Originally posted by Coletti
Not irreconcilable - but only that if two verses were read as having the exact same meaning - literal or otherwise - and there were contradictory - then at least one of the readings if false. So there are no irreconcilable contradictions in Scripture. But to continue with the discussion....
By 'irreconcilable' I meant literally irreconcilable. In such a circumstance,
like the day that Jesus died relative to Passover, one would have to
hold that either one date or the other is historically true (or neither).
The reconciliation is in claiming the other is metaphorical.
I'm pretty sure we agree here.
Not only that, but that some passages clearly are not literal.
I'm not concerned with specific passages. I'm making a global
statement which is in concord with your axiomatic system.
Again, you agree that it is not necessary for a Believer to understand
all passages lacking contradictions as literal in order to be a person of
faith. (I left out a clause above). The example we agreed could be
read entirely metaphorically is the story of Jonah. That is, it is
entirely possible that Jonah never existed, but that the metaphorical
and moral truths of the story make his existence irrelevant.
Am I correct in my stating this?
And still be a Christian? No. If all that Jesus said and did was allegorical or metaphorical to the truth, then there would be no objective standard for truth.
Are you saying that allegorical/metaphorical truths are unable to
establish objective standards for truth? If so, then are you saying
that no objective truths are communicated in the story of Jonah (which
you agreed could be disbelieved as a historical account).
I can't address the rest of your post until this is clarified.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is, it is
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Not irreconcilable - but only that if two verses were read as having the exact same meaning - literal or otherwise - and there were contradictory - then at least one of the readings if false. So there are no irreconcilable contradictions in Scripture. But to continue with the discussion....
By 'irreconcilable ...[text shortened]... storical account).
I can't address the rest of your post until this is clarified.
Nemesio[/b]
entirely possible that Jonah never existed, but that the metaphorical
and moral truths of the story make his existence irrelevant.
Am I correct in my stating this?
We're close enough I think. It is possible. (Existence is a metaphysical question that might need examining.)
Are you saying that allegorical/metaphorical truths are unable to
establish objective standards for truth?
Yes. A metaphor is an reflection of a truth, it is not the truth itself. So there must be some knowledge that is more concrete in order to determine what the objective truth the metaphor is conveying.
If so, then are you saying
that no objective truths are communicated in the story of Jonah (which
you agreed could be disbelieved as a historical account).
I'm saying that if Jonah is a metaphor, then by itself we can not determine what it is a metaphor of. We need a priori knowledge that is objective in order to understand the objective truth of the Jonah metaphor or allegory.
Originally posted by ColettiSince this very first premise is so obviously wrong, I won't bother going any further. I would only point out that your post plays fast and loose with the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics.
If one has no means of grounding truth... anything is possibly true.
Originally posted by ColettiI'm confused.
That is, it is
entirely possible that Jonah never existed, but that the metaphorical
and moral truths of the story make his existence irrelevant.
Am I correct in my stating this?
We're close enough I think. It is possible. (Existence is a metaphysical question that might need examining.)
Are you saying that allegorical/metaphorical that is objective in order to understand the objective truth of the Jonah metaphor or allegory.
Are you saying Jesus imparted very few objective truths because he spoke largely in
parables?!
Nemesio
Originally posted by dottewellHit and run philosophy? That's pretty sad. You won't even get close to the truth if you won't deal with the issues epistemology.
Since this very first premise is so obviously wrong, I won't bother going any further. I would only point out that your post plays fast and loose with the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics.
Originally posted by NemesioNo but that's a good question.
I'm confused.
Are you saying Jesus imparted very few objective truths because he spoke largely in
parables?!
Nemesio
Jesus often had to explain the meaning of his parables to his disciples in order for them to know the objective truth he was illustrating by his parable. The objective truths are not given explicitly by the parables. And without some prior objective truth - we could not understand the implicit objective truths behind the parables. Many are clearer after reading the epistles. The epistles work together with the gospels and these together with the Old Testament for understanding the truths of Scripture. This is the reasoning for systematic theology. To develop the interrelationships between different scriptural truths - to work out a logical system of doctrine. It's like geometry in that sense.
Originally posted by ColettiYou didn't answer my question, actually. I'm trying to be precise here.
No but that's a good question.
Jesus often had to explain the meaning of his parables to his disciples in order for them to know the objective truth he was illustrating by his parable. The objective truths are not given explicitly by the parables. And without some prior objective truth - we could not understand the implicit objective truths behind th ...[text shortened]... criptural truths - to work out a logical system of doctrine. It's like geometry in that sense.
Jesus very infrequently explained parables to His disciples -- only one
comes to mind (the seeds falling on the path, the rocks, the thorns,
and good ground). Most of them do not have such an explanation.
So, my question is: did Jesus impart very few objective truths?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf I said all A are B - would you know explicitly what I meant? No. But if later you read, A is dogs, and B is animals with four legs - then you would know what I meant. You did not know what I meant by "all A is B" by itself and apart - but non-the-less I was implicitly telling you something.
You didn't answer my question, actually. I'm trying to be precise here.
Jesus very infrequently explained parables to His disciples -- only one
comes to mind (the seeds falling on the path, the rocks, the thorns,
and good ground). Most of them do not have such an explanation.
So, my question is: did Jesus impart very few objective truths?
Nemesio
A parable - alone - by itself - unaided - does not explicitly convey objective truth. But even so - there is a objective truth that the parable conveys implicitly. So did Jesus express objective truths through parables - yes, absolutely, but not explicitly. He imparted many objective truths through his parables - once you see them in light of other parts of the Bible.
Think of the parables as statements in Euclidean geometry. They might not make sense until you understood the 5 postulates. Then the statement will be rational. But apart from the the "system" the statement may not be intelligible. Are the statements false - until you understand the system - you won't know. You can not take the statement out of the system by itself and make sense of it.
Originally posted by Coletti
A parable - alone - by itself - unaided - does not explicitly convey objective truth. But even so - there is a objective truth that the parable conveys implicitly. So did Jesus express objective truths through parables - yes, absolutely, but not explicitly. He imparted many objective truths through his parables - once you see them in light of other parts of the Bible.
So, you need not believe that Jesus existed at all and still can be a good Christian.
If his parables can communicate truths in light of other parts of the Bible (say, St Paul),
then if the entire Jesus story were one big parable, the objective truths which are 'implied'
would still be brought to light.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOne of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is Jesus Christ dies for the sins of the world. And the epistles speak of the teaching of and miracles of Jesus. And the Scriptures speak of literally touching the wounds of Jesus after his resurrection. If Jesus did not exist, then none of these things would make sense. Jesus himself spoke in parables - does not entail that Jesus was a parable.
...
So, you need not believe that Jesus existed at all and still can be a good Christian.
If his parables can communicate truths in light of other parts of the Bible (say, St Paul),
then if the entire Jesus story were one big parable, the objective truths which are 'implied'
would still be brought to light.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by Coletti
One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is Jesus Christ dies for the sins of the world. And the epistles speak of the teaching of and miracles of Jesus.
It would make sense if we understood that His existence and dying was but a parable
to be understood metaphorically. Then the objective truth would shine out. Anyway,
the Epistles contain very little of Jesus's teaching directly, just a few sentences here
and there, and the only quotation are the words of institution at the Last Supper.
And the Scriptures speak of literally touching the wounds of Jesus after his resurrection. If Jesus did not exist, then none of these things would make sense.
You write 'Scripture speaks literally...' but that is not true. It does not make an
indication one way or the other about whether the story with St Thomas was or was
not a literal account (after all, it is in St John which had the 'metaphorical'
account of the Jesus-as-Passover-Lamb). Just like Jonah, this story about faith
and belief doesn't necessitate its historicity.
Jesus himself spoke in parables - does not entail that Jesus was a parable.
I'm not saying that because Jesus spoke in parables that He was a parable. Please
don't confuse the argument by introducing things I did not say. I'm using the term
'necessary' very precisely to make it clear.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm going to try to be patient with you since you are new. Please read the
Subtleties notwithstanding, the fact remains, that a promise was made, a claim was laid, and history has been said.
To which part are you contending?
whole thread before you jump in...earlier I wrote:
...do you agree/accept as logical (although highly improbable) the position that Jesus didn't exist?
That is: I firmly believe that Jesus existed. My question to Coletti is, given that
he is willing to recoginze the validity of a Christian faith which concludes that Jonah
was a metaphor, why doesn't this extend to Jesus?
Furthermore, if the 'promise, claim, and history' were all metaphor, the Bible would
remain fully consistent.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI admire your mind.
Furthermore, if the 'promise, claim, and history' were all metaphor, the Bible would
remain fully consistent.
Nemesio
I have read the posts, and still come to the same conclusion.
It appears the distinction you are attempting to make: is the idea greater than the reality? Is saving faith based on the idea, or is it based on the (real or otherwise) reality?
The beauty is, the question has already been asked, answered and affirmed.
Without the reality of the act, the charge would linger like a never-ending fart. Satan's charge before man, and his challenge at the end has been that God is not necessary for good.
Man has proven it is impossible to be good.
The Lord Jesus Christ proved, utilizing only God's power, fully available for all who would believe, good is possible only through God.
Satan will get a two last parting shots at his original contention.
He will lose.
Without the physical proof of God's ability to sustain and provide all the necessary power required of His righteousness, Satan could not be shut up.
The Bible indicates, faith alone in Christ alone. It doesn't intimate, faith alone in the idea of Christ alone. Anything less is cutting hairs, and is off the topic of what He calls the issue.
That being said, the Bible describes the Lord Jesus Christ referring to Jonah and the fish as something that actually occured, not as a metaphor.
Whether metaphor or not, the believer's faith is not based on whether or not they believe in Jonah, Abednego, Esther or the like. Their saving faith is based on an appropriation of the work of Christ on their behalf.
That is a wide swath. All else is inconsequential, as it relates to salvation.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The beauty is, the question has already been asked, answered and affirmed.
The historical veracity on this statement relies upon reading the Gospels as
history.
This is the very concept I am raising by quesiton. If one believes that the question was
actually asked, actually answered, and actually affirmed, would you be a Christian? Of
course; this is clear. However, the question I am asking is if you believe that the question
was metaphorically asked, metaphorically answered, and metaphorically affirmed, would
you still be a Christian.
You keep returning the the Bible as literal history. My question is predicated on not
doing that and so your answers are not relevant.
As for Jesus's mention of Jonah, it occurs in two contexts:
St Luke 11:29-32, specifically 30, which reads 'Just as Jonah became a sign to the
Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.'
Well, that explicitly indicates metaphor! A sign indicates metaphor! So, even this
statement were historically true (i.e., Jesus existed and He said it), it doesn't demand
that Jonah be real (for it is only in reference to the sign-ness of Jonah).
St Matthew 12:38-41, specifically 39-40, which reads '...no sign will be given it except
the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and
three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.'
Two things about this. One, if we accept that both Jonah and Jesus is a metaphor and never
existed, then we have no problems, because their metaphors are concordant. And, if Jesus
did exist, it still doesn't preclude His using this story metaphorically either (like if I said,
'Just as Snow White was rescued by the prince, so, too, will I rescue my wife from the
clutches of evil,' or whatever).
Nemesio