God is Imaginary
Replies
-
mab and brunner-
The entire Christian movement was based on the claim of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus. This is obvious from the earliest New Testament documents. It is only stubborn unbelief and skepticism that would deny that this was the earliest claim of Christians (See I Corinthians 15:1ff as an example). Your position would lead to the notion that the earliest "Christians" created facts out of thin air after the fact, impressed countless others with their willingness to suffer and even die for their "fake" stories, and that no one was left around who could debunk the story to the satisfaction of others. All of this is based on what? Your unwillingness to believe? Do you have any "proof" that the biblical writers were people lacking in integrity? That they willingly deceived others? That they were men of questionable character? Everything we know points in a very different direction.
I don't have any proof about anything, but to me it seems more illogical to believe that anything supernatural happened. Why should I be expected to believe that magic happened when I've never witnessed anything like that myself? Christianity's magic isn't any more believable than any other religion's.
What proof do you have that the writers of the bible had integrity, or even were who you think they were?0 -
You asked for my option.
I know, and I should have thanked you for replying. I really do appreciate your taking the time to engage in this conversation. I really am sincere in wanting to know your opinions and reasons. So, I hope I didn't come across as trying to change your position. If so, I apologize.0 -
Winey, I have a genuine question about your beliefs. I know that you accept the story of Jesus' resurrection as truth, but what other parts of the bible? Just the new testament? Just the parts about Jesus? You mentioned earlier in the discussion that you have to be able to differentiate which parts are just stories and which ones are true.0
-
I don't have any proof about anything, but to me it seems more illogical to believe that anything supernatural happened. Why should I be expected to believe that magic happened when I've never witnessed anything like that myself? Christianity's magic isn't any more believable than any other religion's.
What proof do you have that the writers of the bible had integrity, or even were who you think they were?
I suppose your question is somewhat similar to trying to describe falling in love with someone who has never had that experience or describing the beauty of DNA replication to someone who has never heard of it. In any case, there are plenty of things that have happened that we have not directly experienced. I’ve never seen the “Big Bang” but it apparently happened once. There are unique “singularities” in history that may not lie in the range of my experience but are nonetheless true. When I look at the Scriptures and the history of early Christianity I find that all the evidence points me to the founders of Christianity being persons of integrity and honesty. When I read the words and acts of Jesus I find them powerful and persuasive. They do not strike me as something made up by deceivers.
The writers of the New Testament books are people like Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, Mark, and James. All were first-generation Christians who either knew those who knew Jesus or knew Jesus directly. They all suffered for their faith and most died for it.0 -
Winey, I have a genuine question about your beliefs. I know that you accept the story of Jesus' resurrection as truth, but what other parts of the bible? Just the new testament? Just the parts about Jesus? You mentioned earlier in the discussion that you have to be able to differentiate which parts are just stories and which ones are true.
I accept all the Bible but it is important to make sure you are understanding the Bible as it was meant to be understood. In other words, the Bible makes use of many different literary “genres,” or styles of writing. If the Bible is correctly understood, I believe it faithfully communicates the truth that God wants us to know. This may require a good deal of effort (in part because the Bible was written long ago and styles of communication have changed) but it is not impossible. Some parts of the Bible are easier to understand and more obviously “inspirational.” All of it is important, however. Does that make sense?0 -
Problem I have is that it appears to be highly subjective. One thing is literal another is allegorical apparently just on the whim of the reader. The Bible says Eve was created from Adam's Rib and Jesus feed 5000 with a handful of fish. One is supposedly fact the other isn't - depending on who you talk to. Prawns are OK but homosexuality isn't. Foreskins on or off depending on which bit you read.Some parts of the Bible are easier to understand and more obviously “inspirational.” All of it is important, however. Does that make sense?0 -
Winey, I have a genuine question about your beliefs. I know that you accept the story of Jesus' resurrection as truth, but what other parts of the bible? Just the new testament? Just the parts about Jesus? You mentioned earlier in the discussion that you have to be able to differentiate which parts are just stories and which ones are true.
I accept all the Bible but it is important to make sure you are understanding the Bible as it was meant to be understood. In other words, the Bible makes use of many different literary “genres,” or styles of writing. If the Bible is correctly understood, I believe it faithfully communicates the truth that God wants us to know. This may require a good deal of effort (in part because the Bible was written long ago and styles of communication have changed) but it is not impossible. Some parts of the Bible are easier to understand and more obviously “inspirational.” All of it is important, however. Does that make sense?
It makes sense in a way. I understand what you mean, I just don't see how your interpretation is more valid than anyone else's. Some people take it all literally. Some people only parts. Some people see the entire thing as inspirational and not to be taken literally.
Anyone can pick and choose any parts of it that they want to believe and discard the rest, or do the same with any other of the innumerable religions in the world with their own deities, and no point of view is more correct than any other. I don't think that it's ok to pick and choose your facts based on what feels right. I know that you don't feel you've done that, and neither do most religious people, but that's how it looks to me from the outside. You've read lots of books by different people professing their religious views and you say that you came to the most logical conclusion, but I don't see it as logic. I just see it as what feels the best.
I'm not criticizing, just saying how I see it.0 -
It makes sense in a way. I understand what you mean, I just don't see how your interpretation is more valid than anyone else's. Some people take it all literally. Some people only parts. Some people see the entire thing as inspirational and not to be taken literally.
Anyone can pick and choose any parts of it that they want to believe and discard the rest, or do the same with any other of the innumerable religions in the world with their own deities, and no point of view is more correct than any other. I don't think that it's ok to pick and choose your facts based on what feels right. I know that you don't feel you've done that, and neither do most religious people, but that's how it looks to me from the outside. You've read lots of books by different people professing their religious views and you say that you came to the most logical conclusion, but I don't see it as logic. I just see it as what feels the best.
I'm not criticizing, just saying how I see it.
We deal with issues like this all the time in our own language and culture. When you get your mail each day, you distinguish between kinds of mail. When you read the newspaper, you know the difference between a news article and an opinion piece, satire, comedy, etc. Same with movies and literature. The Bible has a variety of different kinds of literature (poetry, prose, prophecy, historical narrative, etc.). Most of these are fairly easy to figure out but some are more difficult. With respect to the Genesis story of creation (including the creation of Eve from Adam's rib), there are numerous poetic elements in the stories (e.g., 7 Day Schedule of Creation, 10 creative "words" of God, reminding us of the 10 Commandments, God shaping a human from the soil like an artist, use of mythic symbolism like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). There are many indications within the text that the early chapters of Genesis are not supposed to be taken as a literal, scientific narrative of creation. That being said, just like with other poetry, the stories of creation are making very important claims that are meant to be taken seriously but we should not read them in the wrong way. Concerning the specific items you mention, you have to consider all the Bible has to say on these topics, not selective, isolated texts. It's really not as hard as some think.0 -
Problem I have is that it appears to be highly subjective. One thing is literal another is allegorical apparently just on the whim of the reader. The Bible says Eve was created from Adam's Rib and Jesus feed 5000 with a handful of fish. One is supposedly fact the other isn't - depending on who you talk to. Prawns are OK but homosexuality isn't. Foreskins on or off depending on which bit you read.
I think some interpretations are more compelling, reasonable, consistent and meaningful than others. Of course, coming to that conclusion is the result of a very long time of weighing and learning the data. All I can do here is encourage you and others to carry out your own investigation but make sure you look at good examples of the major approaches and not just limit yourself to those that support what you already think. I think it is fair to say that I have read books representing all the major approaches to the Gospels (at least the various positions on the question of the historical nature of the New Testament writings). After a long while of doing this, it is my experience that you find there are only a few major approaches and that each has its presuppositions and biases. I think one can weigh his/her biases and presuppositions and see which are most reasonable. We are human beings and therefore subjects of history. We depend on the memory of those who have come before us to give us a sense of how we got where we are today. We can use a careful inductive method of historical investigation and I think the New Testament books stand up very well.
Just as it appears that we "religious" people make choices based on feelings, it appears to us much the same to those on the outside. You bring your own biases and presuppositions and I don't find your argumentation to be devoid of "feelings" and biases. I do think that when we look at a figure like Jesus, a purely historical inquiry falls short. Just as a purely physical or historical account of someone you love would leave much of that person still hidden, so with Jesus. Christians not only look at Jesus from a historical perspective but also from the perspective that Jesus is God present in space and time through his humanity. On the other hand, I do believe my understanding is very logical and reasonable. I don't have to discard my mind in order to be a Christian. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Christian faith provides a framework for understanding. From what I have studied, the New Testament documents should be treated as reliable, sincere writings that give real insight into the person of Jesus.0 -
The Christian faith provides a framework for understanding. From what I have studied, the New Testament documents should be treated as reliable, sincere writings that give real insight into the person of Jesus.
Why? What you seem to be saying is just ignore what it says in the Old Testament just go with the New. Surely they're both the word of God. If they're both the word of God then surely you should obey all of it. Don't all the things that you say about the reliability of the New Testament apply to the Old Testament?
If the Bible is the word of God then it should be 100% reliable and consistent. It isn't. It appears to be men interpreting what they think is the word of God.
An example of what I mean is Matthew 24:34. That's fairly specific about his second coming being within the lifetime of the people of that time. However, as we know, that never happened. However, the majority of Christians just gloss over that or they give some weird and wonderful explanation as to what that means.0 -
To add to what m_a_b said, a common christian interpretation is that Jesus said that the old testament is the word of god and its laws should be upheld. Do you think that he meant that?0
-
To add to what Brunner said: Jesus referred to many events in the Old Testament as if they were real events (Creation, Lot and his wife, Noah and the Flood). How do you reconcile the fact that he took events that we would say are allegorical to be literal?To add to what m_a_b said, a common christian interpretation is that Jesus said that the old testament is the word of god and its laws should be upheld. Do you think that he meant that?0 -
The Christian faith provides a framework for understanding. From what I have studied, the New Testament documents should be treated as reliable, sincere writings that give real insight into the person of Jesus.
There is a HUGE difference between that statement and your assertion that the New Testament provides documentary "proof" of events such as the various miracle stories, the resurrection, etc.
(Unless by "person" you are referring to the actual existence of a guy (sort of) named Jesus. If you are saying that the collection of sayings and teachings contained in the New Testament support the idea that a single charismatic figure did indeed exist and the statements can be attributed to him, then I would agree that is a valid argument. Personally, I am only marginally interested in "proving" the basic fact that someone loosely fitting the description of "Jesus" did indeed exist. I think there is a decent amount of evidence to that fact (although most of it is indirect). )
The scholarly consensus is that the "gospels" are collections of oral accounts, and "sayings" that were recorded at various times and in various locations. The unknown authors of the gospel accounts drew on these sources (e.g. Q document, other gospels), sometimes adding their own narrative frame. As a result you have several layers of reliability. Some of the actual sayings, teachings and parables have the highest reliability, the actual narrative facts have the lowest.
I don't think you can use the "reliable" parts as support for the overall factual reliability of the narrative. Other than catholic and christian apologists, I don't think this has much support among scholars. Neither does the idea that the gospels are eyewitness accounts written by the actual apostles. Your assertion that they were is the weakest part of your argument IMO, and one that surprises me, given how available--and convincing--the counterarguments are.0 -
Jesus certainly taught that the Old Testament was the word of God. He did not, however, teach that all the laws of the Old Testament were still in force. The New Testament treats the Old Testament an "older" covenant or "bond" between God and human beings. The Old Testament was a preparation for a better covenant that would be for all people. The Old Testament was specifically for the Hebrew people. The New Testament embraces all. Jesus' teachings were based on expanding the kind of relationship that God has with human beings and therefore certain aspects of the Old Testament law were considered obsolete because of their temporary significance. So, in short, I think Jesus meant what he said but looking at all Jesus taught one finds that various aspects of the Old Testament are no longer binding on us today because their temporary purpose has been achieved and something greater has now arrived.To add to what m_a_b said, a common christian interpretation is that Jesus said that the old testament is the word of god and its laws should be upheld. Do you think that he meant that?0 -
Jesus used Old Testament stories to make various points in his teaching. Those points are valid ones and those stories support them. Exactly how those stories are interpreted in relationship to history is a matter of debate but the truths that can be learned from them are clear and that is what we find in Jesus' teachings. Further, I do think believe that the stories you mention express true insights into history. The problem is when we use 21st century notions of history and lay them on the ancient Hebrew accounts of "pre-history" (eras of time before historical records were kept). The creation stories, for instance, give genuine insight into our ultimate origins but they do not do so in the language or thought-forms of modern science or contemporary history. In other words, we should read the Bible as it would have been read in the time it was written. The whole Bible (and all language about God) is an accommodation to human limits of understanding. Jesus speaks to his listeners in a language and with stories that the people can relate to. I don't think it is fair to impose modern standards of history on Jesus' references to the early chapters of Genesis. If we focus on the point Jesus was making in those stories in relationship to the stories themselves, the meaning of his words becomes clear.To add to what Brunner said: Jesus referred to many events in the Old Testament as if they were real events (Creation, Lot and his wife, Noah and the Flood). How do you reconcile the fact that he took events that we would say are allegorical to be literal?0 -
Jesus certainly taught that the Old Testament was the word of God. He did not, however, teach that all the laws of the Old Testament were still in force. The New Testament treats the Old Testament an "older" covenant or "bond" between God and human beings. The Old Testament was a preparation for a better covenant that would be for all people. The Old Testament was specifically for the Hebrew people. The New Testament embraces all. Jesus' teachings were based on expanding the kind of relationship that God has with human beings and therefore certain aspects of the Old Testament law were considered obsolete because of their temporary significance. So, in short, I think Jesus meant what he said but looking at all Jesus taught one finds that various aspects of the Old Testament are no longer binding on us today because their temporary purpose has been achieved and something greater has now arrived.To add to what m_a_b said, a common christian interpretation is that Jesus said that the old testament is the word of god and its laws should be upheld. Do you think that he meant that?
Does that mean that those other christians are wrong and you're right?0 -
There is a HUGE difference between that statement and your assertion that the New Testament provides documentary "proof" of events such as the various miracle stories, the resurrection, etc.
(Unless by "person" you are referring to the actual existence of a guy (sort of) named Jesus. If you are saying that the collection of sayings and teachings contained in the New Testament support the idea that a single charismatic figure did indeed exist and the statements can be attributed to him, then I would agree that is a valid argument. Personally, I am only marginally interested in "proving" the basic fact that someone loosely fitting the description of "Jesus" did indeed exist. I think there is a decent amount of evidence to that fact (although most of it is indirect). )
The scholarly consensus is that the "gospels" are collections of oral accounts, and "sayings" that were recorded at various times and in various locations. The unknown authors of the gospel accounts drew on these sources (e.g. Q document, other gospels), sometimes adding their own narrative frame. As a result you have several layers of reliability. Some of the actual sayings, teachings and parables have the highest reliability, the actual narrative facts have the lowest.
I don't think you can use the "reliable" parts as support for the overall factual reliability of the narrative. Other than catholic and christian apologists, I don't think this has much support among scholars. Neither does the idea that the gospels are eyewitness accounts written by the actual apostles. Your assertion that they were is the weakest part of your argument IMO, and one that surprises me, given how available--and convincing--the counterarguments are.
I'm happy to discuss specific counterarguments to the claims I have made if you make them. Generalizing about the scholarly consensus doesn't disprove my claims. The reality is that the most ancient sources we have affirm authorship of the Gospels by those whose names they bear. Modern scholarship often discards the ancient tradition without giving it proper weight (it only makes sense that people nearly 2,000 years closer to the writing of the Gospels were in a better position to know this information than we are today). Further, most modern approaches to the Gospels give written documentary sources primacy in the formation of the Gospels (the so-called Q source is an example), something that sounds much more like modern European historiography than the ancient Middle East. When you refer to "oral" tradition the implication seems to be that this is untrustworthy. Oral tradition is the way that oral cultures communicated and passed along what valued most to them. They had very precise methods of memorization and transmission, something we lack today because of our largely written culture. Also, all evidence supports the conclusion that the biblical documents were copied and passed along by people who cared more about preserving their texts and stories than in modifying or adding to them. Let me give an example or two.
First, it is striking that the Synoptic Gospels do not include teachings of Jesus on the subject of circumcision. This is particularly striking because the Christian way of reading and applying the Law of Moses was arguable the most volatile issue of the first century. Various New Testament books feature this controversy (e.g., Acts, Galatians, Romans, Colossians), not so with the Gospels. Since the Gospels were written when these controversies were raging, it is especially impressive that no one thought to "put words in Jesus' mouth" to address their problems or controversies. I see this as a powerful internal indicator that the Gospels are a faithful witness to the teachings of Jesus and not a later creation (since the Gospels reflect that earlier period without explicit references to later issues like Law-keeping, circumcision, etc.
Second, the Gospels have Jesus referring to himself more than 70 times as "Son of Man." Interestingly, Jesus almost never refers to himself as "Christ" or "Lord," but almost exclusively as "Son of Man." What is more interesting, is that the rest of the New Testament called Jesus Lord and Christ more than 100 times and almost never "Son of Man." Why do the Gospels record Jesus as calling himself something that they themselves nearly never called him? The answer, I suggest, is that the Gospels preserve a genuine memory of the words of Jesus and the Gospel writers did their very best to keep later styles of speaking or language away from the descriptions of Jesus and his words.
Obviously there is much more to say about all this but I wanted to give a few incidental examples of the care that the biblical writers took in recording the words of Jesus. It is not hard to find modern scholars who operate off blaring presuppositions or biases against the traditional understanding of the Gospels and their authorship. There are many solid interpreters, though, who do defend the same positions I'm arguing here. I've look at the various sides of this discussion and think this approach is the most sound and convincing one. I recommend Robert Stein's, "The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction" (Especially the chapter on the historical reliability of the Gospels), as well as Wenham's, "Re dating Matthew, Mark and Luke." These two books take different approaches but they show many of the problems with modern extreme rejections of the reliability of the Gospels and their historical rootedness in eyewitness testimony.0 -
Why? What you seem to be saying is just ignore what it says in the Old Testament just go with the New. Surely they're both the word of God. If they're both the word of God then surely you should obey all of it. Don't all the things that you say about the reliability of the New Testament apply to the Old Testament?
If the Bible is the word of God then it should be 100% reliable and consistent. It isn't. It appears to be men interpreting what they think is the word of God.
An example of what I mean is Matthew 24:34. That's fairly specific about his second coming being within the lifetime of the people of that time. However, as we know, that never happened. However, the majority of Christians just gloss over that or they give some weird and wonderful explanation as to what that means.
Your comments ignore the fact that the Bible is a progressively unfolding revelation from God. Alongside the “messiness” of human history, the Bible is a record of God’s patient dealings with human beings, taking them where they are and leading them to higher and higher levels of development and understanding. Just as you don’t teach a three-year-old like you do a fifty-year-old, so the Bible shows God teaching in one way at earlier stages and then higher ways in future times. The New Testament clearly teaches that the Old Testament belonged to an earlier stage of God’s revelation and now, in many ways, God has revealed the inner meaning of the old law through Christ.
If properly understood, I believe the Bible is 100% reliable and consistent. If you read it wrongly, however, you will miss its consistency.
Regarding Matthew 24:34, this is a great example of misunderstand Jesus’ words. That text is part of the Olivet Discourse that features Jesus’ teachings about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple within a generation of Jesus’ words. The language about the “coming of Jesus” that is associated with that event is apocalyptic in nature and is fulfilled in the “world-ending” nature of the end of the Temple. The reality is that Jesus’ words were fulfilled in AD 70 and, if correctly understood, make exactly the opposite point you are trying to make.0 -
Wineplease, I really want you to address my previous question about if your interpretations are the correct ones and other Christians are wrong.
You clearly studied the bible and other religions for a long time before you came to your conclusions. Is that what you think god intended? Is it supposed to take years (decades?) of study to be able to interpret god's will?0 -
Regarding Matthew 24:34, this is a great example of misunderstand Jesus’ words. That text is part of the Olivet Discourse that features Jesus’ teachings about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple within a generation of Jesus’ words. The language about the “coming of Jesus” that is associated with that event is apocalyptic in nature and is fulfilled in the “world-ending” nature of the end of the Temple. The reality is that Jesus’ words were fulfilled in AD 70 and, if correctly understood, make exactly the opposite point you are trying to make.
Matthew 24:30 - And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:34 - Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
What's to misunderstand? Jesus clearly says that he's returning within the lifetime of people living at that time.0 -
Wineplease, I really want you to address my previous question about if your interpretations are the correct ones and other Christians are wrong.
You clearly studied the bible and other religions for a long time before you came to your conclusions. Is that what you think god intended? Is it supposed to take years (decades?) of study to be able to interpret god's will?
As a Catholic, I believe the interpretation of the Bible is always properly done in the context of the Tradition. That is, the proper understanding of Scripture and the Christian life has been passed along through the centuries, going all the way back to Jesus and his Apostles. Interpreting the Bible, then, is not just me sitting alone and trying to figure it out. I read the Bible “with” the Church.
Concerning your second question, I don’t think God expects all of us to be experts in the Bible or anything else. Each of us is responsible for what we know and had access to. I believe God is patient and loving and that he will evaluate our lives based on our genuine openness to what we were able to know. So, instead of making general judgments about all people and religions, I think each of us should feel responsible for what we know and try to be as sincere, intelligent and open as possible in responding to God’s revelation.0 -
Regarding Matthew 24:34, this is a great example of misunderstand Jesus’ words. That text is part of the Olivet Discourse that features Jesus’ teachings about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple within a generation of Jesus’ words. The language about the “coming of Jesus” that is associated with that event is apocalyptic in nature and is fulfilled in the “world-ending” nature of the end of the Temple. The reality is that Jesus’ words were fulfilled in AD 70 and, if correctly understood, make exactly the opposite point you are trying to make.Matthew 24:30 - And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:34 - Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
What's to misunderstand? Jesus clearly says that he's returning within the lifetime of people living at that time.
I addressed all that above.0 -
I'm not sure why anyone thinks:
1. The existence of G-d is scientifically provable
2. The Bible has to be scientifically true in order to be either a) true or b) useful
3. Science and reason are sufficient to resolve ethical issues
Then against, I think we Jews (and probably other tribal cultures as well) have a very different understanding of religion that Christians and Muslims do.
Yeah, I'm being a snarky jerk and running away from the argument.
0 -
I addressed all that above.
How? Jesus clearly stated that he was returning (Matthew 24:30) and within the lifetime of people alive at the time (Matthew 24:34).
Also the prophetic part only works if you accept a pre 70CE date. I don't.0 -
How? Jesus clearly stated that he was returning (Matthew 24:30) and within the lifetime of people alive at the time (Matthew 24:34). Also the prophetic part only works if you accept a pre 70CE date. I don't.
Yes, it is so "clear" only if you ignore the apocalyptic genre of literature that was prevalent in the time of Jesus as well as the Old Testament background to the various ways that God "comes" and "appears" to his people. There are frequent references to God coming or appearing to his people through the nations that invaded Israel, destroyed Jerusalem, etc. Ignoring that background makes it "clear" to see a contradiction but paying attention to that background makes Jesus' words quite understandable and even powerful.0 -
I'm not sure why anyone thinks:
1. The existence of G-d is scientifically provable
2. The Bible has to be scientifically true in order to be either a) true or b) useful
3. Science and reason are sufficient to resolve ethical issues
Then against, I think we Jews (and probably other tribal cultures as well) have a very different understanding of religion that Christians and Muslims do.
Yeah, I'm being a snarky jerk and running away from the argument.
Just addressing point 3, I would argue that religion is neither sufficient nor necessary to resolve ethical issues.0 -
How? Jesus clearly stated that he was returning (Matthew 24:30) and within the lifetime of people alive at the time (Matthew 24:34). Also the prophetic part only works if you accept a pre 70CE date. I don't.
Yes, it is so "clear" only if you ignore the apocalyptic genre of literature that was prevalent in the time of Jesus as well as the Old Testament background to the various ways that God "comes" and "appears" to his people. There are frequent references to God coming or appearing to his people through the nations that invaded Israel, destroyed Jerusalem, etc. Ignoring that background makes it "clear" to see a contradiction but paying attention to that background makes Jesus' words quite understandable and even powerful.
This seems to contradict your stance on the bible as eyewitness accounts by comparing Jesus' words in the bible to other apocalyptic literature (fiction). Why make that comparison? If Matthew is supposed to be true, and Jesus said it, then it should be true. This just seems like backwards thinking, like "Jesus said he'd return in their lifetimes, but he didn't, therefore it must have been a metaphor."0 -
Exactly. Except that I'd have said "backpedaling".This just seems like backwards thinking, like "Jesus said he'd return in their lifetimes, but he didn't, therefore it must have been a metaphor."0 -
This just seems like backwards thinking, like "Jesus said he'd return in their lifetimes, but he didn't, therefore it must have been a metaphor."Exactly. Except that I'd have said "backpedaling".
You are misunderstanding me. Apocalyptic was a style of speaking/writing in the first century that made use of vivid imagery to describe major political events that were given a prophetic interpretation. This was used to describe real events (and therefore is not fictional) but uses imagery that describes the dramatic and important nature of those events that is not “literal” language but describes their spiritual, catastrophic significance. Use of this kind of language by Jesus is entirely consistent with a first-century date for those texts. The Old Testament prophets frequently used the same imagery to describe political events and Jesus, therefore, is speaking in commonly-recognized prophetic speech. For those familiar with the Old Testament prophets, then, Jesus’ meaning is clear and not contradictory at all.
There is no “backpedaling.” You can find everything I’m writing in major commentaries on Matthew (and other parallel texts). You can find extensive discussions of this text in N. T. Wrights book, especially, “Jesus and the Victory of God.” If you take the time to study this issue, I think you will be surprised to find how most of Jesus’ language on this matter is taken almost entirely from Old Testament prophets and has the meaning I’m suggesting. The problem that I keep seeing here is that people think Jesus’ language should be entirely understandable to 21st century readers, disregarding first-century modes of communication. This is not fair to the Bible any more than it would be fair to any other culture or era that has its own patterns of communication.0 -
You are misunderstanding me. Apocalyptic was a style of speaking/writing in the first century that made use of vivid imagery to describe major political events that were given a prophetic interpretation. This was used to describe real events (and therefore is not fictional) but uses imagery that describes the dramatic and important nature of those events that is not “literal” language but describes their spiritual, catastrophic significance. Use of this kind of language by Jesus is entirely consistent with a first-century date for those texts. The Old Testament prophets frequently used the same imagery to describe political events and Jesus, therefore, is speaking in commonly-recognized prophetic speech. For those familiar with the Old Testament prophets, then, Jesus’ meaning is clear and not contradictory at all.
Let's assume that's all true. How is the general public, as laypeople with regards to ancient historical styles of writing and speaking, who have been encouraged to read the bible and think and decide for ourselves, supposed to know that?
God isn't exactly making it easy for us.0
