Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Isiddiqui
History wasn't about putting down the facts exactly back then - it was about making a moral point.
|
I agree with this. My church wouldn't be a fan of me saying this, but I don't have a need for a literal 6-day creation, I think a lot of the OT is phenomenological - meaning that it was written in a way that would have made sense to people at the time. Explaining things in a way that reflects what we know even now about astrodynamics would have made no sense to them. I've learned over the years a lot about how history was used in ancient times and I think you are right in terms of that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Isiddiqui
That doesn't mean we don't have faith about Jesus's salvic action or physical resurrection.
|
Why doesn't it? I mean in terms of faith not having to be rational, the reason I can't go there is that the Bible itself doesn't go there. Paul says if Jesus was not raised from the dead Christians above all people are to be pitied ... and he's right. We're a bunch of dupes worse than the most anti-religion portrayals on this forum if so. Where do you draw the line between what's believable and what isn't? Jesus himself, the way he used Scripture, the way he handle the temptation before his ministry … all of that points directly away from this. Repeatedly we see statements 'Do you not know?' relating to some concept that people were expected to have already mastered. And why was there that expectation? Because it had already been revealed in Scripture. The Bereans were characterized as noble because they didn't take what Paul said at face value, but search the Scriptures (in an age where people didn't have their own private copies of the Bible in most cases) to see if what he said was true. This is a theme that is hammered over and over again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Romans 10:9-15(ESV)
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
|
There are certain things which have to be true and knowable or the whole thing falls apart. If you're going to have your car serviced at a mechanic, and they lie to you about what hours the shop is open, falsify the estimate, etc., how confident are you going to be in their work? It's a credibility thing - whether we are looking at a reliable account or whether we aren't. The claims the Bible makes about Jesus are far more extravagant than any repair shop ever thought of claiming, so if it's not a reliable source ... How do you fulfill the Great Commission? You can't make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe everything Jesus commanded if you don't have a reliable record of what those commands actually were. This isn't the finer points of eschatology or quibbling over ways of observing the sacraments or what church hierarchy should be. This is baseline 'what does it mean to be a Christian' stuff, as fundamental as it gets. It's why the Westminster Confession begins with a chapter about Scripture, because it's the foundation - without it everything Christians say they know about God can't actually be known. How do we know Jesus didn't want us to go on a jihad against all unbelievers and slaughter the lot of them, go live on a mountaintop monastery shut off from the world, or anything in between? Without a standard you can just make up whatever you want and nobody's opinion is better than anyone else's.
The other thing is it leads to a lot of 'well I believe X, so I'll accept the parts of the Bible that support it and not the parts that don't'. From my POV our debate has strongly illustrated this. Why should we put credence in the account of Pilate questioning Jesus (and thus being concerned about him being called a King) but not in what he said aftewards? Whey believe he said 'render unto Caesar' at all? Why believe Paul was actually imprisoned or that he actually said anything he said about government? Why believe Jesus even had a placard above his head saying 'King of the Jews'? Maybe the authors made that up too and it never happened. Meanwhile virtually ever writer in the NT focuses, and some of them repeatedly, on the need to combat false teaching. How on earth can you do that, contend for the faith delivered once for all to the saints, if you can't even know what true and false teaching is and who really knows how much of the record of Jesus' life even really happened? How can you follow Jesus' example, as we are repeatedly enjoined to do, if you have no confidence in what he even said and did?
Bottom line is you literally can't make a Biblical argument of
any kind without cutting out the ground on which you stand under this kind of approach. Intellectually, I give a lot more credence to those who say the whole thing is a bunch of hooey and only a moron would believe that nonsense. I disagree with them and think they're wrong but it's a very logically defensible position. The 'take this and leave that' approach - and I know it's often not intended but it can end no other way - always reminds me of the Francis Shaeffer line that modern man has his feet firmly planted in mid-air.