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.
Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.They're all products of the Enlightenment and don't believe in miracles to begin with
You still don't have an answer to what stories are history and what stories aren't and how you know which are which. We know Jesus tells stories because either he or the writer is pretty clear they are not real incidents but are stories told to provide us a truth. However the other stories told in the Bible are not told in that fashion. They are given to us as history. It is us who choose to not see them as such. Not because someone has told us they are allegories or fables to present a point. In fact Genesis is a great example. Folks that don't believe it as history cannot explain textually how they know what stories are historical and which ones aren't. They can't really describe how they know. They just believe it.
One can do that and still be saved , but would be not very consistent, as how would they be able to determine if the passages on Jesus and how to be saved were inspired than or not to us?Hey all,
I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm, but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.
How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?
IF one can accept that God became a Man in Jesus, then any and all miracles are self explainable!Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.
About miracles. It's not that they are impossible, but that in the 1st Cent people reported miracles from people like Jesus. Miracles aren't just present in Christian documents; they're all over the place in pre-modern cultures. Indeed even in modern cultures, people report miraculous healings that don't survive followup investigation. That is enough to make a reasonable person somewhat skeptical. I don't think God is a deist God who just sits back and watches. I think he works in history and in our lives. But I wouldn't bet too much on the accuracy of any one miracle story.
There's a difference between saying that miracles are possible and saying that one specific miracle actually happened.IF one can accept that God became a Man in Jesus, then any and all miracles are self explainable!
The resurrection of Jesus is really the only miracle that needs to be true though!There's a difference between saying that miracles are possible and saying that one specific miracle actually happened.
I accept N T Wright's argument that given 1st Cent Jewish ideas, this was not the type of miracle that would likely have become attached to Jesus' life, unlike most of the miracles during his ministry.The resurrection of Jesus is really the only miracle that needs to be true though!
So you do accept the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as true?I accept N T Wright's argument that given 1st Cent Jewish ideas, this was not the type of miracle that would likely have become attached to Jesus' life, unlike most of the miracles during his ministry.
I'm not actually saying that there were no others, just that it's hard to be sure.
Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.
About miracles. It's not that they are impossible, but that in the 1st Cent people reported miracles from people like Jesus. Miracles aren't just present in Christian documents; they're all over the place in pre-modern cultures. Indeed even in modern cultures, people report miraculous healings that don't survive followup investigation. That is enough to make a reasonable person somewhat skeptical. I don't think God is a deist God who just sits back and watches. I think he works in history and in our lives. But I wouldn't bet too much on the accuracy of any one miracle story.
I don't really want to debate it. I'm happy to try to explain my position to others, but when you start accusing me of being illogical or whatever, then I'm done.
My hermeneutic supports a vibrant and living faith. That's enough for me.
I'm referring to the thought process of accepting some impossibilities while rejecting others. A vibrant living faith believes what the word of God tells you. That's why it's called faith. You whole heartedly believe in the Virgin birth by faith b cause you know that's impossible. Yet that same faith is rejected when it comes to Jonah or Adam and Eve? Why? Yet we know that with God ALL things are possible. There is a principle there. Faith is at the heart of all this.
There Bible is full of impossibilities. But they are only impossible in the human mind. You are a woman of faith. Why doesn't that faith sustain what the word says?
Well, first, I don't think of them as impossibilities (since God is involved), and the "impossibility" isn't the criterion by which I assess the historicity of a text. I think you're making a false premise about my thought process there.
This is more about an assessment of genre. It's not that I "reject faith" when it comes to Jonah, it's that my assessment of the genre of the work (based on the best scholarship to which I have access) is that it's satirical. It's wisdom literature making a very barbed point about the attitudes of the Israelites of the day. I accept that point by faith.
By the way, I don't know if you realise quite how insulting the way you wrote the above post is. It comes across as an accusation of lack of faith, and quite possibly lack of intelligence. It would be both helpful and kind if you could avoid such an accusatory tone.
I have a degree in Biblical literature. So I have a great understanding of of genre. Liberal theology often uses the genre argument, but they apply their own ideas into the text. So often the real reason behind these applications are not the literature itself, but the "impossibilities" contained in the texts. Jonah is not satire. It is history. I've read some of these so called scholarly ideas and they love to pontificate about the fish and Jonah. Yet they have no real evidence that it didn't happen exactly as stated. In fact much of the OT is looked at through the lense of "couldnt really have happened" or there is no "evidence that it happened" therefore it didnt happen thus the literature must be allegorical or satire or whatever. Yet the actual text doesn't really indicate that.
It's not about Jonah specifically. It about liberal theology dismissing the history of the scriptures. Whether it's Jonah, Moses, Abraham or Job. It's all true and there is nothing in scripture or the way things are written to indicate otherwise.Again, you're missing the point. My assessment of Jonah is not based on the big fish, or any supposed impossibility. It's based on the style and content of the book as a whole; the way Jonah is presented and the way his message and the response to it is recorded, and so forth.
And of course the text doesn't start with: "Disclaimer: this book is satire." It didn't need to when it was written, just as Voltaire didn't need to for us to read him that way. But millennia from now could someone pick up a copy of Candide and mistake it for history?
Well, I don't consider myself to be a theological liberal, although I find some others do, so take that as a starting disclaimer.
I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture; that it tells us everything we need to know for a saving relationship with God. I don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, nor has that traditionally been a position held in my church.
To me, inspiration means "God is speaking to us through this text." It doesn't mean "This text can be read accurately as a science or history textbook," or even "This text needs to be taken as literal instructions for us today." We need to approach Scriptural texts critically and with an awareness of genre etc. For example, just because I don't believe Jonah or Job were literal historical figures, but rather that those books are more akin to wisdom literature, doesn't mean the books with those names have nothing to teach us!
Actually liberal theology is more of a modern concept.In the American context, that makes you a liberal in certain peoples eyes. Even though the Wesleyan and Anglican traditions have never taken strong stands in favor of biblical inerrantism, which was more of an American Reformed distinctive that came out of Princeton in the late 19th century.
The reality is, for much of the rest of the world, there is no sharp distinction between conservative or liberal theology. What many American Christians think of as "conservative Christian" is so insular and sectarian, it is popularly called "un culte" in a country like France, in distinction to actual historic French Protestant churches, which typically are broad churches that have a variety of theological perspectives.
Actually liberal theology is more of a modern concept.
Again, you're missing the point. My assessment of Jonah is not based on the big fish, or any supposed impossibility. It's based on the style and content of the book as a whole; the way Jonah is presented and the way his message and the response to it is recorded, and so forth.
And of course the text doesn't start with: "Disclaimer: this book is satire." It didn't need to when it was written, just as Voltaire didn't need to for us to read him that way. But millennia from now could someone pick up a copy of Candide and mistake it for history?
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?