 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Interesting link, Tone. I agree that Scriptural inerrancy is a style of hermaneutics that cannot be easily justified. But the internet is full of junk, and lots of the first and second-level citations on the site you mention are junk citations.
There are real factual contradictions in Christian Scripture, and a number of places where they can't be reconciled by anybody without denying inerrancy.
Which ones are the ones you think important? Which of them relate to the resurrection?
Nice website, by the way. I used to mess about on the Thames as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marcus Borg is often singled out for "spiritualizing" Jesus' resurrection, his claim that the risen Christ is not dependent upon the resuscitation of a physical corpse. It should be noted that Hans Kung and Karl Rahner, two of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century, whose influence transcends sectarian lines, share Borg's view.
| Quote: |
I must confess that, prior to investigating the resurrection for myself, I had not considered the possibility that one could deny the material nature of Jesus' resurrection yet still be a Christian. However, since beginning my investigation, I have become acquainted with several scholars (Küng, Rahner, Borg, et al) who deny (or at least do not feel they must affirm) the material nature of Jesus' resurrection, but claim to be Christians. A careful description and consideration of their views is therefore in order.
First, non-materialists emphasize that the resurrection was not a historical event. As Borg writes, "Speaking as a Christian, I regard these stories not as straightforward events that you could capture on video" (Ibid., p. 49.). The Jesuit Karl Rahner once wrote, "it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus neither can be nor intends to be a `historical' event" (p. 277). Hans Küng makes essentially the same point, but in greater detail (p. 349-350):
Since according to New Testament faith the raising is an act of God within God's dimensions, it can not be a historical event in the strict sense: it is not an event which can be verified by historical science with the aid of historical methods. For the raising of Jesus is not a miracle violating the laws of nature, verifiable within the present world, not a supernatural intervention which can be located and dated in space and time. There was nothing to photograph or record.... But neither the raising itself nor the person raised can be apprehended, objectified, by historical methods. In this respect the question would demand too much of historical science - which, like the sciences of chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology or theology, never sees more than one aspect of the complex reality - since, on the basis of its own premises, it deliberately excludes the very reality which alone comes into question for a resurrection as also for creation and consummation: the reality of God.
This is a very significant passage, because if Küng is correct, then much of the debate between skeptics and Christians is irrelevant to the Easter message. If the Easter event did not occur in space and time, then historical questions about the empty tomb and Jesus' appearances after his death are at best peripheral issues.
I should make it clear however, that when Küng says that the resurrection is not a "historical event," he does not mean in any way that the resurrection is not real. For example, I think that Küng, Rahner, Borg, et al would agree that the early Christians' experiences of the risen Lord are events in space and time. For these Christians, though, the question, "so what happened to Jesus' body after his death?" is ultimately not that important.
The second important feature of non-materialists is that they do not think Jesus' resurrected body is the same body. Küng (p. 351) argues that there is "no continuity of the body: questions of natural science, like that of the persistence of molecules, do not arise." Likewise, they do not necessarily consider the resurrection body a material body. Rahner once said, "We miss the meaning of `resurrection' in general and also of the resurrection of Jesus to begin with if our original preconception is the notion of a resuscitation of a physical, material body" (p. 266). And Borg writes, "Resurrection could, but need not mean that the corpse had been affected; a corpse coming to life is not the point" (p. 15, emphasis added).
If the resurrection body need not be material, then what do non-materialists make of the empty tomb? They clearly do not regard it as necessary for Easter faith. For example, the Late Revd Dr. David Walker wrote that, "The corporality of the resurrection does not require the tomb to be empty" (p.173). Rahner says, "An empty tomb as such and by itself can never testify to the meaning and to the existence of a resurrection" (p. 267). Küng argues that if the empty tomb story is true, "faith in the risen Christ would not be made any easier and for some people today it would even become more difficult" (p. 365). Conversely, if the empty tomb story is unhistorical, that in no way would discredit the resurrection. As Walker states (Ibid.), "It is quite possible to affirm unambiguously that Christ rose from the dead while either denying the historicity of the empty tomb or being agnostic about the precise connection between it and Jesus' `rising.'"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap2.html
|
When Kung says that the resurrection is not a historical event, what he means is that it cannot be proved by normal historical methods. The apostles experienced the risen Christ regardless of whether one could have recorded it on videotape. If it weren't for their firm conviction that Jesus had indeed risen, the Christian movement would have died on the cross.
This article is helpful in understanding Kung's position:
Kung: Easter means God, not death, has last word
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=943&dat=19840420&id=1YsNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=slYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6637,5397416 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The point I wish to make is why does it matter if there are contradictions in the narrative or history of the Bible. Is not the spiritual truth that which speaks to our condition: the spirit and not the letter. Error may be evident in the words but not in the truth of its spirit. If I read a poem that inspires me it matters not who wrote it, whether the verses are in right order, when it was written or whether there are inconsistencies - it inspires and speaks to the heart. I can discern that which resonates with my spirit.
I found this interesting:
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/UB/approach-bible-proper-attitude.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That would be fine if everybody thought the way you do, Anthony (and me, too, for that matter, as I think you're right). But lots of folks are very disturbed by the possibility of any errors in Scripture, no matter how trivial they are, or how obvious their origin is.
My father-in-law is a TULIP Calvinist numerologist, whose guru is a Christian sectarian who teaches that the world is going to end on 21 October 2011. He spends vast amounts of time reconciling errors in Scripture (the lineages and dates of the Hebrew kings, for example), and comes up with very strange interpretations as a result.
To him, everything that God wants you know is written in Scripture, the Majority Text is the revealed Word of God, and is preserved only in the KJV. (Not.) He builds complex interpretations on trivial nuances of Greek or Hebrew words, and in the process actually ignores the plain meanings of what the sentences say. Apparent errors in Scripture MUST be reconciled to him or they threaten the whole. But whenever I point out some of the errors that CAN'T be reconciled, he changes the subject.
He's always spending time indoctrinating my kids, but now that they are starting to think for themselves I don't debate with him anymore. The kids can take care of themselves, and ask him pointed questions that he can't answer.
He's kind of sad, because he possesses a vast amount of memorized Scriptural doctrine, none of which has any effect of how he lives his life. In his case, religion is just an intellectual exercise. I don't think it would ever occur to him to pray (as a Calvinist, he would say it didn't matter whether he did or not). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chip
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 114
Location: Blairsville, Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay Kevin, what's a TULIP?
_________________
Take what is given
Give what is taken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chip wrote: |
| Okay Kevin, what's a TULIP? |
I know Kevin doesn't get back as quick as he'd probably like, hope he doesn't mind if I field this one:
Quoted from http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
| Quote: |
Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.
Total Depravity:
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:4 ; and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chip
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 114
Location: Blairsville, Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Shay, I knew a little about Calvinism but now I know more. Plus a cool new word to use 
_________________
Take what is given
Give what is taken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1 Cor. 15 is the oldest description of Jesus' resurrection, and it makes no mention of an empty tomb, and contrasts the "spiritual body" with a "natural body," stating that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
A spiritual being could act on the sensory perception of the mind, so that you could touch the wound in his side.
None of this is said to deny the reality of the resurrection, or even the reality of a physical resurrection. The point is that the resurrection truly occurred with or without the reanimation of a human corpse.
I don't see the stakes as so high that if a physical resurrection didn't occur, Christianity is false. That is the impression, however, one could receive from historical apologetics.
If our resurrection is like Christ's, is it dependent upon the reanimation of a human corpse? If so, what if you were cremated? What if you were blown to pieces in Hiroshima? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sadly, Shay, I can get back more quickly, for a bit anyway. I'm stuck on the Ohio/Pennsylvania border waiting for Monday morning to deliver two shiny manure spreaders to a couple of farm supply businesses in Gettysburg, where people will fill them with doo-doo. I picked them up in Wisconsin and had to redo the chains and straps, as the driver who loaded them had unique ideas regarding Newton's Laws of Motion which would have got me in serious trouble. This is where I live, by the way. (In the front part.) It's cold, and currently has a flat tire I'm not telling anybody about until tomorrow so I can get some sleep.
Your list is a good explanation of TULIP. The key to hardcore Calvinism is mostly that you are crumbling filth in the hands of a justly furious God, and deserve nothing short of annihilation forever. God may or may not choose to snatch you from damnation, but there isn't anything you can do either way. Real dour Calvinists will say that if you try to do anything to please or obey God, it's proof that you don't trust him and therefore you are certainly one of the damned.
Chip, Calvinism is a little softer on Methodists, most Baptists, and Weslayan types, and calls them all Arminians, by which they mean "lapsed Calvinist." Calvinist Arminians belief that you have free will, and can choose to turn to God, and he will accept you for it because he is gracious and forgiving, but you're still a nasty flawed failure who needs imputed righteousness to be accepted, and you will always be a nasty, flawed failure until you're dead. Anybody but Arminians, the Calvinists call Pelagians, which means "cursed heretic who believes that God calls him to obedience and thinks that he can comply." They will describe a Pelagian as one who believes that God has established a covenant in which he obligates himself to reward obedience.
I am classifiable as Arminian, in that I believe that the Light is freely offered and that we have the capacity to turn to it and be illuminated by it, in proportion to our measure. We have a choice to do so or not, and God does not play us like marionettes. But I think the idea of imputed righteousness is as much doo-doo as what will go into those shiny manure spreaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spyridon wrote: |
. . .
I don't see the stakes as so high that if a physical resurrection didn't occur, Christianity is false. That is the impression, however, one could receive from historical apologetics.
. . . |
It's also what Paul said himself, Spyridon:
| Paul wrote: |
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain.
. . . .
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins. |
But I think you're right. Paul was making a point to emphasize the purpose of the atonement, not to establish a pivot point upon which the New Covenant would be required to hinge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chip
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 114
Location: Blairsville, Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kevin, I'm sorry you've got a flat. Is it your own truck and you drive for some particular outfit, or whoever will give you a load, or?
I tried really hard to be a good Baptist years ago but it didn't work out too well I know a lot of folks who are still trying really hard to be good Baptists, Methodists or whatever. But I found out that God is good and that all good is God. "Every perfect gift comes down...." If you and I were to stand facing each other, put our palms together at chest height and lean into each other, then if I suddenly let go of my arm muscles and relaxed, you'd fall right into me. Well, I think that's how I stand with God. So holding Him off while I try to be a good Baptist doesn't work near as well as just letting go of my arm muscles I don't guess the Calvinists would approve.
It's in the teens here (2000' elev.) tonight. Hope you're able to stay warm in the truck. Thanks for helping me understand Calvinists.
_________________
Take what is given
Give what is taken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| Spyridon wrote: |
. . .
I don't see the stakes as so high that if a physical resurrection didn't occur, Christianity is false. That is the impression, however, one could receive from historical apologetics.
. . . |
It's also what Paul said himself, Spyridon:
| Paul wrote: |
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain.
. . . .
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins. |
But I think you're right. Paul was making a point to emphasize the purpose of the atonement, not to establish a pivot point upon which the New Covenant would be required to hinge. |
1 Cor. 15 is the oldest description of Jesus' resurrection, and it makes no mention of an empty tomb, and contrasts the "spiritual body" with a "natural body," stating that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. This, to me, does not sound like the reanimation of a physical corpse, or at least would not require it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope, it's not my truck-- I have a job now where someone besides me signs my paycheck. I drove honeybees for years in my own trucks and performed exciting beekeeping tasks like driving trucks down California mountains with no brakes or driving trucks up California mountains with my brakes on fire. Or driving trucks upside down. Or losing truck wheels into the woods at 65 mph. Now I just call the mechanics. I don't miss fixing trucks. But I miss bees.
My company is a little one, as they go: 1000 van drivers, 250 flatbedders like me, 150 reefer drivers. They tell me where to go and I go there.
If I keep my feet up off the floor it's not too cold. My water jugs freeze on the bottom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If our resurrection is like Christ's, is it dependent upon the reanimation of a human corpse? If so, what if you were cremated? What if you were blown to pieces in Hiroshima? This line of questioning makes the absolute necessity of corporeal reanimation a little strange, though not impossible. Either way, the risen Christ is a profound reality experienced in the present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection are divergent and in some elements do not overlap:
Resurrection Texts Comparison
http://propheticprogress.blogspot.com/2009/04/resurrection-texts-comparison.html
Should they be read spiritually or literally? Can a Christian suspend judgment on that question?
As a side note, when Jesus ascended into heaven, did he literally fly into outer space, reaching its furthest depths to enter the divine glory? Or do the ascension accounts reflect a prescientic worldview, in which the earth is flat, the sky is a dome-like firmament holding up water, and heaven isn't that far away? Can we be honest about Biblical cosmology? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
