• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

I would garner most Christians don't know that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. In my Introduction to the Bible class, the professor spent half of a class arguing with people in class (who had their Bibles out and open from home) that it was a historical fact that these were not eyewitness accounts and I would guesstimate that over half the class didn't believe the professor even after class was over. Pretty sad, but awesomely comical.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I would garner most Christians don't know that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. In my Introduction to the Bible class, the professor spent half of a class arguing with people in class (who had their Bibles out and open from home) that it was a historical fact that these were not eyewitness accounts and I would guesstimate that over half the class didn't believe the professor even after class was over. Pretty sad, but awesomely comical.
Click to expand...
I could write a book on this, but yes. Western Christianity has (mostly) jumped the shark.
 
RevDeac06 said:
You can think that's true, but it's not. The writers of the Gospels were interpreting history, not documenting it. Is it even possible to record history without interpreting it? Especially since they aren't eyewitness accounts. Not sure how much you've studied the genre, but it is very widely accepted, even by conservatives.

On atonement, I think you're making a (common) assumption that you're unaware of- that reconciliation is necessary. I'm not disagreeing that, but it should be well considered and teased out before just running past it. I think atonement is possible without the Cross, this is God we're talking about. But atonement is in the Cross, I'm not debating that, just saying it doesn't explain why it happened. And I wouldn't say that the cross was necessary, I think the Incarnation (and Incarnational theology doesn't get enough play) is "enough" on its own.
Click to expand...
First I am well aware of when the Gospels were written. Whether or not their purpose was to report historical facts, or simply interpret them, is something on which we can agree to disagree. There is too much to go into there. The fact is that the Gospels, particularly the Synoptics, are structured in a narrative format, not strictly a philosophical or metaphorical one. But it's ok; we don't need to hash it out, other than the fact that it completely determines the rest of the meaning of the story of Jesus on which we disagree! ;)

Also, you'll note that I plainly stated that I don't mean to infer that you think reconcilation was necessary. So I acknowledged that this is where we may part. All I was getting at it that was that your position that the concept of reconciliation through atonement is valid for some who interpret the Cross thusly, while being unnecessary for others who do not interpret it thusly, appears to be on its face illogical.

Yes, I believe unabashedly that reconciliation is accomplished only though atonement.

We obviously come from vastly different perspectives; thanks for the discussion. Peace.
 
The Iliad is narrative, does that make it historical?

Eta- Yes, good conversation, thanks for keeping it going.
 
RevDeac06 said:
The Iliad is narrative, does that make it historical?
Click to expand...
History books have been written for centuries by authors who were not first-hand eyewitnesses; does that render them devoid of fact?
 
DeacDaddy said:
History books have been written for centuries by authors who were not first-hand eyewitnesses; does that render them devoid of fact?
Click to expand...
No, but do you put your salvation in their hands?
Like you said, we're not going to come to agree via conversation in this format.
 
DeacDaddy said:
History books have been written for centuries by authors who were not first-hand eyewitnesses; does that render them devoid of fact?
Click to expand...

But there are physical facts in history books that be tested and evidence that physically exists.

Many of the stories of The Bible- turning people into salt, the parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush and others simply are matters of faith.

Some of the books of The Bible are also written without the same backing as history books have.
 
Rev,

Correct - I put faith in what is recorded in the Gospels for my salvation.

On some level, if you believe salvation is necessary (since you think reconcilation is not), then you do as well. The Gospels are how you first heard of the Cross, just as I did. So if you render the Cross significant, and you clearly do, then the Gospels that presented the story of the Cross are somehow set apart from all other forms of literature, historical or otherwise.
RevDeac06 said:
No, but do you put your salvation in their hands?
Like you said, we're not going to come to agree via conversation in this format.
Click to expand...
 
RJKarl said:
But there are physical facts in history books that be tested and evidence that physically exists.

Many of the stories of The Bible- turning people into salt, the parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush and others simply are matters of faith.

Some of the books of The Bible are also written without the same backing as history books have.
Click to expand...

RJ - good points. I would contend that there are also many facts in historical books that have not been proven with physical evidence, yet we accept their authenticity. I believe you are Jewish; presumably - though correct me if I'm wrong - when you read the Pentateuch, you accept many of the historical accounts of the actions of the Israelites, even if you don't include those that are miraculous in nature. Some of those can be accounted for archaeologically; some cannot.

Good chat, everyone. Go Diakonos! :dancindeac:
 
Daddy, one of the differences is most Jews are taught The Bible isn't a history book. There are some parts that are true (like about David and Solomon)and some that are more like parables.

Virtually no Jew I've ever met believes God turned a woman into a pillar of salt. Many of us have wished there was a way to do it, but we wish lots of things.
 
RJKarl said:
Daddy, one of the differences is most Jews are taught The Bible isn't a history book. There are some parts that are true (like about David and Solomon)and some that are more like parables.

Virtually no Jew I've ever met believes God turned a woman into a pillar of salt. Many of us have wished there was a way to do it, but we wish lots of things.
Click to expand...

Right, that was sort of my point. (At least some of) those parts which are presented as history, such as David and Solomon and innumerable other examples, you accept as true, even if you understand the supernatural aspects as metaphorical, parabolic, etc. We all accept at least some of the Bible as a historically accurate document; the only question is to what degree.

I definitely understand and agree that my faith is comprised of both logical assent to fact, and belief in what I cannot ultimately know. Obviously that is the definition of faith; my point is that my faith is built upon both aspects of epistemology.
 
brief aside in the convo:

For anyone interested, NT Wright, former Anglican Bishop of Durham and a very well respected NT scholar by all sides, will be speaking at UNC tonight and Duke tomorrow. I believe the topics are "The Bible: Who Cares?," and "Good God?" respectively.

UNC Link: http://veritas.org/campuses/university-north-carolina/

Duke Link: http://veritas.org/campuses/duke-university/

If you've enjoyed this discussion, you'd enjoy both of these evenings.

If you can't make it and want to check out what he'll say, read:

"Scripture and the Authority of God" and "Surprised by Scripture" for the UNC lecture

"Evil and the Justice of God" for the Duke one
 
N.T. Wright is certainly a giant. I did not realize he used to be in Durham.
 
Thought that was more likely the case, but in the context of him visiting Duke, I assumed that was the connection you were making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top