Does one necessarily need to believe in literal stories of the Old and New Testament to be a True Christian?
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think so, yes. As The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth, if someone does not agree with the truth, they are then refusing to listen to The Holy Spirit. But of course, it really depends on how the definition of Christian is qualified.Does one necessarily need to believe in literal stories of the Old and New Testament to be a True Christian?
Does one necessarily need to believe in literal stories of the Old and New Testament to be a True Christian?
You can certainly accept mainstream archaeology’s view on OT history, and critical NT scholarship. But it will affect your overall approach to Christianity. The Christianity that is based on inerrancy will use passages throughout Scripture indiscriminately. In practice this typically makes the most extreme view the controlling one. Look, for example, at the attitude towards women. The traditional attitude takes 1 Tim 2:13-16 as controlling, ignoring signs of acceptance of female leadership in Paul, and Jesus’ unusually accepting approach.
An approach that sees the Bible as a human witness to the experience of people with God will view the books of the Bible as having reflecting the view of their authors, although still showing us the events in which God acted in history. Hence it may choose to ignore that passage, regarding it as not reflecting the typical attitude of Jesus and his early followers.
Of course the results depend upon your views of the accuracy of the authors. If OT consists of traditional stories of the Hebrew people it’s not so serious. But if the NT doesn’t show us a human who is God’s presence, then the result isn’t Christianity in any normal sense.
Do you mean, believe every story is factual history, science, etc? If so, then no is the answer to your question. The Genesis creation accounts for example are myths, written to convey theological truths but not to transmit factual scientific information.
So OT no, NT yes?
The issue isn't in principle. Israel as the covenant people is really important, as are the prophets. But in terms of accuracy of history (which seemed to be what the OP was asking about), archaeologists don't accept large parts of it as very accurate. I'm on the conservative end of modern archaeology, accepting the Kings as at least roughly based on fact. (Many archaeologists don't think David existed, or at least that the OT stories about him don't have much historical content. That's going a bit far even for me.) But it doesn't appear that anything before about Kings is historical, even though some of the people probably existed, with roughly the roles described.
For a summary of the most skeptical view -- which I do not support -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Minimalism.
There are similar super-skeptical views of the NT, but they have a lot less support among scholars. There are some real scholars who claim that Jesus didn't exist, but they're just a handful, and even atheist skeptics like Ehrman think that's going too far. Ehrman wrote a book about what we can know about Jesus, because he was tired of people assuming he thought Jesus didn't exist.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#New_Testament_2 for an overview of the whole question. If you're interested in what faith in Jesus looks like from a viewpoint that accepts this kind of historical evaluation, you might find it useful to look at N T Wright and Marcus Borg, "The Meaning of Jesus." This gives two views of Jesus from the perspective of this kind of historical research. Wright represents the conservative end -- conservative within the context of modern historical research, not fundamentalist -- and Borg a moderately skeptical view -- though still within Christianity (though not be CF's definition).
For instance if I say that I think the whole story of Exodus, and Moses, and the Ten plagues, and Passover, and the Parting of a Sea, and the Ten Commandments, and wandering through the desert for 40 years is a tad difficult to swallow could I call myself a Christian?
If I found the idea of walking on water, and turning water into wine, and rising from the dead impossible, could I call myself a Christian?
Yes. Borg, for example, would agree. However I think when you say that Jesus didn't rise, you're denying the thing that seems to have caused Christianity to start. Borg and others like him believed that the Resurrection was a vision and not a physical event. I don't agree, but I still accept Borg as Christian. Most CF readers, including the moderators, would not.
The question, I think, is whether you think there's a God that acts in history. There are Christians who object to this kind of God. I've known one, and I consider him a fine Christian. But you're getting awfully close to God as a metaphor, and not a person who makes demands on us and to whom we are accountable.
So you can call yourself a Christian, and the mainline churches would mostly accept you, but most Christians would not. The Resurrection is kind of a boundary for many.
That’s an interesting historical question. Without the Resurrection, Jesus’ message would be just as good, mostly. But he would be like Hillel, a fine Jewish rabbi, but not the founder of a new, international religion. Furthermore, without the Resurrection, he looks like a failed Messiah. That makes him kind of dubious, even within Judaism.
The problem is that if the Synoptics are even close to right, Jesus didn’t just teach a good way to live. He claimed to be God’s agent in establishing the Kingdom. From the ending of the Gospels, and Acts, it looks like his disciples probably would have regarded this as a failure. Look at Luk 24:21: “But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.” Without the Resurrection I think it’s clear that they would have given up that hope, because he would have died without doing that redemption. Borg would say that there was a non-physical resurrection, so he did anyway. But I don’t think in 1st Century Judaism that would have worked.
Members of the mainline churches are Christians, of course. (At least in my view. Many CF readers would say that we're not Christian.) But those churches are a small minority of Christians in the US. I think most Christians would say that if you don’t accept the Resurrection you’re not a Christian. Some would say that if you believe in evolution you’re not a Christian. But even more flexible Christians often see the Resurrection as a boundary.
The Apostles' Creed is often used as a definition of Christians. (CF uses the Nicene Creed, which is more theological.) It includes the Resurrection.
In principle, Jesus’ followers could have carried on his ministry, and could have understood this to be the Kingdom Jesus preached, even without his Resurrection.
But what I know of the early Church says that this isn’t what happened. Jesus’ death and Resurrection was critical to Paul, and I believe to Acts. So the Church as it developed historically was based on the Resurrection.
While in principle a Church could have developed without the Resurrection, I doubt that in that historical context it would have. Jesus was not the only person claiming to be the Messiah. The Romans executed a couple of them. That was the end. Of course their messages weren’t identical. Perhaps Jesus’ had enough content that he could have been the exception. But I doubt it. At any rate, the Church as it developed did see the Resurrection as part of its foundation, which was my point.
That doesn’t prevent you from following a modern variant of Christianity that doesn’t accept the Resurrection, at least as a physical event. I don’t think I’ve ever said that you have to accept miracles to be a Christian. I just said that I don’t think Christianity would have developed without it.
Most Christianity isn’t just an ethical system. It mostly has some connection with religious experience. That doesn’t mean that everyone thinks they’ve experienced God. But a substantial number do, even in liberal churches. (Polls say that about half the US population believes they’ve had a direct experience of God.) A lot of people don’t think the Church can survive without religious experience. But if you think religious experience involves something real outside the physical realm, you’re already committed to a metaphysics in which there’s something outside the physical which has an effect on us. In that kind of world, miracles aren’t so unlikely.
I’m not going to claim that you can’t follow Jesus without that kind of metaphysical system. i think you can. But I wonder whether Christianity would have developed and survived if it didn’t involve contact with something supernatural, or at least the belief that this was present. Until recently everyone took it for granted that there was such a realm, and that miracles happened all the time. For Jesus not to have done them would have seemed very odd, and I’m not sure such a religious would have been taken seriously.
I’m not sure it makes sense to ask what the point is of walking on the water. It’s not a parable, told to make a point. If it happened, it happened. If it didn’t, the story grew up because people expected wonders to surround people like Jesus. The function is serves in Mark is as a sign of who Jesus is. It’s also worth noting that, as with several of those signs, the disciples didn’t quite understand.
However John is different. There Jesus’ miracles typically do have a point. On water into wine: Many interpreters see John as structured around the concept that Jesus was the fulfillment / replacement for the key elements of Judaism. He was the new Temple, the new Exodus, etc. Many of the miracles fit into this context. How might Cana fit into this? The water used was specifically the water for purification. Commentators see a whole pile of symbolism in this story, but one part of it is that Jesus replaces the Jewish ceremonies for purification with new life. (It’s hard to see a more overt symbol for new life than a wedding.) If you see the creation of wine as a creation event, it also starts Jesus’ mission (remember, the text makes a point that this is his first sign) was an act of creation.
I note that Thomas Jefferson held this sort of belief. I read an article by Shelby Spong suggesting precisely the view that the resurrection was not a physical event, but a spiritual one. I don't know if I accept that either, or even really understand what it may mean. I am aware of the idea.
Here's my point to all of this: Often I am told by Christians to ignore the OT, it doesn't matter. Put the miracles on hold, and just say that I disagree with Jesus' teachings
…
So what difference does it make if I agree with the teachings?
See I asked this because I was taught this as a child and accepted it for many years. Then I had questions. I was taught, similarly, that this miracle was to demonstrate to the disciples that Jesus was divine.
If it's symbolic, did it not actually happen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?