mark kennedy said:
These are not neutral events, they are the 'righteous deeds' of the Living God. The three angels in the Revelation said 'You alone are holy'. What is being revealed is far more then God's triumph over other gods. It is the righteouness of God that is being revealed in Scripture.
So basically you are saying that we don't know that an event is God's doing from the nature of the event itself. We need revelation to identify the mighty and righteous acts of God.
Without revelation, they would appear to be ordinary political (or social, economic, natural, etc.) events. Without revelation, Jesus' death was merely one more crucifixion of a political dissident.
It was Jesus who appealed to the miracles as confirmation of His authority.
When did we switch the topic? We were discussing whether Jesus considered Adam to be a literal, historical individual.
No, they proclaimed through the prophets that God was the Most High.
And as the Most High, was he not the one who sent lightning?
You have to take into consideration that from their perspective the celestial objects in the heaven moved around the earth. It was not untill the invention of the telescope that they realized the earth revolved around the sun.
No, Copernicus did not have a telescope. He based his helio-centric system purely on mathematics. That is one reason his ideas were controversial. His math was simpler, but that is not a firm basis for saying his theory was right.
The invention of the telescope after his death permitted observations which affirmed his theory.
The material substance itself requires a divine fiat. This is where the ex nihilo doctrine comes from.
Right. But both Genesis and modern science affirm that what came into existence in the beginning was not an ordered cosmos. So there is still the question of making a cosmos out of a chaos--of establishing the natural processes that govern nature.
There is a very important theological issue that focuses on the use of a very special word for God's creative works:
Don't know where you are going with this. It doesn't respond to the issue. It is still the case that if other interpretations abound, one cannot speak of scripture being "plain". To single out one interpretation among several as "plain" and therefore "correct" is begging the question.
I do hope you are not suggesting Scientific postitivism:
I believe I attributed that to the Catholic Church in regard to the way it assesses miracles. Why would you draw the conclusion I was talking about myself?
The made an image of God like a calf, they ascribed to this image the power of God. They refused to believe in a God they could not see so they errected an idol.
Every so often, I get the impression that you have totally forgotten what you originally said. You originally brought up this example of the Israelites attributing to
nature what should be attributed to God. I am simply pointing out that a molten calf is not a product of nature.
Why would they believe anything Christians regard as history?
On the basis of evidence. There is a lot of history written by Christians which is believed to be true by non-Christians. And a lot of history written by non-Christians which is believed to be true by Christians.
Do we doubt the existence of Amenhotep or Pericles because their histories were not written by Christians? Do non-Christians doubt the existence of Charlemagne or Alfred the Great of Britain because their histories were written by Christians?
History itself does not present a belief problem. It is attributing the historical events to the will and action of God that poses the question: how do you know this train of events is due to the will and action of God?
Especially when we know that history is normally written by the victors who will always claim God is on their side.
When Jeremiah gave them the Word of the Lord, it was accompanied by a sign:
Behold, I will watch over them for adversity, and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine until there is an end to them...and this will be a sign to you, says the Lord"
(Jeremiah 44:27, 29)
I don't know what your point is. Of course, we expect Jeremiah to preach along this line. Do you think the ladies believed him and stopped worshipping the queen of heaven? Do you think, when the sign came to pass, they might not have their own explanation for it?
And, btw, when did this sign come to pass anyway? The Diaspora community of Jews in Egypt was still there centuries later.
Actually, it has both history and apocalyptic prophecy. Danial was a prophet in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar. He was there the night that Babylon fell at Belshazzar's feast. He was still there during the reign of Darius.
I grant that Daniel was probably a historical person. But the first 7 chapters of the book of Daniel are unlikely to be any more historical than the apocalyptic it finishes with. The events are too carefully chosen to reflect the situation in Judea at the time of its writing.
Daniel is written in an historical setting and should not regarded as some ill founded legend.
Lots of fictional stories are placed in historical settings.
They attributed the fall of Babylon to the sin of Belshazzar. He praised pagan gods with cups from the Temple of Jerusalem.
The Jews did. What about the Babylonians themselves? What about the Persians? What about other peoples like the Egyptians?
Besides, you are still missing the point. Even accepting that sacrilege was the reason God decreed the downfall of Babylon, that doesn't tell us
how God brought about the event. Even the biblical records of the fall of Babylon do not suggest that the Persian conquest depended on any supernatural event. Sacrilege tells us why God acted. It doesn't tell us how.
So, apart from Jewish claims, how do we know this was an example of God acting in history?
It is God's judgments visted on very real historical figures. Redemptive history is directly tied to the promises of the gospel. The signifigance is that God had acted historically and continues to perform His 'Righteous Deeds'. The Revelation is about these righteous deeds being 'revealed'. This is absolutly vital to the gospel.
Mark, I am not disputing anything you are saying here. But you are still side-stepping the issue. I asked for an objective basis for attributing the Persian conquest of Babylon to the judgment of God. By "objective" I mean a basis which would be accepted by non-Jews and non-Christians.
But you just keep giving me theology-and theology is for those who already believe.
I really don't see how you are missing it.
Let me explain it as simply as I can.
There are things we can observe objectively in history. e.g. Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. Sennacharib was assassinated in 681 BC.
I don't think I have ever heard the assassination of Caesar called a judgment of God, but the assassination of Sennacherib is viewed as God's judgment on him by the biblical writers. I don't disagree with the biblical writers. But I ask: what distinguishes one from the other in the eyes of an impartial viewer?
I can see why Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem would say the defeat of Sennacherib and his subsequent death was an act of God.
But I doubt that Esarhaddon (Sennacherib's son, assassin and successor) thought Hezekiah's god had anything to do with it.
What makes Esarhaddon an instrument of God's judgment when Brutus is just an assassin for a political agenda?
As far as I can see, historically, all we have are two political assassinations. One of them is interpreted theologically by the biblical writers as the judgment of God. But that is an interpretation of the event. There is nothing in the event itself that marks it as God's doing.
Is that clear?
Same goes for many of the other events in history that have been called part of redemptive history. Take away revelation, take away faith, and one has only ordinary historical events that no one would think to call acts of God unless something/someone told them this event was special.
I suppose that is at least a tenable statement.
Unless you can find an exception to what I stated above, it is certainly tenable.
What a wonderfull exposition and you are absolutly right. That is the gospel according to Moses.
Grace and peace,
Mark
See, you don't have to be a literalist to understand what the bible teaches. Or to believe it.