DCJ

What about having an a priori assumption that the obvious, straightforward meaning of a biblical text is what God intended to convey by it?

That's the assumption we must have if we are ever to correctly interpret anything we read -- that the author is trying to communicate truth to us via the plain reading of the text. For example, you asked a question. You didn't use hyperbole or some other literary device that might cause me to interpret your statement metaphorically; therefore, I interpret your statement to be a literal question. That's the plain meaning. This kind of interpretation isn't something unique to the Bible; it's how we approach all literature. And the Bible is literature -- it's got narrative, poetry, hyperbole, that must all be interpreted correctly for us to accurately know what the author is trying to communicate. And if you take the totality of the Bible -- the Old Testament narratives, the gospels, the epistles -- and interpret them according to this same plain hermeneutic we use for all literature, while considering the testimony of archaeology and extra-biblical history, we get a certain picture of the Bible's meaning and what the authors were trying to communicate. And the person who deviates from this picture must assume the burden of proof by showing where the interpretation has broken down. Otherwise, there is no objective meaning to text, and the only meaning it has is whatever I subjectively want it to mean. Any number of meanings can be applied to a given text that the author never intended to convey. Which is exactly what has happened with respect to the Bible.

As many times as someone plays the "how else do you explain the early church?" card, you're going to get the same answer

The question seems legitimate to me.. with all this talk of gleaning meaning from the resurrection accounts, it seems reasonable to seek what meaning the disciples and early church ascribed to these events, and how it affected their behavior. It's a sound way of determining what actually happened, or at least what they thought happened.

 

which leads to the conclusion that people CAN believe a lie and even die for it. The examples throughout religious history are, sadly, endless. So, its not good scholarship or sound thinking to believe that because someone is willing to die for an idea that this alone makes the idea True.

You are right that people can and are willing to die for a lie, even if they believe it is true. However, it's very unlikely that they'd willingly die if they KNOW it's a lie. Why would they lie about seeing the risen Jesus, and die for it, if they knew it wasn't true. It doesn't sound like they knew there was a dead body of Jesus, which could've been produced by the Jewish authorities or the Romans. None of the "eyewitnesses" denounced their testimony. It's not an iron-clad proof of the resurrection, but it should be explained.

 

Well, one reasonable response is that people don't walk on water, tell storms to stop, come back from the dead, or float up into the sky; and so when the Bible speaks of these things, it must not be referring to historical-scientific happenings, whether it seems to be doing so or not. Of course, your objection will be to say that the Bible judges our understanding of what is possible, and that is perfectly true, as far as it goes. But it's a long way from presuming that, unless there are significant reasons to the contrary, the obvious, straightforward reading of a Biblical text is automatically true. You may be committed to this view, or some more nuanced version of it, but it's not the only "reasonable" one, and it's not the only one that takes the biblical witness seriously.

Taking the biblical witness seriously means taking it in the way in which the authors meant it to be taken. IMO, having an a priori assumption against miracles, especially when we're supposedly dealing with God, is not the right way to begin. So our task is to find out what the authors were trying to communicate, and either agree or disagree with it. But let's not presume the authors were trying to say one thing IF in fact they were trying to say something else.

The biblical authors did use different literary genres (narrative, poetic, apocalyptic..) in their writings to communicate truth. But the difference is fairly easy to discern. The gospels and epistles are more narrative. Dr. Luke wrote to give an accurate account of what happened. Paul (the former persecutor of the church) frequently referred to "eyewitnesses".

 

Either Jesus is alive or he is not. If not, I'm wondering how the early church survived in the face of extreme persecution. I don't see any explanation to account for the historical data. I'm curious what alternative meanings the early Christians mused as they were crucified, beheaded, and fed to lions.

I'd agree with that, with the caveat that the "solid food" not contradict the "milk". It should only build upon it.

You've brought up the issue of inspiration twice now, des... Though it doesn't relate directly to my earlier assertion (I was merely hypothesizing about the thing itself, not the knowability of it), it has generated lots of discussion, and it's where the conversation would've gone anyway, so it's a good tangential discussion...

 

First, inspiration is not the same thing as dictation. Dictation would mean that the human authors were merely passive robots in the whole process. Total human authorship without divine assistance is the other extreme. Inspiration is in the middle (how's that for a moderate position?). The authors retain their unique writing style, etc, but God the Holy Spirit is still working through them to communicate his message to us. Jesus, Paul, and others in the OT and NT say things like "Scripture cannot be broken" and Scripture is "God breathed". If Scripture really is from God, then by definition it is trustworthy.

 

Which brings us to biblical "contradictions". Do you really think that we post-Enlightenment folk have just now realized that there are difficult and seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible, which the Christian fools in previous millenia were ignorant about, thus we have discovered that the Bible is in fact unreliable? Any "cursory glance" at material aimed at shedding light on difficult biblical passages would largely put the issue to rest. Firstly, the Bible is not a science textbook. When the OT speaks of the sun rising and setting, that is truly the behavior of the sun from the perspective of the author on earth. (I may point out that the OT also speaks to scientific truths far ahead of its time, such as the earth being round and the vastness of space.) Secondly, regarding "contradictory" accounts of the Resurrection and so forth, it would be a contradiction if Matthew said that there was 1 AND ONLY 1 angel at the tomb, and Luke said there were 2 AND ONLY 2 angels. If "an" angel was there in one account, then 2 angels can be there in another account and they do not contradict each other. Further, if every detail was exactly the same, people would cry "collusion", the authors must have gotten together and compared notes to foist this fairy tale on the ignorant masses. How many witnesses of a car crash describe the exact same thing? Just because people may have had slightly different (but not contradictory) recollections of the event, in no way diminishes the factuality of the event.

You heard (read?) me right Fred... I don't think it matters.  The concept matters but the historical "truth" doesn't - to me.  I think people waste a lot of time, energy and effort arguing about things that cannot be resolved and that, really, don't matter.

 

Is Jesus alive to me - yes.  Can I prove it?  No.  But I Know.  People who know me can judge on fruit if they so choose.

But it's the historical truth that shapes the concept. If Jesus really did just die and that was it, it seems like all we can do is determine some subjective meaning for words like "resurrection", and is it even worth it since this guy talked about coming back from the dead but didn't. If, on the other hand, he really did physically rise, as the disciples taught, then many things follow: he validated his claims to divinity, he really did know what he was talking about, etc.....

All but one of the disciples died as martyrs for what they believed and wrote. I'm not sure what influences or goals may have directed them down that road.. either mass insanity or certainty of belief.

I'd say miracles are of the utmost importance. For example, if someone *really* was raised from the dead, one might put more stock in what he had to say instead of relegating him to a "good teacher" or having "Christ consciousness".

But look at where we are now compared to when the U.S. had half its population. Not only do we have a higher standard of living, we're able to treat the environment better because our technology has improved. It makes better economic sense to reduce pollution, since pollution is waste.

Their relationship was nothing more than a loving friendship. That's all the text allows us to conclude. It's a shame that in our day people can't have a close friendship without being assumed gay. Besides, if they really did practice homosexuality, they would've been stoned to death as their law dictated.

Thankfully, we don't have to follow the arcane ceremonial laws of ancient Israel. However, those laws did keep Israel "pure", in prepration for the coming of the Messiah. The moral laws, found in the Decalogue and in the "first and second greatest commandments", are still in effect today, and provide a clear and valuable framework from which to confront ethical dilemmas.

 

As far as the environmental "problems" go, they've been mis-diagnosed. Overpopulation isn't the problem (it isn't even A problem), the problem is lack of economic development and corrupt governments. Population wouldn't even be an issue if third-world countries had the kind of economy the U.S. has.

Other things to share are that pastors/preachers in the Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, and American Baptist Churches are more likely to utilize the lectionary readings of the Bible as the basis of their sermons than are preachers in Southern Baptist, fundamentalist, or independent churches.

 

Moreover the same can be said about how those churches tend to interpret the Bible; i.e. that first grouping of denominations is more likely to interpret the Bible in a non-literal manner than are the Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and independent churches.

 

Finally, the Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and independent churches are more likely to pour lots of intentional energy and money into evangelism than are than that larger listing of mainline denominations - again, in my experience and in my opinion.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and related Reformed Presbyterian denominations would fit into the 2nd group. As well as the Reformed Episcopalian denominations. (Their "literal" interpretation of the Bible may be better termed "traditional", but yes they probably don't openly evangelize as much as the other members of the 2nd group.)

 

Here is a statement from beliefnet that has me a bit confused. I'm probably not understanding it is my guess. How would you guys interpret this statement:

 

"It's the Holy Spirit that's created their saving faith...not their own cleverness or zealousness or willpower."

They are probably Calvinist.

Beach, I'm curious, if you don't think you've found the truth, why are you expending so much energy trying to convince james that you're right and he's wrong?

 

BTW, you're commiting the either/or fallacy. Just because the JW's err when they claim to have the truth, doesn't mean everyone else who claims the truth is wrong. We have methods of determining truth: intuition, reason, revelation, etc..

I chose the phrase "desert of pain" carefully.  Those who work in the nitty gritty world of mental health care, prisons, shelters for abused persons, addiction treatment, poverty, and so on

You seem to have made a great case for "the ol' sin b.s".

Don’t Let the Car Fool You, My Real Treasure is in Heaven": Bushianity Makes a Mockery of Christ

by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

...

The ultimate goal is to replace traditional American "we’re all in this together" culture with the Bushian "You’re On Your Own-ership Society". In this nightmare world, the working people are thrashed with measure after measure aimed at taking what once was theirs.

Actually, it's just the opposite, but baseless rhetoric makes for a much more exciting article. You see, the "ownership" concept lets working people invest their own money for their retirement. (You know, "working" people: anyone with a job, not the left's definition of someone who's in a union and a Democrat.) Instead of being held hostage by the government's mismanagement of "what once was theirs," people can actually use their own money as they see fit. What a concept.

 

BTW, I've noticed that the left likes to use the phrase "we’re all in this together". While one would think that this statement means that they advocate sharing their own resources with the less fortunate, it's really code to disguise their covetous desire and claim on other people's livelihood to use for their political ends.

On the statement attributed to James Watt cited in the article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...4qiuuc.asp?pg=1

To put it in broad theological terms, The Passion should make us examine our justification (vertically between us and God), whereas Hotel Rwanda should motivate our sanctification (horizontally between us and our fellowman).

 

I agree that the church does not do enough to promote good art like Hotel Rwanda.

"Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him." (Deut. 30:19-20)

I'm neutral about the miracles, myself, but still I find it interesting that Paul wouldn't mention the miracles Jesus performed as a way to convert his listeners.

Could be that the miracle of the resurrection (which Paul mentions numerously) overshadows all the "minor" miracles. Just my initial thoughts. Also, Paul had a first-hand experience of the resurrected Christ, whereas he didn't have direct knowledge of the prior miracles.

I've tried to open my mind to see a clearer view of the conservative fundamentalist church. I've used Sunday morning TV...

TV preachers.. probably not the best representatives of evangelicalism..

 

 

in·er·rant

1) Incapable of erring; infallible.

2) Containing no errors.

Someone who views the Bible as inerrant would, for example, say that rabbits chew the cud.

 

... etc ...

To see an exposition of what evangelicals really mean about inerrancy, etc, check out The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Section 4 is probably the most useful.

 

http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm

 

It's rather lengthy, so I'll only quote a couple of important items:

 

Transmission and Translation

 

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

 

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

 

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

 

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

 

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

 

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

 

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) was recommended to me.

Because the ancient manuscript evidence isn't reliable, it has gnostic influences, and it wasn't accepted by the early church.

 

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

DCJ :

 

"Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead."

 

Neither Has Billy Graham nor Hal Lindsey.

They're not dead yet. You just wait!

The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible.

Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead.

PS: SOME Evangelical individuals might consider other Christians as being cults. But by and large, I am not getting the impression that Evangelicals as a group are like that.

The textbook definition of a cult would be an identifiable group that severely misunderstands or distorts an essential Christian doctrine (usually involving the nature of God), and then claims that this unique view is the "true" Christian faith to the exclusion of all others. Examples of modern-day cults would be Mormons, JWs, 7th Day Adventists, and Christian Scientists. The reason they are considered cults and not different denominations is because they distort uniquely Christian doctrines as opposed to internal issues that are up for debate.

 

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity."