The Atonement is the important part - Not the Crusifixion

[Hope]

Except that's not just a "loose" usage. It's a misleading usage. The "Bible-believing" stance only has about 500 years of history, whereas the catholic stance has 2000 years of history. Which do you think carries the greater weight of "tradition?"

Ok. I apologize. I guess I am just using the term that seems most sensible from my point of view. I guess the best term then is "evangelical."

You keep stating certain things as if they were fact. No, the Bible-believing stance does not only have 500 years of history. I believe you've got things backwards. The catholic stance is more recent. Though I'd be interested in hearing how you come to this conclusion.

 

[Hope]

What more do you need to be "overwhelmed?" The Bible says one thing that clearly is not borne out by the facts, yet you still say that the Bible is not contradicted by that evidence? Contradiction is contradiction.

I don't claim to be an expert on archeaology, but I do know that interpretation plays an important part in ascertaining what is discovered or not discovered. I believe the "evidence" you claim is merely one interpretation.

Besides, just because the "evidence" hasn't been discovered yet, doesn't mean it won't be. For years, people claimed the Hittites were a myth, only to later find evidence they weren't. There is far more archeaological evidence supporting the Bible, than not supporting it.

 

[sojourner]

Ok. I apologize. I guess I am just using the term that seems most sensible from my point of view. I guess the best term then is "evangelical."

You keep stating certain things as if they were fact. No, the Bible-believing stance does not only have 500 years of history. I believe you've got things backwards. The catholic stance is more recent. Though I'd be interested in hearing how you come to this conclusion.

The first Christians didn't have a "Bible" to believe in -- they had a Savior. From very early on, from the time of Paul, in fact, the Church has relied on more than simply scripture to come to terms with what it believes. Much of Paul's polemic was interpretation, compare/contrast, and assimilation of other traditions. The early Church Fathers have always relied as heavily on tradition as on scripture. How can you say that the evangelical stance is older than the catholic stance, when the catholic arm of the Church (and by that I mean Romans, Orthodox, Anglican and other bodies in the Apostolic Succession) clearly rests on the earliest praxis and understanding of the Church? It's rubbish.

 

[sojourner]

I don't claim to be an expert on archeaology, but I do know that interpretation plays an important part in ascertaining what is discovered or not discovered. I believe the "evidence" you claim is merely one interpretation.

Besides, just because the "evidence" hasn't been discovered yet, doesn't mean it won't be. For years, people claimed the Hittites were a myth, only to later find evidence they weren't. There is far more archeaological evidence supporting the Bible, than not supporting it.

I'm not saying that there's no archaeological evidence to support the Bible. There is much archaeological evidence to support much of the Bible. But the Bible does make some claims that just aren't factual, and we have to look for a deeper truth.

For example, there's nothing to support the Biblical claim that the nation of Israel during David's kingdom was anywhere near as large, wealthy and strong as the Bible claims it to be. In fact, it cannot have been. The writers blew that aspect way out of proportion. There simply were not enough people or enough resources to support that kind of kingdom in that place at that time. That "fact" is exaggerated and in error. But, if we look at the theological message the writer is trying to get across, we can find truth in the exaggeration.

 

[Wandered Off]

But, if we look at the theological message the writer is trying to get across, we can find truth in the exaggeration.

I can agree with that, Soj. For me, though, it leaves us with an additional burden trying to figure out what is exaggeration and what is not. Every verse, I have to decide whether the message is direct or obscured (enhanced?) by exaggeration.

At some point, for me it became no longer worth the trouble to look for a coherent message there anymore. I guess I got lazy. It's kind of like reading stuff symbolically, where it adds a layer of interpretation. I often lose the message because I'm not 'oriented' to symbolism as well as others. I wish God had inspired different versions for different learning styles and I could get the "just say what you mean without all the other crap" version...

 

[Buttercup]

I can agree with that, Soj. For me, though, it leaves us with an additional burden trying to figure out what is exaggeration and what is not. Every verse, I have to decide whether the message is direct or obscured (enhanced?) by exaggeration.

For me not only is it a struggle to figure out what is exaggeration, it's also a puzzle to figure out what ideas were borrowed from other religions of the time.

We know the Jews were held captive in Persia by the Babylonians for 50 years. I find it odd that the Babylonians (Zoroastrians) believed in a savior to come born of a virgin. Odd how that story line showed up later in Jewish teachings isn't it?

 

[Hope]

The first Christians didn't have a "Bible" to believe in -- they had a Savior. From very early on, from the time of Paul, in fact, the Church has relied on more than simply scripture to come to terms with what it believes. Much of Paul's polemic was interpretation, compare/contrast, and assimilation of other traditions. The early Church Fathers have always relied as heavily on tradition as on scripture. How can you say that the evangelical stance is older than the catholic stance, when the catholic arm of the Church (and by that I mean Romans, Orthodox, Anglican and other bodies in the Apostolic Succession) clearly rests on the earliest praxis and understanding of the Church? It's rubbish.

I never said they had a Bible to believe in, now did I?

Of course they didn't have a Bible. Please don't imply I am stupid and ignorant.

But they did have certain confessions and creeds that can be traced back to the earliest church. And I won't argue with you that there are indeed certain points that all Christians, whether evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican, can agree on. But the purest form of the church was obviously the one that was birthed at Pentecost. I hope we can agree on this as well. Sooo....what source do we have that is the most accurate in describing this early church and what they believed? Perhaps this is where we differ.

From everything I have read, Luke is considered by most scholars to be a meticulous, accurate historian. Luke is the author of that wonderful book we call Acts. Now, if Luke is a trustworthy historian, then we should be able to trust the account he gives us of the earliest church. The account I see in Acts does not present the beliefs and traditions of the earliest church as you present them. Either Luke is wrong, or you are wrong. So, based on the account in Acts, as well as the commonly accepted early creeds and confessions, I come to the conclusion that my view is the correct one, and has indeed been in existence longer than the view of the Orthodox church.

Obviously, I do not have your seminary training, but I am eagerly gobbling up as many books as I can on this subject. So far, what I've read contradicts your assertions.

 

[Wandered Off]

Now, if Luke is a trustworthy historian, then we should be able to trust the account he gives us of the earliest church.

That's always the 'big if' with second-hand revelation. You have to put as much faith in a fallible human as you do God.

 

[Buttercup]

That's always the 'big if' with second-hand revelation. You have to put as much faith in a fallible human as you do God.

Exactly. That's one of my biggest beefs with Christianity. We have to believe all these second hand, two thousand year old accounts from strangers or face the perils of hell. Makes no sense to me.

 

[slabbey06]

I never said they had a Bible to believe in, now did I?

Of course they didn't have a Bible. Please don't imply I am stupid and ignorant.

But they did have certain confessions and creeds that can be traced back to the earliest church. And I won't argue with you that there are indeed certain points that all Christians, whether evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican, can agree on. But the purest form of the church was obviously the one that was birthed at Pentecost. I hope we can agree on this as well. Sooo....what source do we have that is the most accurate in describing this early church and what they believed? Perhaps this is where we differ.

From everything I have read, Luke is considered by most scholars to be a meticulous, accurate historian. Luke is the author of that wonderful book we call Acts. Now, if Luke is a trustworthy historian, then we should be able to trust the account he gives us of the earliest church. The account I see in Acts does not present the beliefs and traditions of the earliest church as you present them. Either Luke is wrong, or you are wrong. So, based on the account in Acts, as well as the commonly accepted early creeds and confessions, I come to the conclusion that my view is the correct one, and has indeed been in existence longer than the view of the Orthodox church.

Obviously, I do not have your seminary training, but I am eagerly gobbling up as many books as I can on this subject. So far, what I've read contradicts your assertions.

Here's another thought. They may not have had the Bible as we think of it today (Genesis-Revelation). But they did have the Old Testament. And it seems like they recognized the authority of the Apostle's writings. 2 Peter 3:15-16 comes to mind, where Peter comments on Paul's writings, equating them with Scripture.

" just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

[Hope]

That's always the 'big if' with second-hand revelation. You have to put as much faith in a fallible human as you do God.

Yeah, and you have to put as much faith in fallible humans for much of what you read in history books too. Come on. Give me a break. If the same standards used to judge the Bible were applied to the rest of what we know in history, we'd have a lot less valid history, and a lot more confusion. If God were not the main subject of the Bible, I can almost guarantee you there'd be a lot less debate about it's validity as a historical document.

1) There are several examples of ancient historians like Herodotus, Livy, or Tacitus whose works show similarities in several respects to that in the Gospels, including a moralizing intent "which the evangelists would have applauded," yet they are well-accepted as historical.

2) Literature of the sort the form critics believe the Gospels to be is not known elsewhere in ancient history. As Sherwin-White asserts, "We are not acquainted with this type of writing in ancient historiography."

3) The Gospels are quite close to the period of time that they record, while ancient histories such as those by Plutarch and Livy often describe events that took place even centuries earlier. Yet, modern historians are able to successfully delineate data even from these early periods of time.

4) Ancient histories sometimes "disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion," such as the four ancient sources for the figure of Tiberius Caesar, yet the history they record can still be ascertained. Another contemporary historian, Paul Maier, makes the same point in reference to the contradictory material in the sources for the great (first century AD) fire in Rome.

5) Form critics speak much of the experiences of the earliest disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these experiences.

6) Some portions of the New Testament, like the book of Acts, are confirmed by external indications of historicity.

~excerpts from The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, by Gary. R. Habermas

Even secular history often requires faith.

 

[Buttercup]

Even secular history often requires faith.

There's a HUGE difference however. If we don't believe the second hand accounts in the bible we go to hell. There is no punishment for not believing any other second hand accounts in history.

 

[Hope]

Here's another thought. They may not have had the Bible as we think of it today (Genesis-Revelation). But they did have the Old Testament. And it seems like they recognized the authority of the Apostle's writings. 2 Peter 3:15-16 comes to mind, where Peter comments on Paul's writings, equating them with Scripture.

" just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Absolutely. And if it weren't for the Jewish Scriptures, the earliest Christians (who were actually Jews), would never have realized who Jesus really was, and the impact of His death and resurrection.

 

[Hope]

There's a HUGE difference however. If we don't believe the second hand accounts in the bible we go to hell. There is no punishment for not believing any other second hand accounts in history.

True. But that's not my point. My point is that it's unfair and illogical to not judge secular history the same way Biblical history is. There shouldn't be a double standard. The fact that there is, and your very attitude, reveals a bias.

 

[Wandered Off]

Yeah, and you have to put as much faith in fallible humans for much of what you read in history books too. Come on. Give me a break.

You raise a great point. The difference, of course, is that we do not perceive commands from God in history books. History books aren't presented as the template for eternal bliss or punishment. History books are not considered 'revelations from God'.

If the same standards used to judge the Bible were applied to the rest of what we know in history, we'd have a lot less valid history, and a lot more confusion.

True again, and in line with what Buttercup pointed out, if people built buildings to worship historians and told us we had to accept the historians' words or face eternal consequences, people would be just as skeptical, I suspect.

 

[Hope]

You raise a great point. The difference, of course, is that we do not perceive commands from God in history books. History books aren't presented as the template for eternal bliss or punishment. History books are not considered 'revelations from God'.

True again, and in line with what Buttercup pointed out, if people built buildings to worship historians and told us we had to accept the historians' words or face eternal consequences, people would be just as skeptical, I suspect.

See my above response to Buttercup as an answer to that.

 

[Hope]

If I'm truly seeking truth and accuracy, then I will accept the facts, no matter how unappealing they may be to me. My personal agenda should not get in the way.

 

[Buttercup]

True. But that's not my point. My point is that it's unfair and illogical to not judge secular history the same way Biblical history is. There shouldn't be a double standard. The fact that there is, and your very attitude, reveals a bias.

My very attitude? What's that supposed to mean?

Novels of fiction have real places of history included in the story line....it adds to the believability of the story. Personally, I don't see the archeological evidence supporting the bible to be that big a deal. It's the supernatural occurences that can never be proven that are the hard part to swallow.

You have to see that history and religion are different right?

 

[Wandered Off]

My point is that it's unfair and illogical to not judge secular history the same way Biblical history is.

If secular history is inaccurate, it doesn't risk my eternal future. It's not the history so much as the implications that give rise to the different standards.

 

[Hope]

My very attitude? What's that supposed to mean?

Nothing personal, first of all. :hug:

By your attitude I mean your feelings, your subjective stance. You made it clear that you oppose the idea of hell. Therefore, that opposition is going to affect any otherwise objective inspection of the historical validity of the Bible.

Novels of fiction have real places of history included in the story line....it adds to the believability of the story. Personally, I don't see the archeological evidence supporting the bible to be that big a deal. It's the supernatural occurences that can never be proven that are the hard part to swallow.

You have to see that history and religion are different right?

Oh, absolutely. And I would never claim they are one and the same. If I gave that impression, I do apologize. However, because Christianity does claim to have a historical basis, it should at least be investigated. And be investigated fairly.