From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 20:08:34 EDT
In editing a sentence in my note below I made an error. The sentence in
question, in paragraph three, reads: "In fact, I see no reason not question
the historicity of the story that Christ refers to..." What I intended to
write is "In fact, I see no reason to question, etc." I take the story of
David and the shewbread as historically factual.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: The Flood Hoax
>
> Ian in his note below interprets Jesus in Matt. 5:17, 18 as referring to
the
> "inerrancy" of the scriptures or the law. I think rather that Jesus was
> referring to "fulfillment" rather than "inerrancy." He also writes that
> "Christ re-affirmed OT stories (Jonah in Mt. 12:38-40)" and adds "Were
> Christ's references to Jonah and the flood simply his misunderstanding of
> the scriptures? Did He really believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big
> fish?" Reading this passage from Matthew I see no reason to conclude
> necessarily that Christ thought that the story of Jonah was a historical
> fact. One could make a good case that Christ, being a teller of parables
> himself, recognized that the story of Jonah is an extended parable, for
the
> lesson which Christ draws from the story of Jonah is the lesson of that
> parable: repentance. That is one "sign of Jonah" Christ clearly refers
to.
> Another is his using the allusion of Jonah in the fish three days and
nights
> as an allegory for his forthcoming death and resurrection; the former sign
> is wrapped around the latter.
>
> Jesus' reference to the flood in Matt. 24:37-39 needs to be seen as
part
> of a longer pericope including 36-44. Jesus is using the story of Noah to
> illustrate his point that no one knows when the son of Man will come. He
> was not making a scientific statement about whether the flood was global
or
> local, or whether it was historically true or theologically true or both.
> One should not assume that Jesus' views about the flood story matched
one's
> own.
>
> Regarding Christ's references to David in Matt. 12, 3-4, I hope I
> haven't overlooked anything, but I have read no posting recently that has
> denied the historicity of David. In fact, I see no reason not question
the
> historicity of the story that Christ refers to, even if there are other
> episodes in the David story that combine history with motifs common to
> folklore. One again, Jesus was using this story of David and the
shewbread
> as an illustration of the point he was making that the Son of Man is lord
of
> the sabbath; he was not arguing with the Pharisees about the historicity
of
> David.
>
> Let me add that the doctrine of the Incarnation fully affirms
Christ's
> humanity in Jesus, that, as the author of Hebrews put it, he was in every
> respect like us, save without sin. If Jesus was "in every respect like
us,"
> he had the same kind of knowledge, with its limitations, as his fellow
Jews;
> and as we do. Why should anyone expect otherwise? As a Baptist minister
> friend once said of him, "He didn't know Einstein's theory of relativity
> from day one." Jesus was not the omniscient God walking around in a body
> (cf. Phil 2:5-11): that Gnostic heresy was the first one condemned by the
> Church.
>
> My beef with people who use references like these to claim Jesus on
> their side in the debate over literal inerrancy is that they are taking
> verses out of context and in doing so mis-taking and mis-reading them.
They
> should take care not to assume that their own interpretation (or logic) is
> God's.
>
> Finally, a few remarks. I have witnessed no one on this list
"deride"
> any OT story, "or worse." As to the notion that if one does not believe
one
> thing in the Bible, how can he believe anything in it, or believe what it
> has to say about salvation, I do not mean any disrespect to Ian or anyone
> else who holds this perspective, but I feel compelled to say that I think
> this either/or thinking does a great disservice to the Bible; and I shall
> yield to the temptation to say with Jesus, "O ye of little faith."
>
> Bob Schneider
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hassell, Ian C." <hasselli@eucom.mil>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:33 AM
> Subject: RE: The Flood Hoax
>
>
> > Jesus (Mt 5:17,18), Paul (2 Tim 3:16,17) and Peter (2 Peter 1:20,21)
(and
> > there are probably more) all referenced the inerrancy of the
"scriptures"
> or
> > the "law" (they were obviously referring to what we know as the Old
> > Testament). Christ on several occasions re-affirmed OT stories (Jonah
in
> Mt
> > 12:38-40, David in Mt 12:3,4 and the flood in Mt. 24:37-39 and Luke
> > 17:26-32). Throughout the past 6 months that I've been reading this
> > news-post I've seen many pieces of the OT re-explained, negated,
derided
> or
> > worse through claims of those understanding modern science much better
> than
> > I do. Were Christ's references to Jonah and the flood simply his
> > misunderstanding of the scriptures? Did He really believe that Jonah
was
> > swallowed by a big fish? What are the implications to our acceptance
of
> the
> > OT, and to a larger extent our acceptance of Christ, given these quotes
> from
> > him? I'm open to debate on the Bible - we are encouraged to "test all
> > things" (I Thes 5:21) - but at what point does the Bible's inaccuracy
> begin
> > to erode our understanding of God? and ultimately the foundation of
our
> > faith?
> >
> > If there are errors throughout the Old and New Testaments, how do we
know
> > the "important" pieces are accurate. How do we know that Jesus said "I
am
> > THE Way..." and not "I am A Way...". At what point do we lose basis
for
> our
> > faith? This isn't a call to blind faith, rather it's a challenge of
> Source
> > Authority. Which holds ultimate authority: God's omniscience and
> > omnipotence? or the latest interpretations of scientific data?
> >
> > Why try to measure God by our human standards/logic/reason rather than
> seek
> > to understand His logic/rationale when the Bible and/or science appear
> > confusing and contradicting? Clearly a philosophical debate, but one
at
> the
> > heart of all Biblical interpretation.
> >
> > Ian Hassell
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 20:42:54 EDT