I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

[Keith Sherwood]

I did not keep a note of it - but just last week the age of an important town was increased by a huge amount because of a new discovery

There is nothing so certain in archeology

You are right my standard is the bible is true in word and history ,and by that I judge the rest

Your standard has to be a moving one because it seems science and archeology is considerd more accurate than the bible in historical terms

Keith

[jpurssey]

You fail to see that you bring your own assumptions, background, culture etc into your interpretation and understanding of the bible and how that affects your judgement of what is true and historical.

You are obviously happy with archaeology, but only where it supports your viewpoint.

I don't have a moving standard. I accept that research and study have provided more information in understanding the context, audience and authors' purpose in their writings that we can take advantage of. How and what we apply to our current situation is still a matter for the leading of the Holy Spirit. And my experience agrees with Paul's that we still see through a glass darkly. There is no clear standard in that respect as Paul says. It is that sort of experience that allows the bible to ring true for me.

[Keith Sherwood]

I think you are getting on a high horse and beginning to attack my character.

I am not an expert, but suspect I take as deep an interest as you do in rhetorical understanding of the text, historical, archealogical, cultural, Jewish and Roman law, Roman History, church fathers etc as you do

However I do believe that the bible record is true in all its facets and that truth is deeper than most realise and includes historical accuracy, real people who are named because they do were real, event accuracy, seasonal accuracy, vegetation accuracy etc. It is these features that underpin the veracity of the bible as the word of God

So my stance is different from yours and based on a different standard, but that does not mean it is narrow minded. I do my best to eliminate my culture and preconceived ideas in my studies

Keith

[Elizabeth]

How and what we apply to our current situation is still a matter for the leading of the Holy Spirit. And my experience agrees with Paul's that we still see through a glass darkly.

Dear Friends,

I think the leading of the Holy Spirit is the operative when dealing with scripture and how our lives should conform to His leading. I am with Keith on the parables. When Jesus says "A certain man went from Jerusalem to Jericho" he had probably heard of a similar thing happening. The description of that road would lend itself to thieves, robbers and muggers being the usual situation. All of us have heard of things happening to people while jogging in a park, for example, or the father and the prodigal son. These are ordinary human situations. So, I don't think the parables are just fairy tales constructed for the entertainment of His audience.

Just my thoughts,

E

[Ian]

I don't think the parables are just fairy tales constructed for the entertainment of His audience.

No one thinks the parables are just fairy tales constructed for the entertainment of His audience. That is one point at least on which all contributors to this thread are agreed.

The parable of the Good Samaritan was not calculated to entertain. It was more likely to provoke outrage. It was more radical and subversive than most readers of the Gospel realise. Many will see it as exposing the evils of insincere religion and hypocrisy, but it was much more radical than that. It actually exposed the evils of sincere religion.

The Priest and the Levite were sincerely obeying the dictates of the laws forbidding someone dedicated to Jehovah from approaching what might be a dead body (Numbers 6, 9, 19, Haggai 2). But Jesus showed that the Samaritan’s gut instinct (his bowels were moved with compassion) were more in accord with the spirit of the law than the Priest’s and the Levite’s obedience to the letter of the law. Especially radical was the fact that it took a Samaritan, a despised race, to show the Jews how to obey the spirit of their law.

I don’t see much value in discussing whether this actually happened. The story illustrates the point just as forcibly whether it was historical or not.

[Elizabeth]

I don’t see much value in discussing whether this actually happened. The story illustrates the point just as forcibly whether it was historical or not.

I totally agree. It has just as much force now than it did when Jesus told it. Every time I see someone in trouble while I am out in public, the Priest and the Levite totally come to my mind. Not wishing to fail in compassion to the one in trouble and emulate the Priest and the Levite, I am compelled to assist. Of course, I am sure every one of our Lord's hearers were outraged by the story, the same as we are outraged when we hear something similar on the news where nobody came to assist the person in trouble.

E

[Keith Sherwood]

I agree Elizabeth - however I was also pointing out that it is evident despite the language to explain the Lord did not see with his eye - example: the woman who touched his hem. That he who saw Nathaniel under the fig tree in evidence that He was still omnipotent, all seeing and not bereft of any of the attributes of deity, and that should be remembered when we look at the parables.

So his parable was from the all knowing store of information - for example the King going to a far country, we know was an historical fact in the history of Israel. And he did not have to hear of it with the human ear to know it - for He knows all, men can't think without Him knowing the thoughts.

Therefore I suspect a tax gather was in the temple and did beat his breast, a man was robbed on the Jerichoo road and a priest and levite did pass by going down toJerichoo and aSamaritann did put him on his beast etc.


For when he walked on earth He was still the Son of God in the fullest sense otherwise how could He calm the wind and still the sea or know what was in the heart of man

I think this is a vital point in our estimation of Jesus Christ, He who lay in the arms of Mary did command the star, at the Fathers request by the Spirit that brought the wise men - for there is not an act of God that does not involve the Trinity in their offices

Keith

[Elizabeth]

For when he walked on earth He was still the Son of God in the fullest sense otherwise how could He calm the wind and still the sea or know what was in the heart of man

I think this is a vital point in our estimation of Jesus Christ, He who lay in the arms of Mary did command the star, at the Fathers request by the Spirit that brought the wise men - for there is not an act of God that does not involve the Trinity in their offices

Keith

Dear Bro. Keith,

I think we are all talking about different things. When our Lord Jesus told a narrative to the public, the Pharisees or to his disciples, it was to convey a spiritual truth. He was telling us what our Father in Heaven expected of us instead of adhering to the law. When he told certain Pharisees that they had "gone over land and sea to make one proselyte and in so doing, had made the proselyte more of a son of hell than they were themselves." He used very strong language on them.

As to his deity, his pre-existence in eternity past, his work in creation - that the Father has given all authority to the Son - that is a different subject. Angels fear to tread here!

E

[Keith Sherwood]

I was pointing out that there are good reasons to assume the parables of the Lord could have been real events for he knows and has seen everything

On his deity his pre existance is proven 'before Abraham was I am
All things were created by him and for Him

The only thing we do not know is (if there is time in eternity) when, before any creation at all,was the Son begotten of the Father, for he was not created, but begotten and of the same substance as the Father. On that point the church fathers disputed slightly but came down on the side of, it is inconcievable that the Father without the Son and that affection could ever be.

Keith

[jpurssey]

I think you are getting on a high horse and beginning to attack my character.
So my stance is different from yours and based on a different standard, but that does not mean it is narrow minded. I do my best to eliminate my culture and preconceived ideas in my studies

You are misreading in both instances. There is no need to get defensive.

I was just pointing out that in reality there is no differences in the types of what you call standards (though that may well be a misnomer as they are more principles of interpretation) and that everyone's interpretations of the bible are affected by the assumptions they bring, yours included.