How would you say it?

[JAL]

If the Genesis text of Adam and Eve read literally, I would then read the references in the NT to them as references to literal characters. But, if Adam and Eve are not literal in Genesis, then they are not in the NT either.

Here's what you seem to be doing.

(1) I vance, take Genesis to be mythical
(2) I take 8 invisible realities literally based largely on NT texts, because these NT texts seem to be predominantly literal.
(3) But when these NT texts speak of Adam and Eve, I suddenly start taking them mythically. Why? Because Genesis is mythical.

Isn't this a reverse hermeneutic? You are using a mythical text as the authority over a literal text? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? That is to say, you believe in these 8 realities where mentioned in the NT because you see these NT texts as literal truth. Right in the midst of these literal NT texts appears references to Adam and Eve. This would, by consistency, suggest a literal Adam and Eve. The literal texts would be the most reliable commentary on the mythical texts (because the facts of mythical texts are less certain by the very nature of mythology). If we used your hermeneutic (making myth authoritative over literal texts), we end up believing all kinds of myths, and at the same time, disbelieving all kinds of literal truths and historical facts! At least that's how I see it.

 

[JAL]

Related to my last post, the fact that Hebrews is so doctrinally oriented should, I think, lead us, in our hermeneutics, to take it very literally. Notice how Hebrews confirms so much of the events in Genesis. It’s pretty clear that Heb 11 is speaking of historical figures, and it mentions men such as Abel and Noah, who appear so early in Genesis. Heb 11, as literal text, sheds light on what extent, if any, Genesis is mythical. Look at this way. Scripture is supposed to shed light on Scripture. If we mythologize the whole Bible, in a sense we are left with no crystal clear Scripture to shed light on Scripture. So if we had to nominate a set of literal books as sort of a foundation for doctrine, that is, for comparing Scripture with Scripture, which books would we choose? Probably the NT epistles would be a good starting point – but these epistles speak of Adam and Eve.

 

[JAL]

(I will number your points). You said you take Genesis non-literally due to

(1)

the framework structure, (2) the poetic language, the usages that argue for symbolism ((3) ie the name of Adam, (4) the two trees, (5) the garden itself, (6) the snake, etc), (7) the two differing accounts. To me, it reads stylistically very much like near eastern and Egyptian myth.

I understand you feel this way, Vance, but sometimes we make mistakes? There are times when I got a very distinct impression from Scripture and later found myself to be quite wrong. You keep talking about the “style” of Genesis as seemingly mythical. But sometimes such impressions can be superficial, right? If we have NT evidence that the events of Genesis are fact (for instance Christ referring to Noah’s flood), then perhaps we should distrust our impressions about style?



As for point #1 (framework structure), it seems too vague. I could make the same statement about any passage in the bible. I could say, “I regard this passage as myth because the framework structure resembles such.”



As for point #2 (poetic language), does Genesis 1 thru 3 use poetic stanza in contrast to the rest of Genesis? Or does it use rhyme in contrast to the rest of Genesis?



As for point#3, Paul’s whole doctrine of sin, as I have argued at length on this thread, hinges on Adam embodying all mankind in some sense. Therefore the name Adam (“mankind”) is hardly reason for denying his existence. Rather his name confirms his role in redemptive economy, and thus confirms a literal Genesis.





As for #4, the two trees, outside of the Book of Revelation, there isn’t much detail in the NT as to the nature of the heavenly city. So I am grateful for what Revelation says about it. True, some verses of Revelation may be non-literal, but there seems to be much literal stuff there too. There’s going to be a new earth, right? And a wedding supper? Why not a tree of life? “In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Rev 22:2). Don’t you want to eat some fruit at the wedding supper? Or would you prefer to have none of the five senses (deaf, dumb, blind, lame, tasteless)?



As for #5 (the garden), with a new earth coming, OT gardens shouldn’t be hard to believe in. Do you have a garden, Vance? Maybe some of your friends do?



As for #6 (the snake), I suppose Satan in the physical form of a snake would give pause to an immaterialist. I’ll grant you that. But let me ask you, if spirits are not physical, how is it that chains fetter them in hell? (Tertullian postulated this argument). How is God going to imprison them ANYWHERE if there is nothing to grab onto? How did a non-physical angel roll/push the stone away from Christ’s tomb? And then sit on the stone?



As for #7 (the differing accounts). I think I’ve provided a fair argument that the two passages don’t contradict. But here’s another consideration. If the two passages contradict, that would indicate an error of fact. This would hardly be grounds for denying the history altogether. For instance, if we found that Chronicles and Kings differed in some historical detail, do we write these books off as mythical? No, what we do is try to make a determination as to which of the two books has the correct version of that detail.

 

[herev]

JAL, just out of curiousity, if President Bush or President Clinton, depending on your political slant, were to describe in a very literal statement about someone they knew: He has the strength of Hercules. Would knowing and trusting the speaker to be speaking truth about a real situation make you believe that Hercules was a real man? or even that the speaker THOUGHT Hercules was a real man?

 

[Vance]

Here's what you seem to be doing.

(1) I vance, take Genesis to be mythical .

Truth told in the form of a non-literal story, yes. Make sure you don't get the impression that I find the story any less God's true message to us, or any less crucial to the Scripture, or any less true, for that matter, because I don't read it all literally.

(2) I take 8 invisible realities literally based largely on NT texts, because these NT texts seem to be predominantly literal..

Where did you get this? I take supernatural events and personages to be true based on faith, not at all because I take the NT to be predominantly literal. Angels, for example, are contained in numerous texts of every type and style, some literal some not. There is no reason NOT to believe in them and lots of reasons TO believe in them. If they had only been mentioned in Genesis and then all other references in Scripture were back to those instances in Genesis, I would tend to read them as non-literal, since the original text to which all references are made would be non-literal. But that is not the case.

(3) But when these NT texts speak of Adam and Eve, I suddenly start taking them mythically. Why? Because Genesis is mythical..

Not just this, but this combined with the fact that the reference to them works just as well non-literally as literally, so there is no compelling basis in the NT to override my non-literal reading of Genesis.

Isn't this a reverse hermeneutic? You are using a mythical text as the authority over a literal text? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? .

No, this is not true at all. First of all, the NT text is referring to the past, and people viewed and spoke of the past in a way that you or I do not. You are drawing lines that should not be there. It was no problem at all for a person in 50 A.D. to refer to a non-literal past in what would, to our modern eyes, seem like a literal way. Secondly, you are still somehow seeing non-literal writing as somehow inferior to literal writing. Why?

That is to say, you believe in these 8 realities where mentioned in the NT because you see these NT texts as literal truth. Right in the midst of these literal NT texts appears references to Adam and Eve. This would, by consistency, suggest a literal Adam and Eve. .

No, as I mention above, your first sentence is a false premise. Your second sentence is simply not correct, since it was no problem at all for a writer of the time to associate a literal event with a non-literal event, so there is no consistency issue whatsoever.

The literal texts would be the most reliable commentary on the mythical texts (because the facts of mythical texts are less certain by the very nature of mythology). If we used your hermeneutic (making myth authoritative over literal texts), we end up believing all kinds of myths, and at the same time, disbelieving all kinds of literal truths and historical facts! At least that's how I see it.

This is where we differ. You are still not seeing non-literal writing in the way it was written at the time, and the way it was read at the time. The truths contained in non-literal stories were just as real and compelling (actually more so) than literal history was, to the extent the writers and readers of the time even viewed them as different in their own minds. You are still equating myth with having no truth, maybe not having any value at all. I disagree with this completely.

 

[Vance]

I understand you feel this way, Vance, but sometimes we make mistakes? There are times when I got a very distinct impression from Scripture and later found myself to be quite wrong. You keep talking about the “style” of Genesis as seemingly mythical. But sometimes such impressions can be superficial, right? If we have NT evidence that the events of Genesis are fact (for instance Christ referring to Noah’s flood), then perhaps we should distrust our impressions about style?

Well, of course, anyone can be wrong. But I would disagree that there is any compelling NT evidence that the flood is literal. You keep insisting that if Jesus and Paul referred to an event that it must be literal. This is not the case at all. It is just as likely that they would refer to a non-literal past event in exactly the same way. Again, they simply did not make these distinctions you insist upon.

As for point #1 (framework structure), it seems too vague. I could make the same statement about any passage in the bible. I could say, “I regard this passage as myth because the framework structure resembles such.”

And you may be right. Remember, though, it is not any one factor that alone would cause me to read it non-literally, but the combination of the whole. And these were just exemplars of the overall style and basis for a non-literal reading. As for the framework, it is very telling.

As for point #2 (poetic language), does Genesis 1 thru 3 use poetic stanza in contrast to the rest of Genesis? Or does it use rhyme in contrast to the rest of Genesis?

Rhyme? No, most poetry does not use rhyme, but the language of Genesis 1 and 2 uses a great deal of poetic langauge, which is not contained elsewhere (except in the poetry, of course).

As for point#3, Paul’s whole doctrine of sin, as I have argued at length on this thread, hinges on Adam embodying all mankind in some sense. Therefore the name Adam (“mankind”) is hardly reason for denying his existence. Rather his name confirms his role in redemptive economy, and thus confirms a literal Genesis.

How so? What do you mean by "redemptive economy"? As for the character Adam embodying all of mankind, I agree completely.

As for #4, the two trees, outside of the Book of Revelation, there isn’t much detail in the NT as to the nature of the heavenly city. So I am grateful for what Revelation says about it. True, some verses of Revelation may be non-literal, but there seems to be much literal stuff there too. There’s going to be a new earth, right? And a wedding supper? Why not a tree of life? “

In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Rev 22:2). Don’t you want to eat some fruit at the wedding supper? Or would you prefer to have none of the five senses (deaf, dumb, blind, lame, tasteless)?

Why would a non-literal tree of life, both in Genesis and Revelations, involve giving up any senses? But, really, if you are reading much of Revelations as literal, then I am afraid we are talking two different langauges.

As for #5 (the garden), with a new earth coming, OT gardens shouldn’t be hard to believe in. Do you have a garden, Vance? Maybe some of your friends do?

No, I refer to the concept of paradise, a symbolic place of communion with God. I believe there was a paradise of some sort, some point of being in balance with nature and within God's will, and man lost this due to his own selfishness. The garden is symbolic of that time/place/situation.

As for #6 (the snake), I suppose Satan in the physical form of a snake would give pause to an immaterialist. I’ll grant you that. But let me ask you, if spirits are not physical, how is it that chains fetter them in hell? (Tertullian postulated this argument). How is God going to imprison them ANYWHERE if there is nothing to grab onto? How did a non-physical angel roll/push the stone away from Christ’s tomb? And then sit on the stone?

Oh, I am not discussing the physical v. ethereal nature of satan, demons or angels. I am talking about the concept of a snake itself, since this motif is contained in other near eastern myths.

As for #7 (the differing accounts). I think I’ve provided a fair argument that the two passages don’t contradict. But here’s another consideration. If the two passages contradict, that would indicate an error of fact. This would hardly be grounds for denying the history altogether. For instance, if we found that Chronicles and Kings differed in some historical detail, do we write these books off as mythical? No, what we do is try to make a determination as to which of the two books has the correct version of that detail.

But that is just it, I think they are both true. I would find it unthinkable to relegate one to falsity just because it contradicts the other, which IS the result if you insist on literal historicity. Instead, by reading both of them non-literally, they are both equally true since they are conveying exactly what they want to convey without error of any kind. And, yes, there is a convoluted work-around you can do to bring the two together, but it is simply not credible to anyone other than one who really, really WANTS them to both be literal and both work together.

 

[gluadys]

Before I go on to your new posts, I want to take a minute to deal with the last two paragraphs of this one. Because, I believe that for you, this is the meat of your argument, the one thing that you really want me to pay attention to.

This is another case of missing (or dodging?) the force of my argument. My argument is this. Hermeneutics is not supposed to be a matter of personal preference. That is to say, a theologian who prefers "spiritual light" to "physical light" has no right to impose his definition upon the text. What light is Paul talking about in that context (2Cor 4:4-6)? There are no chapter divisisions in the original Greek. The whole of chapter three is dealing with the light in Moses' face sufficiently tangible to be restrained by a physical veil. What "glory" is Paul referring to? Again, the glory in Moses face. You want more contextual evidence? Here's some. At verse 3:18 Paul says that this Glory (this Light) has the effect of transforming our faces (remember Stephen's face radiant with light?). See the parallel? Moses' face was transformed. But here's the clincher. The Greek word for transformed at verse 3:18 is the SAME word used in the gospels to describe Christ's Transfiguration. Christ's face became visibly bright just as Moses' did. Paul says that we too are Transfigured (the same Greek word) – and he had every right to say that, because God’s Light physically lasered his eyes blind on the road to Damascus. The fact that God usually hides this brightness from the eyes of men, even in the incarnate Christ's case most of the time, does not discount the biblical facticity of it. Christ's face currently lights the entire heavenly city (Rev 1:16; 21:23-24; 22:4-5). Since ALL the biblical evidence suggests that God’s Light is physical (and I could give you more), the burden of proof falls on those who would disagree.

You won't get an argument from me here. The passages refer to a what is at least a physical light. Whether it takes more definition than that is another question. But the materiality of the light described is real. BTW have you ever met someone whose face literally shone with the light of God? I have. It is quite an experience.

And here’s the rub, namely that words such as “immaterial” and “non-physical” don’t exist in Scripture. These terms originate in Plato, not in Scripture.

Amen! More on this later.

As a result, immaterialists appeal to the biblical term “spirit.” But “spirit” is an English word, obviously, and the whole question is whether this term, taken in an immaterial sense, is a valid biblical translation. ALL scholars agree that breath/wind is a valid translation for the Greek term (and its Hebrew counterpart). ALL scholars agree that Scripture, at least 100 times, uses these terms for breath/wind. And now we have a problem. Now according to orthodoxy, God’s nature is unchanging, and that nature is immaterial. Therefore He cannot be physical breath on one day and non-physical spirit on the next. Most scholars agree (probably all), that in at least some passages, the strictest translation for Holy Spirit is actually Holy Breath. John 20:22 is a good example. You might be familiar with Thomas Oden’s Systematic Theology. Just another theology textbook? Hardly. As is well known, Oden’s goal was to report only “classical consensus,” that is to say, areas were ALL of orthodox Christian scholarship stood in agreement. Note what he has to say on John 20:22, “Jesus himself chose the expression Holy Breath to designate the Comforter to follow Him (John 20:22)” (see Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology Volume Three (Peabody: Prince Press, 2001, reprint), p. 16.

I agree with 99.99% of this. Have you been reading feminist theology? It makes many of the same points. The Holy Spirit has a particular fascination for many feminist theologians as many identify her with the femaleness of God. (God cannot be wholly male, or Gen.1:27 which says that both males and females are made in the image of God would be in error.)

Thus the burden of proof falls on immaterialists, but they don’t have any substantive evidence. The main word they appeal to (“spirit”) is actually used in Scripture as Christ’s physical breath (John 20:22). The same word occurs here: “And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth” (2Th 2:8; ASV). Moses said that a breath from God’s nostrils parted the sea. It was a wind that blew the waters apart slowly, over the course of an entire night. Moses used the same Hebrew word elsewhere translated Holy Spirit. Tell me, how can an intangible wind push water? Remember how I defined “tangible reality” as a sphere of reality capable of colliding with/impacting a physical object as to overcome its inertial mass, thus setting it in motion? This is a good example. Here God’s Holy Breath pushed apart the waters. So from cover to cover, Genesis to Revelation, the hermeneutical evidence overwhelmingly favors a tangible Godhead.

I won't yet commit to a tangible God until I have looked into this deeper. But your argument is forceful and has merit. I think the truth may be somewhat subtler than that God is physical. But you've made a good start.

It’s too bad that theologians prefer Plato to Scripture. And it’s little wonder that the church father Tertullian, a staunch materialist, labored to refute everything that Plato had taught.

When I got to this sentence, I had to stand up and shout "Hallelujah!" I haven't read Tertullian at all, and I have no idea whether I would agree with him or not. But if he was in the tragically losing fight to keep Platonism out of Christian theology, he has an ally in me. I do think that the early church's adoption of Plato's perspective as the philosophy lens through which their theology was developed has led Christianity into a huge detour from biblical teachings which we have not recovered from, and may not for a long time yet. Even Aquinas' masterful reconciliation of Aristotle with Catholic theology was too little too late.

The logical end-point of Platonism is Gnosticism. It is no wonder many in the early church moved in that direction, and that it has always been a struggle to keep it from becoming the norm. In fact, any analysis of popular religious culture in America, both inside and outside the church, shows that unconscious Gnosticism is the base-line belief of most Americans, even those who think of Gnosticism as a heresy. I am trying to think of the writer who has published a book on that topic.

For me, the most tragic thing about Platonism is that it introduced hierarchical dualism into Christian theology. By hierarchical dualism, I mean not only that a sharp distinction is drawn between God/spirit/soul/mind (Logos) on one hand and matter/nature/body/flesh on the other, but also that the first is elevated above the second so that the second set is seen as the enemy of the first. (It is Satan that is the enemy of God, not the material order.) And worst of all, the first became associated with maleness and the second with femaleness. Eventually the first became associated specifically with white, celibate, upper-class European males. And anyone who didn't fit that stereotype was excluded from any part of social life for which they were deemed unsuited due to their inferior spiritual and mental capacities.

Rather than continue at length on a discussion on which I could spent many hours, I'll link you to My rant on this topic from another board.

The Platonic influence took the Church farther and farther away from the more unified Hebraic thinking of the OT which does not separate body and spirit, but sees them in the unity of the soul which is both at the same time. It led to the church turning upside-down the prophetic teaching about the coming kingdom of God on earth (as we pray for in the Lord'sPrayer) to a mystical vision of bodiless souls going to a bodiless heaven and making that far-off heaven the goal of life on earth. Earth becomes no longer the habitation God has prepared for us, but the prison from which we long to escape. Tennesse Ernie Ford's wonderful hymn "This world is not my home, I'm just a-passin' through/If heaven's not my home, Lord, I don't know what I'll do....") is pure Platonic Gnosticism, not biblical Christianity.


Well, it's work week. Can't do a lot at once. Will try to answer your more recent posts over the next day or two.

 

[JAL]

JAL, just out of curiousity, if President Bush or President Clinton, depending on your political slant, were to describe in a very literal statement about someone they knew: He has the strength of Hercules. Would knowing and trusting the speaker to be speaking truth about a real situation make you believe that Hercules was a real man? or even that the speaker THOUGHT Hercules was a real man?

I see what you're getting at, but you would need to come up with a much better example. Yours is hardly appropriate, for two reasons (1) The number one sin of the OT, as far as I can see, is idolatry. Thus the hermeneuticist opens up the NT with the presupposition that it will NOT mix myth with truth (except where signals occur in the text), since doing so would cause us to start believing in false gods again (like Hercules) and other false religious ideas. So your example is actually a counterexample, in my opinion, in the sense of further convincing me that we must resist mythologizing the NT. (2) Probably 99% of the time, when the NT is making a a comparative statement intended non-literally, it SIGNALS us with words such as "parable" or "like" (viz. The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a mustard seed). Hence if the NT were going to speak of a mythical figure, I would expect some signal of this sort in the text. Again, think about the implications for doctrine based on a hermeneutic where any verse can be mythical. I think we need better ground rules than that.

Thus in response to your question, " Would knowing and trusting the speaker to be speaking truth about a real situation make you believe that Hercules was a real man?" I would say, trusting to what extent? Let me rephrase your question, "Would knowing and trusting the speaker to be speaking truth INERRANTLY INSPIRED BY GOD lead one to believe that Hercules was a real man?" Yes, it would at the very least so incline me to believe, if the statement lacked signals to the contrary.

 

[JAL]

Vance, I voiced my opinion that you believe in 8 invisible realities such as angels because Scripture mentions them. You responded:

Where did you get this? I take supernatural events and personages to be true based on faith, not at all because I take the NT to be predominantly literal. Angels, for example, are contained in numerous texts of every type and style, some literal some not. There is no reason NOT to believe in them and lots of reasons TO believe in them. If they had only been mentioned in Genesis and then all other references in Scripture were back to those instances in Genesis, I would tend to read them as non-literal, since the original text to which all references are made would be non-literal. But that is not the case

So this is what you seem to be implying.

I, Vance, believe in invisible realities such as Lucifer/Satan, angels Michael/Gabriel, forensic atonement, regeneration, eternal life (etc. etc. etc), NOT AT ALL because literal Scriptures so teach, but merely for extrabiblical reasons. Therefore I do not have to worry about taking the NT literally, for instance where it mentions Adam and Eve.



If your hermeneutic is really so extrabiblical, Vance, what really DO you glean from the Bible? Anything? Maybe a few good moral values at most? Given your hermeneutic, I really can’t see how the Bible could possibly be of much value to you at all. You seem to make your own reasoning (perhaps you would call it spiritual intuition/faith) authoritative over the Bible. It’s like you are saying, “Where the bible agrees with my intuition, I take it literally. Where it disagrees, I relegate it to the status of myth.” Perhaps this caricature is an overstatement, but so far as I can see, it’s a pretty good approximation of what you’ve been stating in these posts. The bottom line is this. Given your hermeneutic, it would be JUSTIFIABLE to mythologize one heck of a lot of NT teaching (consider for instance verses where Adam and Christ are mentioned in the SAME VERSE). Therefore you would have every reason to endorse a pastor who mythologized most of the NT. Frankly I don’t think you would follow such a pastor, Vance, so I don’t believe you’re telling us the whole story about your hermeneutic. I think you’re giving us a partial view just to win the debate, but I don’t think you’re consistent in so limiting yourself in real life where actions speak louder than words. From the start, my objection has been that I don’t think you’re consistent.



Now if what you are really saying is that direct revelation (God’s voice) insofar as you hear it is the extrabiblical basis for your beliefs, then I applaud you. It’s in fact my own view that God’s voice is a higher authority than hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is just a crutch for people such as myself who are too spiritually immature to hear God as clearly as Moses and Paul did. I take hermeneutics so seriously precisely because I don’t hear God very clearly. I can barely hear Him at all. It is self-evident that most Christians exaggerate how clearly they hear God (since they all disagree about what they hear).

So if you had said from the beginning, “My views are based not on a consistent hermeneutic but rather on direct revelation,” I would have been less inclined to debate you. But that’s not at all what I see you stating on these forums. You keep referring to a hermeneutic that justifies mythologizing Adam and Eve. And, as argued above, I doubt that your actions, in real life, are thoroughly consistent with this hermeneutic. I think you are telling us only part of the story. I probably won’t carry this much further, though. I’ll probably let you have the last word.

 

[JAL]

Before I go on to your new posts, I want to take a minute to deal with the last two paragraphs of this one. Because, I believe that for you, this is the meat of your argument, the one thing that you really want me to pay attention to.

You won't get an argument from me here. The passages refer to a what is at least a physical light. Whether it takes more definition than that is another question. But the materiality of the light described is real. BTW have you ever met someone whose face literally shone with the light of God? I have. It is quite an experience.

Amen! More on this later.

I agree with 99.99% of this. Have you been reading feminist theology? It makes many of the same points. The Holy Spirit has a particular fascination for many feminist theologians as many identify her with the femaleness of God. (God cannot be wholly male, or Gen.1:27 which says that both males and females are made in the image of God would be in error.)

I won't yet commit to a tangible God until I have looked into this deeper. But your argument is forceful and has merit. I think the truth may be somewhat subtler than that God is physical. But you've made a good start.

When I got to this sentence, I had to stand up and shout "Hallelujah!" I haven't read Tertullian at all, and I have no idea whether I would agree with him or not. But if he was in the tragically losing fight to keep Platonism out of Christian theology, he has an ally in me. I do think that the early church's adoption of Plato's perspective as the philosophy lens through which their theology was developed has led Christianity into a huge detour from biblical teachings which we have not recovered from, and may not for a long time yet. Even Aquinas' masterful reconciliation of Aristotle with Catholic theology was too little too late.

The logical end-point of Platonism is Gnosticism. It is no wonder many in the early church moved in that direction, and that it has always been a struggle to keep it from becoming the norm. In fact, any analysis of popular religious culture in America, both inside and outside the church, shows that unconscious Gnosticism is the base-line belief of most Americans, even those who think of Gnosticism as a heresy. I am trying to think of the writer who has published a book on that topic.

For me, the most tragic thing about Platonism is that it introduced hierarchical dualism into Christian theology. By hierarchical dualism, I mean not only that a sharp distinction is drawn between God/spirit/soul/mind (Logos) on one hand and matter/nature/body/flesh on the other, but also that the first is elevated above the second so that the second set is seen as the enemy of the first. (It is Satan that is the enemy of God, not the material order.) And worst of all, the first became associated with maleness and the second with femaleness. Eventually the first became associated specifically with white, celibate, upper-class European males. And anyone who didn't fit that stereotype was excluded from any part of social life for which they were deemed unsuited due to their inferior spiritual and mental capacities.

Rather than continue at length on a discussion on which I could spent many hours, I'll link you to My rant on this topic from another board.

The Platonic influence took the Church farther and farther away from the more unified Hebraic thinking of the OT which does not separate body and spirit, but sees them in the unity of the soul which is both at the same time. It led to the church turning upside-down the prophetic teaching about the coming kingdom of God on earth (as we pray for in the Lord'sPrayer) to a mystical vision of bodiless souls going to a bodiless heaven and making that far-off heaven the goal of life on earth. Earth becomes no longer the habitation God has prepared for us, but the prison from which we long to escape. Tennesse Ernie Ford's wonderful hymn "This world is not my home, I'm just a-passin' through/If heaven's not my home, Lord, I don't know what I'll do....") is pure Platonic Gnosticism, not biblical Christianity.

Well, it's work week. Can't do a lot at once. Will try to answer your more recent posts over the next day or two.

Thanks for this post, I'm glad we have areas of agreement. When I clicked on that link, though, I'm not sure it took me to the right place, so I didin't have the patience to read it (I've really been wasting too much time on this forum anyway).

 

[herev]

hmmm, I'm not sure where to start...

I see what you're getting at, but you would need to come up with a much better example.

I think there are many, but you wouldn't like any of them

Yours is hardly appropriate, for two reasons

I didn't think you'd like it

(1) The number one sin of the OT, as far as I can see, is idolatry.

debatable, but that's a reasonable interpretation

Thus the hermeneuticist opens up the NT with the presupposition that it will NOT mix myth with truth, since doing so would cause us to start believing in false gods again (like Hercules) and other false religious ideas.

As a blush: pardon me ) "professional" hermeneuticist, I don't agree with your assessment. The number one job of the hermeneuticist (in terms of chronology) is to understand the text in relation to the context of the original setting--thus for example when Paul speaks of Adam and Eve, one needs to:

understand all we can of Paul--ie: well schooled, well versed in the Torah, Jew's Jew, pharisee, zealot, his Damascus Road conversion, his zeal for Gentile conversions, his dream of going to Spain, his eschatological viewpoint, etc.
understand the intent of the letter to the churches in Rome: What was Paul's primary purpose in writing a letter to a church he had not started, nor had he ever visited?
understand the Roman churches: were they mostly Gentile, mostly Jew, or a balanced raito?
understand letter writing of the 1st century in style and purpose
and the list goes on

Now if one is studying the Gospels, one has to understand similar questions,
But one of the dangers of hermeneutics is to clump the entire NT together and assume it was written at one time with one pen stroke
to assume that we deal with the entire NT at once is to apply (IMHO) faulty hermeneutics, as each writer (so far as we can actually identify them) has their own identity, purpose, world-view, history, and understanding of Torah

Then the notion of not mixing myth with truth is just simply an odd arguement. I know you address parables below, but to use a well-known idiom for example would be to introduce things that would mix truth and myth in the way you are looking at it, such as if I said, wow, did he just put his foot in his mouth or what? The truth of the statement is not diminished by the fact that no one actually tried to eat their sneakers

So your example is actually a counterexample, in my opinion, in the sense of further convincing me that we must resist mythologizing the NT.

I am not in any way mythologizing the NT to believe that Paul and Jesus could have simply been using a well known image that the crowd would have understood without actually beleiving the image to be factual or historical

(2) Probably 99% of the time, when the NT is making a a comparative statement intended non-literally, it SIGNALS us with words such as "parable" or "like" (viz. The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a mustard seed).

I haven't compared, but I'll take your 99% figure as "gospel"

Hence if the NT were going to speak of a mythical figure, I would expect some signal of this sort in the text. Again, think about the implications for doctrine based on a hermeneutic where any verse can be mythical.

to expect such is to expect the author from 2000 years ago to do your hermeneutical work. and to suggest that Paul or Jesus is pointing to a well known image that is not factual, but well known is not to suggest that the verse where they do that is mythical. That was the point of my illustration above. Just because someone compares someone to HErcules doesn't mean theire comparison is mythical, does it?

I think we need better ground rules than that.

sorry, hermeneutics is a complicated field

Thus in response to your question, " Would knowing and trusting the speaker to be speaking truth about a real situation make you believe that Hercules was a real man?" I would say, trusting to what extent?

hehe, are you a politician? IT wasn't a question of trusting the speaker, but trusting the speaker to be speaking the truth, in other words say you knew the man they were comparing to Hercules--you know he's strong as Hercules, but the fact that the president said it wouldn't make you believe in Hercules as a real person, even though they didn't preface it by saying--mythological

Let me rephrase your question, "Would knowing and trusting the speaker to be speaking truth INERRANTLY INSPIRED BY GOD make one believe that Hercules was a real man?"

truth is truth, so I'm not sure I understand your disclaimer

Yes, it would at the very least so incline me to believe, if the statement lacked signals to the contrary.

But you already know that Hercules is a mythological figure, why would this change your mind about Hercules instead of changing your mind about hermeneutics? To have a closed mind about anything is violating very important rules in hermeneutics--it permanently gives your interpretation a slant for YOUR world view

 

[JAL]

But you already know that Hercules is a mythological figure, why would this change your mind about Hercules instead of changing your mind about hermeneutics? To have a closed mind about anything is violating very important rules in hermeneutics--it permanently gives your interpretation a slant for YOUR world view.

You mean, just like I knew Satan was a mythical figure back when I was an atheist? Look, when I became a Christian, that is, when God’s voice persuaded me that the Bible is His Word, I had to drop all my presuppositions. So no, I couldn’t open up the Bible with the assumption that Hercules is a mythical figure. The thing is, the Bible mentions Satan. It does NOT mention Hercules. And it WARNS me about believing in myths. But let’s suppose it mentioned Hercules and Christ in verse after verse, just as Romans 5 does with Adam in Christ in verse after verse. Believe me, I’d start rethinking my theology (especially if Genesis and the gospels reported the genealogy of Hercules!). As far as I can see, the epistles are intended to be didactic. There seems to be a deliberate effort on the part of the writers to hone in on the bare truth. I don’t take this goal to exclude all idiomatic expression. I’ve discussed idiom elsewhere. But some idiomatic expressions are more misleading than others, and I would expect a didactic text to use caution when employing idioms – I would be surprised to see a reference to Hercules if he is not a literal figure. And I’m not disappointed by the epistles regarding idiomatic caution, so far as I can see. By taking Scripture literally, I was led to a physical metaphysics that affords solutions to theological problems unsolved for 2000 years. On this thread, I’ve discussed only one of these problems (original sin in Adam). But there are several other problems, unsolved for 2000 years, that my model handles/explains easily (the incarnation, miracles, gravity, the Trinity, angelic phenomena, regeneration, etc.)

 

[herev]

I don't want to belabor the point far enough to cause heated fellings, so let me address this just once more (sorry if I'm not getting it)I think you are not understanding my point. I am hermeneutically trying to take one situation from the scriptures and do a what if the same conversation took place today scenario. We cannot mix the two as that would be poor hermeneutics.

I am also not trying to say that this PROVES anything, but rather that it is POSSIBLE to interpret Jesus' and Paul's writings as truthful, even if they are referring to something that is mythological and they don't say, "by the way everyone, this is a mythological statement." IOW, is it POSSIBLE that Paul (in Romans) referrs to Adam and compares Christ to Adam and even introduces things in his contemorary situation based on Adam--even if he viewed it as a text that is NOT to be taken literally.
So let's take the hypothetical arguement and see if it is plausable (not definitive):

Possible Biblical scenario (sorta like a hypothesis).
Paul does NOT take Genesis literally in the creation accounts, but sees them as containing truthful statements about God, humanity and the relationship betwen the two.
Paul wants to make a point to the people of his day by using an illustration that they will be familiar with and that has Scriptural authority
Paul mentions Adam, compares Christ to Adam, and even goes so far as to suggest doctrine or polity--based on the image and illustration of Adam (again, since it can be true in this scenario, without being factual). Hence we have this text from Romans.
In this scenario, it would be an unfounded leap of logic to assume that because he quoted it, he believed it is literal.

Modern day model for comparison (does this make sense as we understand it--could we see a scenario that would mimic those circumstances and be acceptable)
President Bush speaks of your good friend, the olympic champion weight lifter, as being as strong as Hercules.
You believe that Hercules is a mythological figure--not real, but you understand the reference--he was the strongest man who ever lived--
and you know your friend has just won a world-wide title that would suggest that he is in fact the strongest man in the world
You see and understand the comparison, but it does not affect your belief that Hercules is mythological. The truth of the President's comment does not hinge on whether or not Hercules is a real man.
So the comparison suggests that because Paul mentioned Adam and relied on his illustration does NOT mean that 1) he thought Adam was literal or 2) that the statements Paul made have any less value becuase of pointing to a potential unliteral figure.
I do not in any way suggest that we shuould even be discussing what it would mean if the Bible mentioned Hercules, but it would be interesting.

Does that make sense? (not do you agree, but do you understand what I'm saying?)

You mean, just like I knew Satan was a mythical figure back when I was an atheist? Look, when I became a Christian, that is, when God’s voice persuaded me that the Bible is His Word, I had to drop all my presuppositions. So no, I couldn’t open up the Bible with the assumption that Hercules is a mythical figure. The thing is, the Bible mentions Satan. It does NOT mention Hercules. And it WARNS me about believing in myths. But let’s suppose it mentioned Hercules and Christ in verse after verse, just as Romans 5 does with Adam in Christ in verse after verse. Believe me, I’d start rethinking my theology (especially if Genesis and the gospels reported the genealogy of Hercules!). As far as I can see, the epistles are intended to be didactic. There seems to be a deliberate effort on the part of the writers to hone in on the bare truth. I don’t take this goal to exclude all idiomatic expression. I’ve discussed idiom elsewhere. But some idiomatic expressions are more misleading than others, and I would expect a didactic text to use caution when employing idioms – I would be surprised to see a reference to Hercules if he is not a literal figure. And I’m not disappointed by the epistles regarding idiomatic caution, so far as I can see. By taking Scripture literally, I was led to a physical metaphysics that affords solutions to theological problems unsolved for 2000 years. On this thread, I’ve discussed only one of these problems (original sin in Adam). But there are several other problems, unsolved for 2000 years, that my model handles/explains easily (the incarnation, miracles, gravity, the Trinity, angelic phenomena, regeneration, etc.)

 

[Vance]

So this is what you seem to be implying.

I, Vance, believe in invisible realities such as Lucifer/Satan, angels Michael/Gabriel, forensic atonement, regeneration, eternal life (etc. etc. etc), NOT AT ALL because literal Scriptures so teach, but merely for extrabiblical reasons. Therefore I do not have to worry about taking the NT literally, for instance where it mentions Adam and Eve.

No, this is not it at all. The bases for my beliefs are not extra-biblical at all, I just said they are based on faith, not literalism. I don't have to start with a prima facie literal reading in order to read a lot of it literally. I take the scripture as they come, and attempt to discern what God is trying to tell us in that Scripture. Since I can accept this message just as easily and just as strongly whether it is literal or not, I have no need to start with a prima facie literalness. The text contains God's Truth, whether it is conveyed literally or not. This is not at all to say that I disregard literal texts which I believe are, indeed, literal.

I can definitely take the NT literally, even when it is referring to non-literal events and persons. This is still the part you won't accept.

If your hermeneutic is really so extrabiblical, Vance, what really DO you glean from the Bible? Anything? Maybe a few good moral values at most? Given your hermeneutic, I really can’t see how the Bible could possibly be of much value to you at all. You seem to make your own reasoning (perhaps you would call it spiritual intuition/faith) authoritative over the Bible. It’s like you are saying, “Where the bible agrees with my intuition, I take it literally. Where it disagrees, I relegate it to the status of myth.” Perhaps this caricature is an overstatement, but so far as I can see, it’s a pretty good approximation of what you’ve been stating in these posts. The bottom line is this. Given your hermeneutic, it would be JUSTIFIABLE to mythologize one heck of a lot of NT teaching (consider for instance verses where Adam and Christ are mentioned in the SAME VERSE). Therefore you would have every reason to endorse a pastor who mythologized most of the NT. Frankly I don’t think you would follow such a pastor, Vance, so I don’t believe you’re telling us the whole story about your hermeneutic. I think you’re giving us a partial view just to win the debate, but I don’t think you’re consistent in so limiting yourself in real life where actions speak louder than words. From the start, my objection has been that I don’t think you’re consistent.

Almost all of this is based on the false presumptions about my hermenuetical approach, as I set out above. You see literalism as something solid and sure, something easily grasped, and thus safer. I simply don't agree that Scripture is that simple. Some parts are meant to be read literally, some parts are not, we both agree on that. The difference is that you think that any literary presentation other than literal is some sort of "lesser" form of speaking by God, something less sure and less substantial. As you say, it is "relegated" to myth. The very use of that term indicates that you would find God speaking to us through a non-literal story somehow less important, less valuable than God speaking literal historicity. To me, this is very, very wrong, and is evidence of a cultural bias we have in modern times in favor of strict historicity and detailed accuracy. If you look at Genesis 1 and 2 and determine what the important messages God is giving us, none of it has to do with historicity or scientific accuracy. It is the theological truths that are abiding. For you, these truths are somehow tied to the events described being literal history. For me, they are not.

But here is the important point: they are the same theological truths. I accept them as true whether the events described are literal or not. You are suggesting a hermenuetic that would reject these truths if the events are not literal. So, which is actually more solid and secure?

 

[herev]

I can definitely take the NT literally, even when it is referring to non-literal events and persons. This is still the part you won't accept.

Thats what I've been trying to tell him

 

[Vance]

"Probably 99% of the time, when the NT is making a a comparative statement intended non-literally, it SIGNALS us with words such as "parable" or "like" (viz. The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a mustard seed)."

How do you know this? This is circular reasoning to the extreme. There are instances where they give such signals, but what is the evidence that there were not other instances where they were referring to non-literal events, but NOT giving such signals? Your conclusion just circles back to your belief that these other instances were referring to literal events.

 

[1denomination]

But you already know that Hercules is a mythological figure, why would this change your mind about Hercules instead of changing your mind about hermeneutics? To have a closed mind about anything is violating very important rules in hermeneutics--it permanently gives your interpretation a slant for YOUR world view

Yes But, You TE's think Adam was mythological or non-literal because of all the evidence of modern day science.

None of "the Evidence" was available 2000 years ago, thus they did not know Adam was a mythological or non-literal figure whatever you prefer. So Knowing this why wouldnt paul set them straight on that, instead on letting them go on beliving a lie.And I say lie because if they belived Adam to be literal and Paul or Christ knew that he wasnt a literal figure, then to use something they thought to be truth just to get a point across would have been very misleading. I'm sorry but it just seems to me that without a literal Adam the Bible just doesnt work.

 

[versastyle]

1D:

2000 years ago, they probably didn't care. Only we do now, after the fact.

Why is it even important for them to know?

 

[JAL]

I don't want to belabor the point far enough to cause heated fellings, so let me address this just once more (sorry if I'm not getting it)I think you are not understanding my point. I am hermeneutically trying to take one situation from the scriptures and do a what if the same conversation took place today scenario. We cannot mix the two as that would be poor hermeneutics.

I am also not trying to say that this PROVES anything, but rather that it is POSSIBLE to interpret Jesus' and Paul's writings as truthful, even if they are referring to something that is mythological and they don't say, "by the way everyone, this is a mythological statement." IOW, is it POSSIBLE that Paul (in Romans) referrs to Adam and compares Christ to Adam and even introduces things in his contemorary situation based on Adam--even if he viewed it as a text that is NOT to be taken literally.
So let's take the hypothetical arguement and see if it is plausable (not definitive):

Possible Biblical scenario (sorta like a hypothesis).
Paul does NOT take Genesis literally in the creation accounts, but sees them as containing truthful statements about God, humanity and the relationship betwen the two.
Paul wants to make a point to the people of his day by using an illustration that they will be familiar with and that has Scriptural authority
Paul mentions Adam, compares Christ to Adam, and even goes so far as to suggest doctrine or polity--based on the image and illustration of Adam (again, since it can be true in this scenario, without being factual). Hence we have this text from Romans.
In this scenario, it would be an unfounded leap of logic to assume that because he quoted it, he believed it is literal.

Modern day model for comparison (does this make sense as we understand it--could we see a scenario that would mimic those circumstances and be acceptable)
President Bush speaks of your good friend, the olympic champion weight lifter, as being as strong as Hercules.
You believe that Hercules is a mythological figure--not real, but you understand the reference--he was the strongest man who ever lived--
and you know your friend has just won a world-wide title that would suggest that he is in fact the strongest man in the world
You see and understand the comparison, but it does not affect your belief that Hercules is mythological. The truth of the President's comment does not hinge on whether or not Hercules is a real man.
So the comparison suggests that because Paul mentioned Adam and relied on his illustration does NOT mean that 1) he thought Adam was literal or 2) that the statements Paul made have any less value becuase of pointing to a potential unliteral figure.
I do not in any way suggest that we shuould even be discussing what it would mean if the Bible mentioned Hercules, but it would be interesting.

Does that make sense? (not do you agree, but do you understand what I'm saying?)

If you are asking me if I understand you, the answers is yes, as best I can tell.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for this post, I'm glad we have areas of agreement. When I clicked on that link, though, I'm not sure it took me to the right place, so I didin't have the patience to read it (I've really been wasting too much time on this forum anyway).

Sorry about that.

I tried to fix it, but I kept getting weird results.