Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dockeen · 09-15-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But he's got a point - if the Zombie saints are just poetic, maybe Jesus' resurrection is just poetic. Heck, maybe Jesus himself is just poetry. And then you've slid down the slippery slope, and you might end up as a Unitarian. The Horror! Don't take that first step!

I see, I had it wrong. Instead of looking for the signs of the times, I should
be looking for the ryhme of the times.

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-15-2011, 07:54 PM

I think Licona is trying to simultaneously maintain an inerrantist stance without completely surrendering all credibility as a scholar. His attempted gloss of Matthew's zombies as "poetic," or as "apocalyptic Jewish imagery" is specious and reaching, and he doesn't sound very convinced himself. He's in a bind, though, since it's really all but impossible to defend that passage as historical and still pass a laugh test.

mountainman · 09-15-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But he's got a point - if the Zombie saints are just poetic, maybe Jesus' resurrection is just poetic. Heck, maybe Jesus himself is just poetry.

The Bible was no literature for the pagan.
Its Greek was not elegant enough.
Jesus himself as poetry doesn't wash.
What's inappropriate about using the word "fiction"?
Why does fiction lead to heresy but poetry to Unitarianism?
I dont get it.

mountainman · 09-15-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Moehler goes on to point out that in 1963 Robert Gundry was previously expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society for suggesting that Matthew might contain symbolic language.

1983 not 1963 see Robert_H._Gundry

Many conservative evangelicals think Gundry was badly treated.

Not many centuries ago he may have been publically executed.

Doug Shaver · 09-16-2011, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Did Licona actually conclude that it is probably a legend?

Not exactly. I have not read what he actually wrote, but Robert Price commented on it recently on one of his "Bible Geek" programs. I gathered from what Price said that Licona concedes the author of Matthew was telling a story that he did not intend to be taken as historical fact -- an allegory or something akin thereto. Legend in the usual sense would not be the right word, because people who pass on legends usually think they're true (in the usual sense of being historically factual), or else they don't care whether they're true, and Licona is not about to believe that the author of Matthew didn't care about the truth. Licona evidently thinks the author believed he was conveying a truth of some kind in his narrative of this incident even though the incident did not, in the normal literal sense, actually occur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

There is a big difference between saying that the author didn't intend the readers to take this as an actual event, and saying that the author did, but that it didn't actually happen.

And I can't see why Licona would conclude that this is more of "special effect" than any of the other stuff the author of Mt tells us about.

It is close to impossible to understand inerrantist thinking if you've never been an inerrantist. This is particularly so in the case of those who actually understand the cogency of arguments against inerrantism and are making a good-faith effort to present cogent counterarguments. My memories of the mental gymnastics I used to go through before admitting that resistance was futile are nowadays very nearly a mystery even to me.

hjalti · 09-16-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think Licona is trying to simultaneously maintain an inerrantist stance without completely surrendering all credibility as a scholar. His attempted gloss of Matthew's zombies as "poetic," or as "apocalyptic Jewish imagery" is specious and reaching, and he doesn't sound very convinced himself. He's in a bind, though, since it's really all but impossible to defend that passage as historical and still pass a laugh test.

Yup, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

James White read some of the relevant discussion in Licona's book in his newest episode. White called Licona something like a "timid inerrantist" or a "reluctant inerrantist".

To be credible he has to conclude that this didn't happen. And the only way to do this and remain an inerrantist is to say that the author didn't intend it to be taken as an actual event.

I wonder what Licona thinks of the other stuff. Are the miraculous things the other gospels say happened at the death of Jesus also just "special effects"?

Toto · 11-08-2011, 08:30 AM

Still an issue

Quote:

In the wake of the controversy, a number of leading evangelical scholars came to Licona's defense—some publicly, others privately.

"I know a good number of evangelical seminary professors who have privately expressed support for Mike Licona but cannot do so publicly for fear of punitive measures," said Paul Copan, an apologist and president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

In comments to Christianity Today, Craig Blomberg, a New Testament professor at Denver Seminary, complained of "the tragedy of 'witch hunts' of this nature." He accused Licona's critics of "going after fellow inerrantists with whom they disagree and making life miserable for them for a long time in ways that are unnecessary, inappropriate, and counterproductive to the important issues of the Kingdom."

Juststeve · 11-08-2011, 08:53 AM

Evangelicals persistently make the mistake of thinking that if everything in the Bible isn't true then nothing is. This is probably the consequence of their wanting to believe the most outrageous claims the most.

On the other hand there are those who argue that because some of the Bible is absurd there is no reason to believe any of it. They know who they are and it is just as foolish a position as that of the evangelicals.

Steve

Toto · 11-08-2011, 08:58 AM

Is there any reason to believe anything in the Bible?

The evangelicals might realize what a slippery slope they are on.

aa5874 · 11-08-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Evangelicals persistently make the mistake of thinking that if everything in the Bible isn't true then nothing is. This is probably the consequence of their wanting to believe the most outrageous claims the most.

On the other hand there are those who argue that because some of the Bible is absurd there is no reason to believe any of it. They know who they are and it is just as foolish a position as that of the evangelicals.

Steve

I find extremely foolish to ADMIT the Bible contains Errors, Fiction and Implausibilities and still accept things in the Bible WITHOUT any external corroboration.

I find such a position FAR WORSE than the INERRANTIST.

An INERRATIST does NOT NEED any EXTERNAL corroboration because he BELIEVES and ACCEPTS the Bible as WHOLLY true.

But, I find it extremely illogical and disturbing for those who ADMIT the Bible is FILLED with Errors, Fiction and Implausibilities accept some stories in the Bible just as an INERRATIST--WITHOUT any external corroboration at all.

How can people who RIDICULE Inerratists ADOPT their very method of extracting history from the Bible by using FAITH alone?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2011, 07:54 PM	#12
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I think Licona is trying to simultaneously maintain an inerrantist stance without completely surrendering all credibility as a scholar. His attempted gloss of Matthew's zombies as "poetic," or as "apocalyptic Jewish imagery" is specious and reaching, and he doesn't sound very convinced himself. He's in a bind, though, since it's really all but impossible to defend that passage as historical and still pass a laugh test.

11-08-2011, 08:53 AM	#18
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Evangelicals persistently make the mistake of thinking that if everything in the Bible isn't true then nothing is. This is probably the consequence of their wanting to believe the most outrageous claims the most. On the other hand there are those who argue that because some of the Bible is absurd there is no reason to believe any of it. They know who they are and it is just as foolish a position as that of the evangelicals. Steve

11-08-2011, 08:58 AM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Is there any reason to believe anything in the Bible? The evangelicals might realize what a slippery slope they are on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.