I will await your response, even if it is two weeks from now.
At 03:43 PM 9/28/98 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>I think the source is simply that when I read scripture, I perceive that
>its intent is to point me to Jesus Christ. That's all. I see that
>assertion at several points. If accurate history was its intent in any
>way, I suspect that it would make an assertion to that effect somewhere.
>I think it does not.
I am going to note, that if one wants to deliver a message, it is best that
the trappings of that message be true. Only in that way is trust
developed. And without trust, no one believes the message. We are seeing a
wonderful object lesson of that today with our president.
>Why is Genesis 5:18 fable and non historical but 1 Chron 4:8 real
>history?>>
>
>Please understand. I make no assertion that Gen 5:18 is fable. I only
>make the assertion that it is part of a story structure, and that the
>purpose of that story appears to have nothing to do with my acceptance of
>Gen 5:18 as either "fact" or "allegory." (Or myth, if you will).
>
>As for 1 Chron 4:8 -- same assertion. I have no idea if the people of
>that time kept such accurate records that the verse is 100% accurate. It
>seems to make no difference. There is absolutely nothing I can or would
>do with the information, accurate or not. No decision I can think of
>making which would in any respect depend upon it being true.
>
>>>Are we to believe that
>
>Matth. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
>Jesus, who is called Christ.
>
>is fictional and allegorical, not relating any true history whatsoever?>>
>
>I take this as much more probably true than the other two verses. But
>again, I don't know what difference it makes whether I believe in a
>"literal Jacob-Joseph's father" or not.
I would suggest that the veracity of the Biblical message is based upon the
trappings of the message being true. If nothing in the Bible were true, no
Romans, no crucifixition, no Egyptians, no Hittites etc, would you believe
the message? Why don't we beleive Dianetics or David Koresh? If all that
matters is the message, anyone with a message can pass anything they want
off on us.
>
>>>I think you have a double standard for how you interpret Matt vs.
>Genesis.
>If you believe that Matt 1:16 is fictional or non-historical then I stand
>corrected. Is it non historical?>>
>
>See previous answers. You keep using Aristotle's logic on these things,
>Glenn! There are only A and ~A in your thought process! Again, I perceive
>Jacob-father-of-Joseph as a real person, but if that is shown false, or
>questioned, it does not seem to make any difference to Matthew's
>message(s). Likewise for the other two verses you mentioned.
You are correct, I use Aristotelian logic. That is what works best in this
world. If I simply find it difficult to believe a statement and its
negative at the same time. Does it matter if gravity is an inverse squared
law and not an inverse squared law at the same time? Does it matter if G.
Washington was our first president and not our first president at the same
time? The Bible is said to deliver truth, I don't see how it can do that if
it is all false.
>I think here you have a better case. "Sinai" certainly happened, at least
>in some sense and in some context. Likewise the resurrection. In both
>cases, the story is "about those events" and turning them into mythology
>-- even possible mythology does not seem possible. To me anyhow.
This is an important point of agreement. There must be some history in the
Scripture or we wouldn't believe it. You may have a greater tolerance for
nonhistory than I, but we both see the need for historicity.
>I do not wish to defend (or attack) the JEDP concept. Like you, I studied
>it once, and came away highly skeptical. But the scholars who did it are
>much more learned than I! One of the questions I asked (myself) was --
>does this thing make any real difference to being a Christian? I
>concluded, rightly or wrongly, that it did not and therefore I need not
>pursue it unless it was REALLY interesting stuff. It was not.
Yawn. I agree that JEDP was a real bore. But if logic doesn't bear out
what highly learned people say, then one has a right, even a duty to
discount what they say. There are some really smart people at ICR. Logic
and observational data says they are wrong. I will go with logic and
observation any day over 'learned.'
>
>You responded:
>
>"For the sake of argument let me grant your thesis. But since I also
>raised
>the issue of the Buddhists, who all could probably agree are not
>Christians, what about them? ... If they make the
>claim that their books are equally to be understood allegorically and
>theologically, does this mean
>that they also have a valid revelation of God? What about Islam? Do they
>have a valid revelation of God which is to be understood theologically?"
>
>I did not address Buddhism because I have little knowledge about them.
>I did not address the many many other religions, past and present either.
>
>Last week I gazed on the body (skeleton) of an 8 to 9 year old girl who
>died circa 150AD and was buried a mile south of us. My friend and
>neighbor came on the body when excavating for his new house. During the
>past week a Basketmaker II site was excavated revealing other bodies,
>house remains, pottery, etc. As I looked on this child, dead now over
>1800 years, I asked myself "How did she relate to Jesus Christ?" Will I
>see her in heaven? (I suspect my neighbor's children may have been
>interested in that one).
>
>What answer is there, Glenn, except "I don't know." No, I don't know
>about this child -- or my Mormon colleague at IBM (with whom I seemed to
>have good "Christian" fellowship," or the Buddhist or the Arab Islams,
>or... . But I DO KNOW the ONE who holds them all -- and you and me too,
>in his hands! In Joel, the prophet writes (apparently quoting God) "I
>will restore unto you the years the locusts have eaten." How that will
>happen I don't know. That it will happen I am absolutely confident.
But good ole Aristotelean logic says that it is impossible for the Koran,
which says that Jesus isn't the son of God, and Christianity which says
that He is, to both be correct at the same time. That is why Aristotelean
logic that you said I used (and which I freely admit to trying to live up
to its standards) is so important. Both A and ~A are true" is a false
statement!!!! And it always will be. Either Islam or Christianity is
wrong and if we allow textual documents to be read ONLY for their
theological message, it makes all religious documents equivalent and this
is clearly impossible according to Aristotle.
>>>My point is this. If objective truth cannot be used to evaluate these
>statements, and all can be understood 'theologically', then I would
>contend
>we can't understand anything. A=A and A not = A can not be true at the
>same
>time.I can not both be a person incapable of becoming a God and capable
>of
>becoming a God at the same time.>>
>
>No argument. Yet, I will assert, persons with opposing opinions on this
>subject can still both be a child of God. One, at least, is wrong. Being
>wrong does not make you a non-Christian. Being right (on this issue) does
>not make you a Christian either, of course.
It does make you a non-christian if you are Islamic or Buddhist. And the
big danger I see in how liberal Christianity wants to merely look for the
subjective theological message is that all religions can play that game and
thus all religious documents are equivalent.
>
>>>So let me ask you again, is Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Shintoism,
>Parseeism and Mormonism, with all their mutually exclusive statements,
>equally true and equally to be interpreted theologically?>>
>
>I would say not. I am a little puzzled why you would think I would
>believe this. But -- no matter.
I know you don't believe this. I am trying to press home the point that
giving up on historicity is like giving up on morality. All religious
documents become equivalent under the former assumption and all actions
become equivalent under the latter.
>
>>>Most of my atheist friends would say that if all religions do is
>illuminate
>our internal psychological state, one might as well go to a psychologist
>on
>Sunday or sleep in and see if your dreams will reveal the same info.>>
>
>I'd agree with them. The key word is "if." Christianity is not so much a
>religion, of course, as it is a relationship.
It is a relationship BECAUSE IT IS HISTORICALLY TRUE! Only if Jesus, his
incarnation, his resurrection, the prophecies about him in the Jewish OT
literature are true can we even begin to have a relationship with Him. The
first prophecy was in the Garden of Eden.
>
>Again -- I MAY get one more shot at a response in here this week -- but
>probably not. If not -- "see you" after 10/16 (if the creek don't rise).
>
>BTW -- a tidbit -- part of my PC view (which I'm really just thinking out
>and so is probably of little value or interest) is that we human beings
>are capable of performing non-natural causation, at least sometimes. No
>-- no weird stuff -- para/tele/kinesis or such -- just the logical (to
>me) working out of the concept of free will. More later...
I would love to hear this. It sounds like a fascinating view.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm