Re: [asa] Greetings from a new member

Christian -

Good to see a fellow Lutheran here. A few comments on your 2 issues below.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
...................
1. I long ago made peace with the idea that God could
use evolution to form our physical bodies. What was
new to me, from the atheists' perspective, was the
idea that the intangible aspects of us, like feelings,
emotions, consciousness, etc. (which I had equated
with the God-given, eternal soul) could also arise
(ala emergent properties) naturally. Thus, I've
acquired a new-found interest in the fields of
pyschology, neurology, and computer science as I try
to reconceptualize the idea of a "soul".

At least in the vast majority of cases God works "in, with & under" the
activities of creatures so that we don't see God at work directly. Luther
called the created things through which God acts "the masks of our Lord God,
behind which He wants to remain concealed and do all things." This means, I
think, that we shouldn't
be surprised if, among other things, human beings don't contain any special
"supernatural" component.

2. The historicity of Biblical events also remains a
challenge. Although I've never taken the Bible
literally, or have assumed that it was 100% accurate
in terms of historical events, the atheists raise good
questions (they claim that temporary burials were
common back in Jesus's time, and that Jesus could have
been reburied without his disciples knowledge), and
even some Christians seem to take the Bible much more
figuratively than I do (i.e. Jesus was in the desert
for a long time, not necessarily 40 days, etc.); thus,
I'm not quite sure through what eyes I should read the
Bible at this point.
...............................

The best standpoint from which to read and interpret the Bible is
christological - "All scripture everywhere speaks only of Christ," to again
quote Luther. Of course that shouldn't be understood in a naive way - not
every chapter of the Old Testament contains predictions about Christ. &
this doesn't answer all the historical questions. But the belief that God
is revealed in the cross and resurrection of Nazareth serves as something
like what the church fathers called the "rule of faith" in terms of which
the Bible is to be interpreted.

One mistake that critics soome times make, especially in connection with the
passion & resurrection accounts, is to think that we know more than we
really do about Jewish & Roman customs in 1st century Palestine. (The great
RC biblical emphasized this.) & even when we do know what was customarily
done, we can't conclude that that _had_ to have been done in connection with
Jesus. E.g., it's sometimes argued that Jesus wouldn't have been given
individual burial but as a condemned criminal would have been buried in a
common grave or, more likely, left on the cross. That may have been common
Roman practice but it simply doesn't follow that it had to have been the
practice in the case of Jesus of Nazareth: History at this level deals with
contingencies, not general rules.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 9 16:58:59 2007