Mr. Jenkins,
I agree that none of us possess the raw power at the intellectual and wisdom level
to separate the entire contents of the Bible into what is historical and what is
non historical. It is very interesting how certain 'stories' rate so poorly on
the credibility scale, namely the Jonah fish story, and the sun-standing-still
story. I agree with you that putting a doubt sticker on the historicity of these
and any other 'stories' merely opens the door to more doubt. One only has to
consider the extreme conclusions of the Jesus Seminar in order to see the power of
doubt at work. On one occasion Billy Graham expressed his frustration toward this
pick-and-chose attitude by saying: "I would believe the Bible even if it said that
Jonah swallowed the fish".
As you suggest, the safe road to take is that if you have no real solid reasons to
doubt, then believe. By solid I mean that if Jesus were to personnally ask
someone to stake his life on the myth option, that the challenged indivual would
do so without his knees banging together and without stuttering.
What use would God have for a mythical fish story to explain the very real problem
of the Jews' non acceptance of Gentiles as being equal in His eyes? Parables use
stories in a particular way. These stories are chosen because of the parallels
they bring out. They simplify by making comparisons between familiar events and
spiritual matters, for example between a farmer sowing seeds, and the different
ways people receive the Word. A common everyday event is used to clarify a
no-so-intellectually graspable spiritual reality. The sower is understood to be a
generic farmer. No need to call him farmer John or farmer Jim. Any farmer will
do. And neither are we concerned if his remains, complete with the seed bag still
on his shoulder, have never been dug up. Jonah on the other hand is not a
generic person and the fish scene is not a commonplace one helping to understand
the message. It therefore compels one to consider this event as historical.
The myth solution is to be avoided. Isn't the Christian faith based on facts: the
rolled stone, the ressurection, the accomplished prophesies, the written Word, the
miracles, the changed lives of those seeking God, and creation itself ?
Regards
Vernon Jenkins a écrit:
> Chuck,
>
> Thanks for these comments.
>
> > 1. YES. In addition to our sinful nature and pride, is probably due
> > to the subject matter and the way it has been presented to us. Sinful
> > nature and pride lead to assuming that a particular interpretation is
> > the only correct one, or important enough that we see fit to separate
> > from other denominations and set up new ones. The subject matter is
> > difficult to comprehend (e.g., the concept of the Trinity, free will).
> > The way the Good News is presented to us in the Bible does not allow
> > for "follow up questions" for specific details (well, it does, but
> > the answers are not always crystal clear).
>
> My comments transcended all thoughts of denominations. Expressed very
> simply, we have those Christians who believe, period; and those who
> believe in part (the 'bespoke gospel' folk that I had occasion to refer
> to some time ago). Believing as I do the Scriptures to be the immutable
> Word of God, I freely acknowledge the presence of difficulties in some
> areas; but the alternative, in my view, is attended by far more serious
> problems. You see, from what I read, I don't believe God to be as
> tolerant in this matter as many would have us believe. Again, the
> concept of a 'conditional faith' - no doubt based on what is currently
> fashionable in science - seems completely out of place in this context.
>
> > 2. Because the "word of the Lord" is not always as clear as we would
> > like when it gets down to details.
>
> Perhaps you could suggest some examples.
>
> > 3. The "logical principle" is based on extra-Scriptural evidence,
> > pure and simple and on "internal inconsistencies" as George Murphy
> > pointed out to me recently. Miracles are easier acceptable as long as
> > there is no evidence to the contrary. Often there is none (the
> > floating iron axe head cannot be examined, nor can the water from
> > which is was retrieved and we can't model the water flow in that part
> > of the Jordan to determine if there could be conditions that would
> > allow the axe head to surface , the wine is long gone, the talking
> > donkey has expired, and Lazarus return to the land of the living
> > was temporary). Those miracles are relatively easy to accept. But
> > some will, undoubtedly, say that Lazarus was not really dead and the
> > story is allegorical and is recorded to show us that ... (and it is
> > left up to each of us to fill in the blanks). There is a consensus
> > amongst all of us, however, that the Incarnation, Death of the Cross,
> > and Resurrection did take place. To me, these events and my
> > eligibility to share in the rewards of Jesus' suffering and death,
> > constitute the Good News. The rest of Scripture is absolutely
> > fascinating and, at times, I can't wait to see how it all (Special and
> > General Revelation) fits.
>
> I personally regard this questioning of the Scriptures as a completely
> profitless - even dangerous - exercise. What does it really achieve for
> one's personal spiritual well-being? For God's creatures to pretend they
> can make such judgments is really a travesty. I recently had occasion to
> draw attention to Isaiah 29:13 et seq. Clearly, God has never taken
> kindly to such high-handed behaviour. But, anyway, why should you
> believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and, following his death on the
> Cross, was resurrected? These are far greater miracles than the ones you
> wish to discard, are they not? Then why set out along the slippery slope
> of unbelief? Our very clever former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins,
> followed that path and - while still drawing his substantial salary and
> presiding at major religious events in his magnificent finery - ended up
> denying the virgin birth and the raison d'etre of the Cross.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vernon
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode
>
>
>
> Vandergraaf, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > Vernon,
> >
> > <snip>
> > Isn't Christendom in a confused enough state already? Why can we not
> > accept the words of the Lord at their face value? It appears that many
> > are able to accept some miracles, but not others! This appears to be a
> > purely arbitrary matter. But perhaps I am missing something. Is there in
> > this a logical principle that distinguishes one biblical event from
> > another? Perhaps those who believe there is will respond.
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'll try to give you my perspective to your questions.
> >
> > 1. YES. In addition to our sinful nature and pride, is probably due to the
> > subject matter and the way it has been presented to us. Sinful nature and
> > pride lead to assuming that a particular interpretation is the only correct
> > one, or important enough that we see fit to separate from other
> > denominations and set up new ones. The subject matter is difficult to
> > comprehend (e.g., the concept of the Trinity, free will). The way the Good
> > News is presented to us in the Bible does not allow for "follow up
> > questions" for specific details (well, it does, but the answers are not
> > always crystal clear).
> >
> > 2. Because the "word of the Lord" is not always as clear as we would like
> > when it gets down to details.
> >
> > 3. The "logical principle" is based on extra-Scriptural evidence, pure and
> > simple and on "internal inconsistencies" as George Murphy pointed out to me
> > recently. Miracles are easier acceptable as long as there is no evidence to
> > the contrary. Often there is none (the floating iron axe head cannot be
> > examined, nor can the water from which is was retrieved and we can't model
> > the water flow in that part of the Jordan to determine if there could be
> > conditions that would allow the axe head to surface , the wine is long gone,
> > the talking donkey has expired, and Lazarus return to the land of the living
> > was temporary). Those miracles are relatively easy to accept. But some
> > will, undoubtedly, say that Lazarus was not really dead and the story is
> > allegorical and is recorded to show us that ... (and it is left up to each
> > of us to fill in the blanks). There is a consensus amongst all of us,
> > however, that the Incarnation, Death of the Cross, and Resurrection did take
> > place. To me, these events and my eligibility to share in the rewards of
> > Jesus' suffering and death, constitute the Good News. The rest of Scripture
> > is absolutely fascinating and, at times, I can't wait to see how it all
> > (Special and General Revelation) fits.
> >
> >
> > Chuck Vandergraaf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 06:30:18 EDT