Is the way you live your life at all changed by any instructions from Jesus or whether or not Jesus arose from the dead, is the creator of the universe, or has heaven awaiting for you?
The only first-hand account of a super-natural event that comes to mind immediately is Paul’s mention of Jesus appearing to him in 1 Corinthians 15:8. Everything else is second or third hand, from what I recall.
Why not? Is it because of how you were raised?
Would you agree that your position is unreasonable?
Do you think it possible Paul lied or had a seizure or something and just mistakenly reported he saw Jesus?
It’s the most likely explanation. Lots of people think they see Jesus. Some even think the are Jesus.
It’s not because of how I was raised, but because of spiritual experiences I have had. I agree that my position is unreasonable if by that you mean “not based entirely on reason”.
Sure, that’s possible.
That’s what I think too, and I don’t think it’s like 60/40 likely, but more like 1/0 likely. I’m curious what likelihood the liberal Christians ascribe, and how they compare their pet miracles to other miracles for example Poseidon constructing an impenetrable wall around Troy.
Can you give an example of a Biblical miracle you believe in and a spiritual experience you had that justifies it?
In terms of probability, how likely do you think was that Jesus’ ghost actually spoke to Paul.
I think we’re hijacking the thread, so this will probably be my last post in this one.
I believe in God as the creator of the universe. Is that a ’ biblical miracle’? I don’t think the description of creation in Genesis is accurate. All the Genesis account says to me is that God made all that we see.
None of my spiritual experiences justifies belief in a specific biblical miracle. The experiences have persuaded me that God exists. God’s existence would allow some supernatural events, it seems to me.
I don’t assign probabilities to the things that I believe.
For a little more about what I believe, if you are truly interested in knowing that, see here and here.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what the OP seems to be asking how do liberal Christians (i.e., non-literalists) who see the Bible as a collection of poetical allegories mixed with a few fundamental truisms view the non-poetical recitation of genealogies in the Bible?
If that dry section of the Bible if not factual, why then would the fundamental details of Jesus’ existence (such as being the son of God, dieing for our salvation, etc.) be viewed as factual?
Which is always the question I have of liberal Christians as well. I understand fundamentalists and Unitarians, but I don’t see how one can be Christian without assuming that the Bible is a fairly accurate source of information.
I’m not a liberal Christian, but the answer to this should be simple.
The “begets” part is the written record of an oral geneology. This is pretty well documented by biblical scholars.
Before written language, various cultures had oral histories. One important (to them) part of the oral histories was the geneological record. Eventually, these oral geneologies were written down.
Why would a liberal Christian have any problem with this? Of course, even a liberal Christian might believe that the process of writing them (or even remembering them during the oral years) was inspired by God. That doesn’t mean that they’re literal, indisputable, exact fact.
I didn’t expect they would.
I don’t normally do so either. But if asked I can come up with a subjective probability at the drop of a hat. Regarding Paul talking to Jesus’ ghost I just did. Are you capable of giving a subjective probability with regards to that particular event? If so what is it?
OK, you went though a bad time and believed an old man’s testimony. Perhaps you can factor that into your probability with regards to Paul’s revelation.
Then what exactly does “inspired by God” mean?
Liberal Christian here. This thread is kind of all over the place, so here is my likewise scattershot responses to some things that have been said/asked:
- I’ve never heard any Christians (liberal or conservative) claim that the genealogies in the OT or NT are supposed to be poetry. While conservatives take them literally, mainline Christians tend to understand that they are remnants of oral histories and mythologies. They probably contain some “real” names, but they are just fragments of tribal traditions. The extended life spans of the antediluvian patriarchs are mythical.*
*When lib Christians refer to something in the Bible as a “myth,” we are not making any statement as to whether or not the story is factual, or whether it is true. It can be both or neither. Also a religious myth can be “true” in the sense that it tells us something true about God, without being a factual historical account.
So for example: I believe the Creation accounts in Genesis are both true, in the sense that they begin to explain why humankind is estranged from our Creator. However I don’t believe they are historically factual in that I believe in evolutionary theory.
I believe the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is true in that God set Mary apart and became flesh in the child of her womb. Whether or not all the details of the nativity happened as recorded in the NT are historically literal is not something I’m concerned about - whether they happened exactly that way or not, they nonetheless contain the truth about the incarnation.
Myths can be true however. I’m pretty convinced that something miraculous happened at Christ’s tomb. Or at least that his disciples really thought something did. So I lean toward believing that the resurrection was a historical event. But regardless, the myth of the resurrection is still true.
That’s not universally true. Prior to the 18th-19th century, allegorical readings of all scripture including Creation were the norm. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment when a modern fundamentalist understanding of the literalness of scripture really took hold.
Excuse me, I think we are using different definitions.
When I say Augustine and Origen took Genesis literally, I don’t mean they didn’t allow for deeper meanings, broader principles, layers of interpretation, or figures of speech. I just mean that they considered the obvious, surface meaning to be true and historical, allowing for very minor metaphors like “day” for some other unit of time.
To give a clumsy example, a Civil War historian might write that Sherman went through the South like a scythe through wheat. If that were in Genesis, I would say that believing that to be literally true would only require believing that a man named Sherman led an army that overwhelmed any resistance and left a path of devastation through the South. It would not require that Sherman did it by himself, or with a scythe, or that he destroyed the entire South.
I read large parts of Contra Celsus some 40 years ago, so it’s far from fresh in my memory, but scanning through an internet copy does nothing to change my impression of Origen: that he assigns deeper meanings to many of the events of Genesis, like the Tower of Babel, but he defends their historicity. When Celsus claims that stories in Genesis are copied from Greek myths, Origen says that is not so, because Moses predated Homer.
If you have some specific passages in mind that contradict my expanded definition, please cite them, and I’ll be very pleased to learn something new.
I kind of give a pass to people who accepted the Creation account as accurate in pre-Darwinian times, or at least proposed no alternative. It was the default explanation for Western civilization. What other explanation was there?
This needs to be repeated.
Roman Catholics are not Biblical literalists, and can range from being conservative to liberal Christians. (And not that “conservative” and “liberal” are referring to Christian theology not political ideology.)
I see you have been badly contaminated by fundamentalist Christian thought. You have nominally rejected it, which is good, because it is wrong. But your worldview is still shaped by their ignorance.
The underlying problem with fundamentalist Christians is that they are focused too much on words. For them, the Bible must be literally true; salvation is by saying Christ is your savior. They see the trees, but miss the forest.
Literal truth is not the only truth. Context matters. “All men are created equal” is not literally true, but in the context of a statement of political ideals it is.
To answer your questions, none of those matter, in any literal sense. I believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but in practical matters it’s not important. I will continue to follow Jesus by doing good, not evil. It is its own reward.
Well, sure. You can’t blame somebody for not being as smart as Newton and Darwin and Lyell combined, so I don’t blame anyone for taking Genesis literally before science knew better.
But the point is, there was no reason to take it allegorically. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly not intended to be taken literally, but Genesis is not one of them. People today who claim it was always intended as an allegory are backing and filling.
And I’ve always considered it positive evidence that it was written by uninspired humans, because if God directed the writing of the Bible, he could very easily have made Genesis accurate. People say that simple shepherds would not have understood an accurate description of the solar system, but
a) that’s not true, because small children understand it just fine today, and
b) so what if they didn’t, they would have thought it was an allegory, and preserved it anyway, just like they did the first chapter of Ezekiel.
And then when science caught up with it (and maybe it would have saved us a couple thousand years), there would be some actual evidence that it was divinely inspired.
The stuff that’s clearly made-up, like the genealogies, serve a real purpose. They provide legitimacy to a prophet/king. Jesus’s background is an inconvenience.
I recommend Bart Ehram. He does a good job of looking at the Bible analytically, and makes a case for what’s probably true and what’s not. For instance, Jesus probably was crucified. The purpose it served to shape Christianity–up for debate. And remember, these debates are IN the Bible, with Peter and Paul squabbling, and all those letters to Christian churches that were “straying.” Most books were written with an agenda, and those agendas conflict with each other.
And what Pleonast said.
That does not seem to be particularly reasonable. You believe in evolution, that’s good, but believing people became estranged from God by conversing with a talking snake makes no more sense than believing in 6 day creation.
Is it still true if Mary had sex with a man and wasn’t a virgin?
What does that mean? The myth of the resurrection is true even if Jesus didn’t rise from the grave?
Often said, never cited.