aikido7

Is it ethically necessary for Christians to distinguish between what they know about Jesus and what they believe about him and to clearly communicate that difference?

There are clearly Christians on this board who believe that everything in the gospel accounts should be seen theologically, that is, every verse that can be taken literally and historically should in fact be taken that way.

Then there are other Christians on these boards that believe literalistic gospel stories should be regarded as parabolic or metaphoric instead.

Between the two groups can be a healthy exchange of argument and opinion. Both sides would see, for example, the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke in different ways (historical action vs. gospel creation), but may be able to come together in common recognition of the meaning that such narratives tell us about the ways in which "the divine" is introduced in the world, and what that fact might mean for us in the world today.

However, there are some Christians on these boards that claim to theoretically walk the talk of modern biblical scholarship, but in reality they fail to do so. These posters seem hesitant to actually decide what in the gospels is historical and what is symbolic.

If Jesus described God in parabolic language, what prevented his followers in the first century after the crucifixion from making up parables about Jesus?

[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]