excreationist

Tercel -

I think it is reasonable for the reader to assume that Jesus thought much of the OT was literal.
Anyway, what do you think about the genealogies in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38? They match very well with the genealogies that are throughout the OT. (see <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/bible/genealogies.htm" target="_blank">my webpage about it</a>)
Those verses in the gospels mention people like Abraham, his son Isaac and his son Jacob, etc... the sequence matches so closely that it seems that those genealogies refer to the exact same people in the OT. So the gospels are saying that people with those names existed - though the stories in the OT about their adventures aren't necessarily true.

So do you think the genealogies in the gospels are literal? It doesn't specifically say "these genealogies are definitely literal" but on the other hand, it doesn't say that about probably all core Christian doctrines... perhaps other things in the NT, like the physical resurrection of Jesus or the afterlife aren't literal...

This would mean that Stalin, who I think was an atheist, would have to believe in "God" and his love and forgiveness. If he didn't believe "God" existed, he wouldn't be able to accept "God"'s love and forgiveness. But who exactly is this "God"? I mean do you think Stalin would get into Heaven if he believed in Allah and called Allah "God" and accepted Allah's love and forgiveness? Or what if he believed that "God" was some kind of higher consciousness and he accepted the love and forgiveness of that mystical non-Christian force? So what do you mean by "God" exactly? The triune God made up of Jesus, a fatherly Creator and the Holy Spirit?

How can you be willing to receive something if you don't even believe it exists? Well I guess I'd be willing to receive a trillion trillion U.S. dollars... even though I don't believe it exists...
I think there is more to being saved than just receiving something... to accept the gift of Heaven you need to lose some of your freedom and try and do what God wants you to do.
In my money example I was just talking about me being willing to receive the money - without any payment on my part.
To make it more similar to the gift of Heaven scenario, say I had to pay someone $10,000 to receive the money and they didn't want to write a legal contract... I just had to trust them...
In that case, I would still want what they have to offer, though I wouldn't believe it existed - and there would be no possibility of me getting it since I wouldn't pay them $10,000.
So in the case of Heaven, me wanting to get there is not enough... it involves a bit of sacrifice on my part - since there are strings attached in order for me to get into Heaven - and as I said before, I am reluctant about signing up for offers when it seems like a big hoax.
So I'm saying that beliefs are important.

You said that God's love *will* shine on everyone... do you mean that we will be judged for how we behave after we die? i.e. that those who die atheists might believe in God in the afterlife and accept his love and forgiveness, and then go to Heaven? I thought people were judged according to what they've done or believed during their original *earthly* lives.

Edited formatting problem.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Tercel

I'm taking a non-Western stance if that's what you mean. Christianity is divided into two main groups on the issue of salvation: Western Christianity (most Protestants + Roman Catholics) vs Eastern Christianity (Orthodox Catholics + Monophysites).
I side with the East on the issue of salvation, so yes, I'm heretical as far as standard Western Christianity is concerned.
<a href="http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm" target="_blank">Have a link</a> (Please ignore the author's opinions on atheism, and concern yourself with the differences between East and West this article demonstrates)

Tercel

I had a look at your webpage. What am I supposed to be commenting on exactly?

It may not be valid just to add up the dates as you do as it has been suggested that the form "X begat Y after Z years" could be interpreted as meaning "After Z years X had a child from whom was descended Y" which is problematic to any sort of additive chronology. There are plenty of supportive examples in the Bible where one or more generations is skipped in a genealogy.

Also you can date Abraham if you like but using that Abraham -&gt; Exodus was 430 years and Exodus -&gt; Building of the temple was 480 years and the temple was built ~960 BC.

The writers of the Gospels doubtless thought those people existed. The writers of the Gospels almost certainly believed the OT stories were true also.
Unfortunately neither of these things tells us whether the people really existed or whether the stories are really true.

I happen to believe that the OT stories are -for the most part- based on fact, but I cannot prove it.

I don't see how they can be taken non-literally (unless the names have meaning when read together?). Yes I'd say they're literal.

Well he would find out that God existed when he died so that wouldn't be a problem.

I mean the Christian God.

Yes.

They are. But your confusing the "minor" judgements ("each one receiving what his rewards according to what was done in the body") with "final judgement". Please read the link I gave to Stephen.

excreationist

Tercel:
I had a look at your webpage. What am I supposed to be commenting on exactly?
Most of the information there was irrelevant... it was just to help you compare the genealogies in the OT with those in the NT.

It may not be valid just to add up the dates as you do as it has been suggested that the form "X begat Y after Z years" could be interpreted as meaning "After Z years X had a child from whom was descended Y" which is problematic to any sort of additive chronology.
Well as I said, the genealogies in the OT and NT match (except for Cainan). And Bible translators are supposed to use the words that make the probable meanings of the translations as clear as possible. Also, in the stories in Genesis and other books, fathers (such as Adam) have the son that the later genealogy said that they had.

There are plenty of supportive examples in the Bible where one or more generations is skipped in a genealogy.
Like what?

Also you can date Abraham if you like but using that Abraham -&gt; Exodus was 430 years and Exodus -&gt; Building of the temple was 480 years and the temple was built ~960 BC.
Yeah... <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">AiG</a> did it that way, dating the temple at 967 BC. I might improve that webpage later.

The writers of the Gospels doubtless thought those people existed. The writers of the Gospels almost certainly believed the OT stories were true also.
Unfortunately neither of these things tells us whether the people really existed or whether the stories are really true.
I happen to believe that the OT stories are -for the most part- based on fact, but I cannot prove it.
What about the miraculous parts of the OT... do you think they happened? If not, why are they in the Bible? You said that the gospel writers would have thought the OT stories are true. If the OT miracles aren't true then the gospel writers aren't very reliable historians... maybe the miracles associated with Jesus, such as his physical resurrection, weren't actual facts...

"So do you think the genealogies in the gospels are literal?"
-------------------------------
I don't see how they can be taken non-literally (unless the names have meaning when read together?). Yes I'd say they're literal.
This means the gospel writers are saying that Jesus was a descendent of famous OT people such as King David and Abraham. BTW, how do you explain the differences in the genealogies in the gospels?

"This would mean that Stalin, who I think was an atheist, would have to believe in "God" and his love and forgiveness."
-------------------------------
Well he would find out that God existed when he died so that wouldn't be a problem.
I think that makes spreading the gospel and maybe also church pretty pointless then. And why bother having a Bible if God will reveal himself to everyone anyway...

"I thought people were judged according to what they've done or believed during their original *earthly* lives."
-------------------------------
They are. But your confusing the "minor" judgements ("each one receiving what his rewards according to what was done in the body") with "final judgement".
What about Matthew 25:31-46? It talks about a judgement based on works and not belief where the reward is paradise and the punishment is an eternal fire, prepared for the dvil and his angels. In verse 44 they call God "Lord" so they obviously have a lot of respect for God.
What do you think about Matthew 7:21-23? It sounds like they are calling out for God and they have been trying to do God's will.

Please read the link I gave to Stephen.
I've read some of it... which sections are relevant?

In section X I found an interesting quote:
Do you agree with that? That idea seems to be very different from passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 because in verse 41 it says "depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire" - and as I said earlier, in verse 44 they call God "Lord" - so it seems like their separation from God wasn't completely their own choice.

Tercel

I dug up that info for someone else ages back... I'll see if I can find it...

Found it:
Some of them, possibly, others probably not.

Because the writers put them there!

You lost me there: How does the gospels writers beliefs on the nature of the stories in their sacred texts relate to their abilities or otherwise as historians?

As far as I can tell, the early Christian community, in general, appeared to believe they were.

I don't, I hadn't given it much thought at all.
But the obvious answer would seem to be that they can't both be right and hence one is probably right (or close to it) while the other is wrong. And if I had to guess between Matthew or Luke as being the correct one, I would say Luke every time.

Why? The gospel's good news ain't it? Surely good news is worth telling people? Oh and Church is cool because it's a nice social occasion, and forms a good organisational structure for charity.

Because people like their holy books and to know things ahead of time.

The passage actually combines two "methods" of judgement. There is the judgement by practical love for thy neighbour works idea throughout the passage, but vs 32 likens the separation to that of sheep and goats. Sheep always follow each other and the shepherd, while goats are loners and go their own way. This being an allusion therefore (and I think the same metaphor is used elsewhere in the Bible) to a second type of judgement that is going on here.
I wouldn't read too much into the passage if I were you. Jesus seems to have typically tried to make his hearers think rather than give explicit accurate details on theological doctrine and I doubt this time is too different. The main idea is that loving your neighbour in a practical sense is good and that following Jesus is good and that they have something to do with salvation.

I think it shows that God is interested in a loving heart, not miracles or preaching the gospel etc. It reminds me of 1 Corinthians 13 where Paul says if he does all these things but has no love then he is nothing.

Well it was the main ideas being explained about the nature of God and salvation that were relevant and the differences between East and West on these things. You can probably get a good idea by skim reading it.

Yes. That quote shows one of the major differences between Eastern and Western theology.

Quite possibly. I'm not an inerrantist so I'm not too worried about contradicting the Bible in a few places. (I don't think it's possible not to) The Eastern Orthodox Church does hold to infallibility (on theological doctrine only) of the Bible though, so I wonder how they interpret it...? My guess would be they "take it metaphorically".

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

NOGO2

Tercel
Unfortunately this does not help you.
Check verse 17 right after the genealogy.

Matthew tells us the number of generations so there are no generations which are skipped in the case of Matthew 1.

If my memory is correct there are 18 generations from David to the deportation in the OT.

Four were dropped because Matthew needed the 14-14-14 pattern to show the perfection of God's plan.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO2 ]</p>

GunnerJ

I'm inclined to agree with Tercel on the issue of whether Jesus actually believed in the Flood myth based on the statement, "And as it was in the days of Noe..." It is common to quote or refference well known works of literature to make a point. If I compare some government policy to Big Brother, I am not advocating the factual existance of Orwell's parallel history; or if I say, "Like the tortoise and the hare, slow and steady wins the race..." it does not mean that I beleive Aesop's fables are based on historical events.

Now whether the people he was speaking to believed in the Flood myth... there's a more interesting question.

NOGO2

I am inclined to believe that a vast majority of Jews in the time of Jesus believed in the literal truth of the Bible.

As far as the flood myth ... there are people today who still believe that it took place as written so why do you believe that Jesus without the benefit of science would believe otherwise?

GunnerJ

Interesting statement.... considering that "The Bible" had not even been compiled and written down by then.

My stetement was meant to "challenge" Tercel subtly. He no doubt believes Jesus to be God, and thus incapable of lying. And he also seems to think that Jesus did not take the flood story literally... But if the crowd Jesus was speaking to did believe that the Flood literally happened, couldn't his statement be interpreted as an endorsement of the historacity of the Flood? And if so, wouldn't it make Jesus (God) dishonest at worst, very careless with words, at best? Unless Tercel believes that the crowd did not believe the Flood actually happened...

Perhaps I ought to have tensed my statement more carefully...

I do not agree with Tercel that Jesus thought the Flood to be mythic; this would be absurd, as I do not believe there was a hstorical Jesus. I agree with Tercel that we can't assume Jesus beleived in a historical Flood simply because he (reportedly) spoke about the Flood.

Tercel

Yes. But was he capable of being *honestly mistaken*? I've being having a debate about that with a fellow Christian recently. I argue that since Jesus wasn't omnscient during the incarnation it is possible for him to make honest (eg thinking the flood was literal when it wasn't) mistakes due to lack of knowledge. Whereas my friend argues Jesus was perfect and that imply an inability to be honestly mistaken...

No, I'm agnostic on the issue. -I don't think we can know whether Jesus did or didn't take it literally. So I take issue with the Answers in Genesis people when they assume he did.

Well it could be interpreted as anything if you were feeling so inclined.
But I don't see a need to interpret it that way.
References to well known stories do not necessarily imply that they are historical. If I was to preach a sermon on the Odyssey and conclude, say, that we need to be more like Odyssus in our determination to acheive our goals as we go about our service of God in this life, no one in their right mind would conclude from that that I believed in the historicity of the story or believed in the existence of the Greek Gods that are mentioned in the story. Why do the equivalent with Jesus when he gives a teaching based on a story well known to his hearers?

I think the crowd would probably have been a 100% convinced that the flood did happen and that if Jesus had tried to preach otherwise he would have been very unpopular very quickly.