My earlier attempt at this seems to have vanished into a tear in cyberspace
so ...
glenn morton wrote:
...............
> I mis spoke there. I didn't mean to imply hypocrisy with the lip service
> comment. I apologize for inadvertently implying hypocrisy. YOu are no
> hypocrite. I don't know what term I should use to replace it but it seems
> to me that you have a pick and choose what historical events you require to
> be true and then can allow all the others not to be historical.
How about "critical" (as in "historical-critical method", not simply
"fault finding")?
> So, now answer the questions I asked (I will add a couple).
>
> Do you believe Balaam's famous talking donkey is historical?
> Do you believe an ax head floated, I mean actualy floated?
> Do you believe Jonah was a real historical tale? (you have previously said
> no).
> Was Jesus born of a virgin?
> Did he actually change water to wine or is that merely a theological tale?
> Did Peter actually heal that lame man or is that a theological tale?
Each of these would require detailed theological, historical, literary &
scientific treatment. I don't know how interested you are in the rationale for my
answers so won't launch into such a treatment now. I can go into more detail if you're
interested. But please realize that there are reasons for my answers & that they aren't
just arbitrary "I like this one, I don't like that one" decisions. I assume that
"historical" here means "reasonably accurate account of historical events as they
actually happened".
Balaam: Probably not historical.
Ax head: I don't know.
Jonah: I've given reasons before for thinking that this isn't an historical
narrative (& it isn't simply because of the fish).
I believe that Jesus was conceived of a virgin. ("Virgin birth" in the strict
sense, _virginitas in partu_, is not attested in Scripture & in any case
its meaning is obscure.)
Water to wine: Probably historical.
Healing of lame man: Historical.
Except for virginal conception these are my own opinions, subject to change (though not,
I hope, capriciously).
In spite of appearances, the above responses do not mean that OT accounts, & in
particular those of miracles, are not historical while NT ones are. That appearance is
a result of the examples you chose. & I should note that the heavy emphasis on the
miraculous tends to distort things somewhat.
In turn, let me ask this. Do you believe, on the basis of Mt.26:26 that
communicants receive in the Lord's Supper "the true body of Christ that was born of the
Virgin, offered on the cross for the salvation of the world, and sits at the right hand
of the Father"?
(No, this is not a strictly historical question, and yes, I realize that some on
this list think it's gauche to talk here about sacraments. But the question gets at the
basic issue of "picking and choosing" literal or figurative interpretations.)
........................
> > Of course I've never described Genesis 1 as anything like this and would
> never
> > say that it was anything approaching "silly" or that it was "merely"
> historical truth.
> > But why should you believe my "lip service"?
>
> On numerous occasions you have said that it does not describe what actually
> happened at creation. The details don't match what really happened. While
> you might not describe it as I did above, I would describe it as I did above
> if I felt that the creation account had absolutely no bearing or conformance
> to reality. If there is no historical truth in details of the creation
> account, then one would be charged with perjury if he told such a
> non-conforming-to-reality story on the witness stand.
But I have & always will deny that either of the Genesis accounts has
"absolutely no bearing or conformance to reality"! If that were so then they wouldn't
be about the creation of the real world. To see what I actually say (or said briefly 15
years ago) about them read Chapter 3 of _The Trademark of God_.
BTW, you seem to have travelled about a day back in time according to the time
on your message. Did your computer's clock get reset? Or am I messed up - a not
unlikely hypothesis?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 18:58:39 EDT