Apparent Chronological Problems

[Jonaitis]

If one looks into Scripture with the intent of finding chronological problems s/he will undoubtedly find them. So either the dates are "wrong" or the chronology is misunderstood. As I have written earlier, the Bible is not modern Western journalism. The "books" of the Bible are written specifically so that spiritual message comes through "loud and clear".

For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus going to the temple at Jerusalem and clearing the temple grounds at the end of His ministry, but John has Him going there much earlier. John put Jesus' going to the temple at the beginning to emphasize a specific spiritual message. The others put the event at the end to emphasize a specific spiritual message. So, which account is "correct"? All of them!

All of these things I discovered on my own by accident. I have read the Scriptures from cover to cover more than I can count, and began to notice things I never noticed before. In the book of Daniel, a king named Darius the Mede, reigned after the last ruler of Babylon, but if you crack open your history books, Cyrus never had such an individual by the name reign before him. He had a Darius later after, but not before. Who is Darius the Mede? Who is Daniel?

 

[JAL]

It was natural for me to find these things. I don't need a skeptic to point them out. And I have no reason to boast, but I read the biblos from cover to cover possibly over fifty times in the course of my Christian life, and I am beginning to see things I can't unsee in the text. I am noticing things I can't shake. I can't read a passage without reminding myself of the apparent inconsistency. As a consequence, I am naturally beginning to see apparent problems in theological doctrines. I see a modal collapse or possibly a passive potentiality in the doctrine of divine simplicity, which defines almost all other attributes in God. Am I a doubter? Of course not, but these things have concerned me. I have begun this path to discover the plain and clear truth of things, or else my walk will remain unfamiliar as when I first began in the faith.

Kudos for questioning DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity). I rejected that nonsense 30 years ago.

 

[Derf]

Kudos for questioning DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity). I rejected that nonsense 30 years ago.

Just curious, why is DDS a problem?

 

[JAL]

Just curious, why is DDS a problem?

See this post for a summary list of about 12 reasons.

Approximately 2 or 3 additional reasons emerge if you read my posts on this thread (but that's a lot of reading)
CS Lewis on God’s Relation to Time | Christian Forums

Out of those 2 or 3, right now I can remember two:
- Atemporality is a humanly incoherent claim.
- DDS defines God as a concept/property - this is Plato's bizarre forms-theory that a concept/property can exist in its own right.

 

[Derf]

If one looks into Scripture with the intent of finding chronological problems s/he will undoubtedly find them. So either the dates are "wrong" or the chronology is misunderstood. As I have written earlier, the Bible is not modern Western journalism. The "books" of the Bible are written specifically so that spiritual message comes through "loud and clear".

For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus going to the temple at Jerusalem and clearing the temple grounds at the end of His ministry, but John has Him going there much earlier. John put Jesus' going to the temple at the beginning to emphasize a specific spiritual message. The others put the event at the end to emphasize a specific spiritual message. So, which account is "correct"? All of them!

I always thought Jesus cleared the temple twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of His ministry. The accounts have some details that distinguish them from each other, like the cord he made (in John, but not the others).

 

[Christian Gedge]

Yes, St. John synchronises perfectly with the synoptic gospel’s when we realise the temple was cleansed at the beginning of Jesus ministry as well as the end.

https://www.5loaves2fishes.net/cleansing-of-the-temple

 

[Derf]

See this post for a summary list of about 12 reasons.

Approximately 2 or 3 additional reasons emerge if you read my posts on this thread (but that's a lot of reading)
CS Lewis on God’s Relation to Time | Christian Forums

Out of those 2 or 3, right now I can remember two:
- Atemporality is a humanly incoherent claim.
- DDS defines God as a concept/property - this is Plato's bizarre forms-theory that a concept/property can exist in its own right.

I don't see atemporality as necessary for simplicity. Are you sure you aren't assuming too much complexity in your rejected simplicity model?

 

[JAL]

I don't see atemporality as necessary for simplicity. Are you sure you aren't assuming too much complexity in your rejected simplicity model?

These things tend to go hand in hand. For example God defined as a concept/property is based on Plato's forms - atemporal forms. Maybe you could find some DDS theologians who deny atemporality (I haven't checked) but I'd be surprised if you could find many of them.

 

[Jonaitis]

Kudos for questioning DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity). I rejected that nonsense 30 years ago.

- Atemporality is a humanly incoherent claim.
- DDS defines God as a concept/property - this is Plato's bizarre forms-theory that a concept/property can exist in its own right.

Well, you see, R.T. Mullins really opened my eyes to the incoherency of DDS with the rest of classical theism, and that ended up toward my denial of many areas of classical theism. So instead of convincing me that DDS was the problem, he actually showed me that much of the orthodox understanding of Theology Proper is actually flawed. Simplicity is such an important doctrine for the aseity and incomprehensibility of God that to deny it is to deny God Himself of what He is.

I have been studying closely to Advaita Vedanta for quite some time, and the way they describe "God" (Brahman) is the most accurate I have found that consistently agrees with DDS. Matter of fact, they are better experts in Theology Proper than orthodox Christianity. So, it has now been my mission to restore the proper place for God, even at the odds of what may seem to be heretical. This is, for one reason, I created a thread about the meaninglessness of God. I want to encourage people to look at biblical theology from a more accurate perspective, which of course, is bias no matter what way you look at it, but nonetheless is logical and consistent with the principal doctrine of who God is, or rather, what He is not.

Neoplatonism has also shown me another way to understand it, and I see why it had such a major impact on the earliest formulations of the Trinity.

God is the ultimate reality (beyond category, like being and non-being), and the Son is the reflection or revelation of that ultimate reality (existence/being), and the Spirit is the operating work in the revelation of the ultimate reality (activity of existence/being). Yet, nonetheless, all three are the same truth ontologically.

Many of the descriptions of God are anthropomorphisms and allegories intended to relate the Son, who represents God, to human analogy. We cannot directly speak of God, and if we did, we would speak more accurately about the Son, for it is the Son that relates to us what the Father is like (Hebrews 1:3; John 12:45; Colossians 1:15). For example, it would be proper to say that God the Son is the eternal one, but God the Father is the timeless one; that God the Son is the infinite, but God the Father is absolute; that God the Son is good, but God the Father is holy ("set apart"), and so forth. In other words, any description of God, even the positive, are actually revelation Himself through the Son. We cannot directly know God as He is, but the Son, the perfect reflection, image, radiance, word, begotten, etc, is the only one who can point us to Him through an apophatic approach. The Son is the Greatness of the Father, the Glory of God the Father, the Showing of God the Father, but God the Father Himself is without description. You may think that is impersonal, and in some way it is, and that's not wrong. The world we live in is indifferent to our feelings and thoughts and desires, and God is above it, and so we cannot know His thoughts or His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

[Derf]

These things tend to go hand in hand. For example God defined as a concept/property is based on Plato's forms - atemporal forms. Maybe you could find some DDS theologians who deny atemporality (I haven't checked) but I'd be surprised if you could find many of them.

Maybe so, but that reasoning will make you throw out most of scripture. I'd prefer to deal with a stated objection to DDS, if you have one, rather than throwing it out with various other bath water.

I'm not necessarily a proponent for DDS, but I don't have particular issues with it by itself.

 

[Derf]

...and God is above it, and so we cannot know His thoughts or His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

We can if He reveals His thoughts and ways to us, which He has, in large measure.

 

[Jonaitis]

We can if He reveals His thoughts and ways to us, which He has, in large measure.

I believe that it is the "function" of the Son to reveal the thoughts and ways of the Father, for He is the expression of the Father ("and the Word was God...all things were made through Him" - John 1:1, 3).

 

[Derf]

I believe that it is the "function" of the Son to reveal the thoughts and ways of the Father, for He is the expression of the Father.

What, do you believe, is the function of scripture? Doesn't it reveal the thoughts and ways of the Father? Doesn't scripture also reveal the thoughts and ways of the Son? Can you tell what the thoughts and ways of the Son are without the scripture that also reveals the thoughts and ways of the Father?

 

[Jonaitis]

What, do you believe, is the function of scripture? Doesn't it reveal the thoughts and ways of the Father? Doesn't scripture also reveal the thoughts and ways of the Son? Can you tell what the thoughts and ways of the Son are without the scripture that also reveals the thoughts and ways of the Father?

Scripture is a form of revelation, that is, a showing forth. We don't worship the Sacred Writ as the Father, because it is not the Father. Scripture is a showing forth, through the Son, by the operation of the Spirit, through the hands of men, concerning the Father. It cannot reveal the Father as He is, else we reduce God to human language and comprehension. Swami Vivekananda once rightly said, "Was there ever a more horrible blasphemy than the statement that all the knowledge of God is confined to this or that book? How dare men call God infinite, and yet try to compress Him within the covers of a little book!"

Scripture reveals the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, by way of human relation. God Himself is uncategorical and beyond thought. We can only know what He is like. To speak of His ways is, too, an analogy, for God does not truly have ways like a man, nor does He have thoughts like a man. If He be immutable and perfect, such things would stain His reality. To speak of His ways and thoughts are analogies of what He is like in relation to our existence.

 

[JAL]

Maybe so, but that reasoning will make you throw out most of scripture. I'd prefer to deal with a stated objection to DDS, if you have one, rather than throwing it out with various other bath water.

I'm not necessarily a proponent for DDS, but I don't have particular issues with it by itself.

I'm not aware of any Scripture that I've thrown out. William Lane Craig admitted that DDS originated in philosophy, not from Scripture, even though he himself accepts a lot of it.

 

[JAL]

Well, you see, R.T. Mullins really opened my eyes to the incoherency of DDS with the rest of classical theism, and that ended up toward my denial of many areas of classical theism. So instead of convincing me that DDS was the problem, he actually showed me that much of the orthodox understanding of Theology Proper is actually flawed. Simplicity is such an important doctrine for the aseity and incomprehensibility of God that to deny it is to deny God Himself of what He is.

I have been studying closely to Advaita Vedanta for quite some time, and the way they describe "God" (Brahman) is the most accurate I have found that consistently agrees with DDS. Matter of fact, they are better experts in Theology Proper than orthodox Christianity. So, it has now been my mission to restore the proper place for God, even at the odds of what may seem to be heretical. This is, for one reason, I created a thread about the meaninglessness of God. I want to encourage people to look at biblical theology from a more accurate perspective, which of course, is bias no matter what way you look at it, but nonetheless is logical and consistent with the principal doctrine of who God is, or rather, what He is not.

Neoplatonism has also shown me another way to understand it, and I see why it had such a major impact on the earliest formulations of the Trinity.

God is the ultimate reality (beyond category, like being and non-being), and the Son is the reflection or revelation of that ultimate reality (existence/being), and the Spirit is the operating work in the revelation of the ultimate reality (activity of existence/being). Yet, nonetheless, all three are the same truth ontologically.

Many of the descriptions of God are anthropomorphisms and allegories intended to relate the Son, who represents God, to human analogy. We cannot directly speak of God, and if we did, we would speak more accurately about the Son, for it is the Son that relates to us what the Father is like (Hebrews 1:3; John 12:45; Colossians 1:15). For example, it would be proper to say that God the Son is the eternal one, but God the Father is the timeless one; that God the Son is the infinite, but God the Father is absolute; that God the Son is good, but God the Father is holy ("set apart"), and so forth. In other words, any description of God, even the positive, are actually revelation Himself through the Son. We cannot directly know God as He is, but the Son, the perfect reflection, image, radiance, word, begotten, etc, is the only one who can point us to Him through an apophatic approach. The Son is the Greatness of the Father, the Glory of God the Father, the Showing of God the Father, but God the Father Himself is without description. You may think that is impersonal, and in some way it is, and that's not wrong. The world we live in is indifferent to our feelings and thoughts and desires, and God is above it, and so we cannot know His thoughts or His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Thanks for the detailed explanation. You wouldn't like my views. Apophatic theology? I've totally rejected any notion of incomprehensible doctrine. I hold to a simple material monism and a finite God where things like the Trinity, the Incarnation, and regeneration are a cinch to understand and explain.

Just letting you know - in case you were thinking that I was gravitating in the same direction as you.

 

[Brad D.]

@Jonaitis First I want to say I don't fault you in the least for all that you have posted, I have found we each have our different ways of coming to know Him who saved us, and expressing that to others. I see you as a sincere, perhaps brilliant young man, that just truly wants to have the best representation of Christ possible because you love Him so, and for that I commend you.

With that said, in my own case, I needed no other knowledge some 30 years ago, reading Romans 8,crying out tears of repentant and forgiven joy, than the undeniable, profound witness and event that had just happened and was continuing to happen to me in my bedroom. The God of this universe knew who I was, Knew where I lived, And had just come into my heart and in my room. The whole room literally took aglow, time seemed to stop, the world seemed to stop and everything came so divinely and serenely still. I couldn't have told you one thing about the chronology of the Bible, and probably couldn't have named the 4 gospels to you if you had spotted me Matthew and Mark. But at that moment there was no doubt I knew that the Jesus Christ of Nazareth spoken about in the Bible was true, And I had just met Him in my room. All the scholars in the world could have come and tried to convince me otherwise, but with tears of inexplicable joy I would have just shook my head and said, " It matters not what you say, I know, I know Him, He is real, He is real, He has just come to visit and save a broken sinner like me. He is right here in this very room."

It therefore warmed my heart some years later when I read an Oswald Chambers devotional of something very similar. He said and I quote It is possible to know all about doctrine and still not know Jesus. A person's soul is in grave danger when the knowledge of doctrine surpasses Jesus, avoiding intimate touch with Him. Why was Mary weeping at the tomb(John 20:11-18)? Doctrine meant no more to her than the grass under her feet. In fact any Pharisee could have made a fool of Mary doctrinally, but one thing they could never ridicule was the fact that Jesus had cast out seven demons from her; yet his blessings were nothing compared to knowing Jesus Himself. Mary knew Him. ... Jesus said to her, "Mary!" Once He called her by name, she immediately knew that she had a personal history with the One who spoke, " She turned to and said to Him, Rabboni!" {End Quote}

And that is the way I have found the knowledge of Him to be ever since that night in my room. I come to know more and more of Jesus and His ways through pain and sorrow, suffering and the cross, through difficulty and experience, through the backside of Midian and being brought to realize what it means to lose my life in this earth for the sake of Knowing Him, than I ever would through all the reading in the world. It has been like that for me. It is like that for others I believe.

His word then is brought to light through my experiences rather than reading things about Him bringing me to experiences in knowing Him. If I had never been brought through something, I don't know if He could have ever shown me something. The disciples hearts on the road to Emmaus were opened to the revelation of the scriptures by the Lord through something they had just been taken through; though it had been right there before their eyes the whole time. It took the experience to see.

One other thing before I go. God makes no apologies for Himself and neither should we. He is who He is and His word is what it is. He lets it be what it is. What are we and the world going to do with that? He is not looking for you to help Him out, to solve these mysteries, though I know you love Him so. Perhaps the best we can do is pray for others, pray He will pull beside them just as He did on the road to Emmaus and opened their heats. Pray He will make Himself known. And once He does that All the doctrine and chronology in the world will mean nothing anyway. We will know Him as He desires to be known.

 

[Jonaitis]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. You wouldn't like my views. Apophatic theology? I've totally rejected any notion of incomprehensible doctrine. I hold to a simple material monism and a finite God where things like the Trinity, the Incarnation, and regeneration are a cinch to understand and explain.

Just letting you know - in case you were thinking that I was gravitating in the same direction as you.

I have never heard of someone holding to material monism and a finite God to work out those essential doctrines. I think that is interesting that you came to this personal understanding of God that is not widely accepted. Most Christians fear questioning their own beliefs, but I think it is good to work out your own convictions by self-examining why you or most believe certain doctrines, practices, etc. To blindly accept what is considered "orthodox" can be a hinderance in learning more about the Scriptures as it states. We should work out what God convicts us in our hearts in our search for His will, although I do not suggest not learning from others who are seasoned in the word. I encourage an open understanding of all views that have been articulated with Scripture. My views have changed so much in the last thirteen years of my Christian life that I now always question and try to understand any new perspective from outside of my tradition, and even gleaning from other religions in areas that we may have overlooked, for we are fallible too, and even we can learn from unbelievers.

I want to ask you, if God is not simple, meaning in short that He is not composed of parts and whose essence is identical with His existence, do you believe in divine aseity?

 

[Jonaitis]

@Jonaitis First I want to say I don't fault you in the least for all that you have posted, I have found we each have our different ways of coming to know Him who saved us, and expressing that to others. I see you as a sincere, perhaps brilliant young man, that just truly wants to have the best representation of Christ possible because you love Him so, and for that I commend you.

With that said, in my own case, I needed no other knowledge some 30 years ago, reading Romans 8,crying out tears of repentant and forgiven joy, than the undeniable, profound witness and event that had just happened and was continuing to happen to me in my bedroom. The God of this universe knew who I was, Knew where I lived, And had just come into my heart and in my room. The whole room literally took aglow, time seemed to stop, the world seemed to stop and everything came so divinely and serenely still. I couldn't have told you one thing about the chronology of the Bible, and probably couldn't have named the 4 gospels to you if you had spotted me Matthew and Mark. But at that moment there was no doubt I knew that the Jesus Christ of Nazareth spoken about in the Bible was true, And I had just met Him in my room. All the scholars in the world could have come and tried to convince me otherwise, but with tears of inexplicable joy I would have just shook my head and said, " It matters not what you say, I know, I know Him, He is real, He is real, He has just come to visit and save a broken sinner like me. He is right here in this very room."

It therefore warmed my heart some years later when I read an Oswald Chambers devotional of something very similar. He said and I quote It is possible to know all about doctrine and still not know Jesus. A person's soul is in grave danger when the knowledge of doctrine surpasses Jesus, avoiding intimate touch with Him. Why was Mary weeping at the tomb(John 20:11-18)? Doctrine meant no more to her than the grass under her feet. In fact any Pharisee could have made a fool of Mary doctrinally, but one thing they could never ridicule was the fact that Jesus had cast out seven demons from her; yet his blessings were nothing compared to knowing Jesus Himself. Mary knew Him. ... Jesus said to her, "Mary!" Once He called her by name, she immediately knew that she had a personal history with the One who spoke, " She turned to and said to Him, Rabboni!" {End Quote}

And that is the way I have found the knowledge of Him to be ever since that night in my room. I come to know more and more of Jesus and His ways through pain and sorrow, suffering and the cross, through difficulty and experience, through the backside of Midian and being brought to realize what it means to lose my life in this earth for the sake of Knowing Him, than I ever would through all the reading in the world. It has been like that for me. It is like that for others I believe.

His word then is brought to light through my experiences rather than reading things about Him bringing me to experiences in knowing Him. If I had never been brought through something, I don't know if He could have ever shown me something. The disciples hearts on the road to Emmaus were opened to the revelation of the scriptures by the Lord through something they had just been taken through; though it had been right there before their eyes the whole time. It took the experience to see.

One other thing before I go. God makes no apologies for Himself and neither should we. He is who He is and His word is what it is. He lets it be what it is. What are we and the world going to do with that? He is not looking for you to help Him out, to solve these mysteries, though I know you love Him so. Perhaps the best we can do is pray for others, pray He will pull beside them just as He did on the road to Emmaus and opened their heats. Pray He will make Himself known. And once He does that All the doctrine and chronology in the world will mean nothing anyway. We will know Him as He desires to be known.

Thank you, this was encouraging! God bless.

 

[JAL]

I have never heard of someone holding to material monism and a finite God to work out those essential doctrines. I think that is interesting that you came to this personal understanding of God that is not widely accepted. Most Christians fear questioning their own beliefs, but I think it is good to work out your own convictions by self-examining why you or most believe certain doctrines, practices, etc. To blindly accept what is considered "orthodox" can be a hinderance in learning more about the Scriptures as it states. We should work out what God convicts us in our hearts in our search for His will, although I do not suggest not learning from others who are seasoned in the word. I encourage an open understanding of all views that have been articulated with Scripture. My views have changed so much in the last thirteen years of my Christian life that I now always question and try to understand any new perspective from outside of my tradition, and even gleaning from other religions in areas that we may have overlooked, for we are fallible too, and even we can learn from unbelievers.

I want to ask you, if God is not simple, meaning in short that He is not composed of parts and whose essence is identical with His existence, do you believe in divine aseity?

Aseity is part of a philosophically ideal/idealized concept of God. Such has nothing to do with who Yahweh is, in my view, hence He cares nothing for it. Yahweh is merely a regular person who chose to unselfishly make the best of a potentially bad situation - He's merely my Father. He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That's it. Nothing more. He isn't Existence, Essence, Being, Absolute, Immutable, Impassible (etc. etc. etc. etc.) - all that philosophical stuff came from the Greeks, in my opinion. You can read my simplistic definition of Yahweh here.