, with respect, that you are taking just as wooden an approach to how you read them to how you read the scriptures.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Story A - Historical fact.

Story B - History and myth combined.

Story C - Completely mythical.

I don't think it's anywhere near as neat and binary as that.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: It would be very instructive if those who study these things in great depth could plainly tell us which bits of the Bible they think deserve to be treated as useful myths, and which we need to approach with faith that they bear some kind of relationship with facts. (I suppose there could be a third category for 'results pending'.)

---

Well, I guess it would be nice if we had a neat list with things we have to believe in and things we don't, things we have to do and things we don't. Preferably in a colour-coded Excel sheet, or better still, a Powerpoint presentation

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Christianity works like that.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

To me, mythologising God's involvement seems to be a matter of downgrading God's involvement. In our less 'mythological' era, the next step on from downgrading God's involvement in the biblical context is to marginalise him to almost (but perhaps not entirely) day-to-day irrelevance now.

---

quote:

---

How the rest of the Church should respond is the problem that few seem able to address.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: FWIW I'm as fascinated by dinosaurs as everyone else! It's just that I don't really understand where God comes in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Are you saying that we should keep things simple even if they are ultimately not true because of the utilitarian purpose a simpler story would have?

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: my point is simply that when I read the Bible one of the things I look for is God's involvement, and that this expectation remains whether or not the text has been mythologised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My interest is less in the details of these stories than in the questions surrounding God's involvement. To me, mythologising God's involvement seems to be a matter of downgrading God's involvement. In our less 'mythological' era, the next step on from downgrading God's involvement in the biblical context is to marginalise him to almost (but perhaps not entirely) day-to-day irrelevance now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

What do I think?

Part of my reason for joining this site in June was a disturbing experience I had in May. Reading accounts of what the Jews believed before they arrived at monotheism, I felt troubled. Was I treacherous? Was I irresponsible in reading things which, though others have no doubt read them without danger, were making my mind toy with the notion of the survivability of absence of faith? I felt fear too, reading the account of the human relationship with God turn into a story of different peoples' relationships with gods, local, reflecting aspects of what they would later come to know. ... But I haven't gone back to reading about Asherah, Ēl, Hadad, and Yahweh, except to check their names for this sentence. You could conclude from this that my faith is weak, call it that if you want, but I want to keep it.

---

quote:

---

I would go further than this. There are many people who regard Exodus as myth, but for most of them the cast list includes God. The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough, and I've addressed in a previous post how tenuous this position seems to me to be, buffeted as it is by both Christians and atheists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas
...evidence of encampments in the Sinai Desert...

---

quote:

---

...Egyptian Stelae...

---

quote:

---

Plique-à-jour: For the moment, you don't apply the standard to Christ because you would prefer not to. I hope, if you want to, you always feel like that, and find yourself able to make the leap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

...Egyptian Stelae...

---

And for what reason would their information be considered more reliable than that of the Bible? And why do you think that a stele ought to mention Moses, assuming that the biblical accounts are historically accurate?

---

quote:

---

Plique-à-jour: The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Why should astronomical observation and the findings of astrophysics be considered more reliable than the Bible's flat and plain statement that the earth is immovable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Why should we assume that the Biblical accounts are historically accurate, EE?

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: My own surmise - and it's no more than that - is that Exodus does echo the experiences of nomadic Semitic tribe who spent some time in Egypt and to whom the stories of the Patriarchs and of Moses and the Exodus became the essential 'foundation myth' - using myth in its broadest sense.

This doesn't mean that there aren't historical elements in the story but the key thing is the sense that God delivered them from bondage and took particular care of them until they got to where they were as a nation. And that 'mythos' provides tremendously profound types, shades of meaning and resonance that echo throughout the scriptures and provide the foundation blocks for NT teaching on sin, salvation, the Messiah and much else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we can assume that the exodus event really happened if we are already convinced that the God of the Bible is real and righteous. Given that the Bible continually puts the reference to the exodus in the mouth of God as a real event, to which God appeals in order to urge people to repent, then the trustworthiness of God as a person establishes the veracity of the event being referred to. The evidence therefore is both theological and philosophical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Of course, we can assume that the exodus event really happened if we are already convinced that the God of the Bible is real and righteous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
There are many different 'Gods' in the OT - some of whose characteristics are not in the least righteous.

Personally I would look to Jesus, His character and teaching. If the OT writer has a different take then I'll see it as their belief about God - not God's real character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we argue that we can disregard these stories, then that rather contradicts the claim that these 'myths' convey truth at a certain level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
While I sympathise, I would suggest that you are now on a toehold of your own. One of the reasons for this will be apologetics of sorts.

You can't unlearn that things you've read about - and sooner or later you are likely - in an evangelical context - to hear an appeal to faith based on a much more singular approach to the rise of monotheism than what you read about. At which point you are on a toehold of your own - believing against reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
TBH I wonder if you don't realise this at some level - because the ship itself is unlikely to give rise to easy answers, and you are far more likely to encounter challenges to the fine line you have decided to draw for yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Pligue-a-jour:

quote:

---

I would go further than this. There are many people who regard Exodus as myth, but for most of them the cast list includes God. The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough, and I've addressed in a previous post how tenuous this position seems to me to be, buffeted as it is by both Christians and atheists.

---

Presumably, then, you are comfortable with reading Esther as a historical novel because God is nowhere mentioned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
If there was a case for a historical Moses, the historical Mosesites would be citing Egyptian Stelae and evidence of encampments in the Sinai Desert and so forth. But instead we get all this meta stuff about how people will find it harder to believe in Christianity if the Exodus is relegated to an allegory. Well maybe, maybe not, but its hardly a way of establishing what is and is not historical fact, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Having faced a variant of this myself (and coming from a Christian background), I'd like to suggest that all truth is God's truth - and the only way forward that is likely to bring stability is to form a new understanding that integrates all aspects of yourself (including your new found knowledge). That doesn't mean that you end up in a situation where you believe everything is mythical and not supernatural (neither I nor I suspect Gamaliel is in that position). It will make somethings more complicated and hard - but I don't think faith was ever meant to be easy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I take from sermons what I can use, but I'd been a Christian for two years before I ever set foot in a church. I'm an AffCath high Anglican, so I'm not sure where I would hear the kind of appeal you're talking about, and what preachers think has never been the centre of my kind of faith.

---

Well, as you pull experience later on, let me do so now My particularly varied christian background has shown me that such things come and go in waves, you are as likely to either encounter rationalism of one sort or another in the circles you move in - at some point these things come back into vogue.

quote:

---

If you're looking for a faith which doesn't require belief in what would seem to be impossible, it's called atheism. Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, as you pull experience later on, let me do so now My particularly varied christian background has shown me that such things come and go in waves, you are as likely to either encounter rationalism of one sort or another in the circles you move in - at some point these things come back into vogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, let me say that I see where you are coming from there. Yes, there are a number of fairly militant atheists who come from evangelical backgrounds of one sort or another - and who usually explain their change in beliefs as a collapse of the supernatural into the rational. A number of these people also never seem to leave the cage phase of belief.

I don't incidentally believe that "All religious faith is the triumph of belief over reason." At least not in the sense you seem to use it. Ultimately, all faith will require belief and will have to move beyond the rational (however this doesn't mean that faith is completely without foundations and consists of believing five impossible things before breakfast).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
So I'm not particularly sympathetic to where the rest of the discussion has been headed re moses particularly. A lot of the people arguing along these lines (in the world more widely rather than this forum) aren't even doing so on particularly rational grounds - no historian would automatically disbelieve an ancient source. So there are plenty of things in the Bible that I would hold to as historical fact, but equally there are others (such as a six day creation) that I would take as mythological or christological based on the scientific evidence. It seems to me that *EVERYONE* except the most wooden of literalists does somethign similar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Equally, I'd say to you that you have opened Pandora's box - and I'd re-iterate that you can't magically forget what you may have read - the only way through is to critically examine it and re-intergrate that part of your personality into yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It would be very instructive if those who study these things in great depth could plainly tell us which bits of the Bible they think deserve to be treated as useful myths, and which we need to approach with faith that they bear some kind of relationship with facts. (I suppose there could be a third category for 'results pending'.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I don't think the purpose of the Bible is to be a compendium of history, or a guide to chemistry or physics or medicine, or even (in the case of the NT and the Church) a guide for how to "do church" (if the early Christians thought that, they wouldn't have written the Didache). I can understand the temptation to treat it in these ways, because it beats thinking. ("Come, let us not reason together, for you can't trust your reason," says the Lord.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Yes, I am. It doesn't bother me. Most of my friends are Leftist atheists. I already told you that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'. Faith begins with the experiential but it doesn't begin with the empirical. By definition, it can't do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
No I haven't, I've read some information. Information I will naturally forget, though I can't forget having known it - I had to check the names, remember? Get through what? There's nothing to get through. I'm staying out of the way of the fear of doubt, because although it was given to me to recognise that I wouldn't be capable of real doubt with the experiences I've had and remember, I don't want to spend hours in anxiety when I could spend them in praise and thanksgiving.

---

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.

---

I don't know. We had a shipmate who went straight from sanctimonious, seek-ye-theosis Orthodoxy to atheism after after reading one book. So beware, Ad Orientem, beware!
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps I should have been clearer, I think the chances are good that you'll encounter the same arguments/information that you are currently avoiding one way or another - either in their original or garbled form via one of your circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
TBH, I suspect a little amateur psychology on your part here. From what you said it sounds like many of your 'leftist athetist' friends had a christian background of some kind or another. And I imagine in common to a lot of people in that situation they would describe their 'conversion' to atheism in terms of a conversion to pure rationalism. So you believe that's the dangerous end of the human condition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
It is possible to possess a faith that isn't divorced from reason - millions of people manage it, without slipping into atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Equally, plenty of people find experience a very unstable place to stand on - especially when they faced with people with experiences which are more powerful than their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sure, but then on the other hand there was still part of you that led you to read it - and then lead you to read this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.

---

Actually I think you'll find that you did that first back here:

"That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'."

and here:

"Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing."

I would apologise for mischaracterising your friends, but it rather appears that you are getting your characterisation of those brought up within christianity from somewhere, so I'd ask where?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.

---

And those countries are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.

---

And those countries are?

---

Mousethief is obviously referring to Russia and to some of the East European countries that were majority Orthodox yet turned to Communism and atheism.

---

quote:

---

Only for a while, though.

---

quote:

---

Maybe it's biblical religion as a whole that contains the seeds of atheism. It's a controversial idea, but there's a hint of it in Mousethief's reference to C. S. Lewis and his sense that the Bible becomes more credible as it progressed from the OT to the NT. This is an admission that the divine becomes less obvious, more hidden over time.

---

quote:

---

And this process has apparently continued beyond biblical times up to the present day, particularly in the West, where for many people God (if they still 'believe' in him) has a become a vague 'something out there' with little apparent impact on their lives.

---

quote:

---

This reading of things potentially fits into mainstream theories of secularisation quite well. Whether it's sufficiently 'Christian' is another matter. I suppose it could fit into some type of millenarian, end-times theology. Maybe the mythologising process is something we have to go through before Jesus returns.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.

---

Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not:
No most of them became Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EE:
And those countries are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not (ignoring the fact that EE quoted mt's post not his):
Egypt. Syria. Turkey. Iraq. Afghanistan and beyond in to China: Turkestan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Oh good, SOMEbody got it.

---

Oops. My sarcasm radar was obviously having an off day yesterday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Reason and rationalism, though linked, aren't quite the same thing or at least not necessarily. Faith is above reason because it is from God. When faith is subjected to rationalism it is no longer from God but from man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Reason and rationalism, though linked, aren't quite the same thing or at least not necessarily. Faith is above reason because it is from God. When faith is subjected to rationalism it is no longer from God but from man.

---

OK, on the basis that reason and rationalism are not quite the same thing, then perhaps you would like to explain how Protestantism leads to the latter. You made this serious (and really quite offensive) claim, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to back it up. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It begins with subjecting faith to human reason. The Reformation and then the Enlightenment and then atheism.

---

So all Protestants are atheists then?

Don't bother to answer this question. That would involve something called 'reason', and using the mind God has given you,which would obviously cause you to deny His existence.

By the way... please give me an example of 'faith' not subjected to reason.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ye gods, look at this -- I'm on EE's side!
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
My enemy's enemy ...
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It begins with subjecting faith to human reason. The Reformation and then the Enlightenment and then atheism.

---

So all Protestants are atheists then?

Don't bother to answer this question. That would involve something called 'reason', and using the mind God has given you,which would obviously cause you to deny His existence.

By the way... please give me an example of 'faith' not subjected to reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I never claimed all protestants are or are doomed to become atheists, only that protestantism and rationalism, in an historical context (the Reformation and Enlightenment) have led to it. We see this also in the liturgical reform which blighted the twentieth century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I never claimed all protestants are or are doomed to become atheists, only that protestantism and rationalism, in an historical context (the Reformation and Enlightenment) have led to it. We see this also in the liturgical reform which blighted the twentieth century.

---

OK, so then perhaps you may be so good as to explain how the Reformation leads ineluctably to the Enlightenment and thence to atheism.

Which doctrines characteristic of the Reformation will cause someone to disbelieve in the existence of God? Perhaps you would like to list them? I personally cannot think of any, given that they all, in fact, presuppose the existence of God. But, hey, maybe you can plug a serious gap in my education?

I'm truly intrigued by your thesis, and I am very keen to see some evidence to support it. Somehow, unsubstantiated assertions don't really 'do' it for me.

---

quote:

---

The entirety of the impact of God on my life has been through the sacraments, and through other Christians and non-Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
As far as I understand it, the general point is that Protestantism, and of course the Enlightenment, were about individual freedom and inspiration, as opposed to church tradition and priestly authority. Personal freedom to be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit may for some people be freedom to move beyond and away from the Holy Spirit; it certainly leaves those who don't don't feel the Holy Spirit in their lives vulnerable to disillusionment, because church authority on its own can't replace experiential religion. Moreover, the freedom to attend the church of your choice, or to found your own church, becomes the freedom to attend no church at all, and the pluralism that arises from everyone doing and believing a different thing helps to foster confusion, and eventually a loss of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I'm not characterising you. I was responding to what has been said, on this thread, by people brought up within Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd love you to come to our Sunday Eucharist. Your head would explode.

---

Hmmm...may I give you a list of people to invite to your church?


[ 27. September 2013, 07:53: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I'm not characterising you. I was responding to what has been said, on this thread, by people brought up within Christianity.

---

Sure, but when you react to a few throw away comments rather than someone's entire argument across the thread, don't be surprised if people assume your own position is a lot more simplistic than you may wish it to be.

Son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Stop lying. Go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Also, ddressing other shipmates as "son" (which you did on the previous page) is patronizing and bound to provoke ire, so therefore inadvisable.

You and chris stiles are invited to develop what is becoming a personal dispute in Hell, but not here.

RuthW
Temp Purg Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.

I'm not interested in complaining about the call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.

---

Nothing of the sort - I quoted the particular segments of your argument I found wanting, and you chose how to respond.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0