I found this on Ray Comfort's website. I have been accused by atheists of having a blind faith. I believe there is no more blind a faith than those who put their faith and trust in the theory of evolution. This (now dying!? world view) that humans have evolved from another species of animal has been followed by millions of people without a shred of evidence for many years. I wouldn't want to put anybody down but (light heartedly) I like Ray suggest that the title of the book just about gets it about right!
I found this on Ray Comfort's website. I have been accused by atheists of having a blind faith. I believe there is no more blind a faith than those who put their faith and trust in the theory of evolution. This (now dying!? world view) that humans have evolved from another species of animal has been followed by millions of people without a shred of evidence for many years. I wouldn't want to put anybody down but (light heartedly) I like Ray suggest that the title of the book just about gets it about right!
Comments
Interesting though that you wrote about this, as there was a man on our campus this week (I'm a university student) who was "street preaching" and he talked some about evolution, which he liked to call "EVIL-ution :-) He was a funny guy, and got more people talking about the Bible, God, Jesus, and sin on our campus this week than probably the entire semester combined.
Except of course you can have them both with God as the trigger that sets the whole process in motion.
Thank you Aquinas!
:-)
In terms of 'reportage' if indeed that is a word - the only report I believe is the that of the LORD.
Have a good week.
I am glad that you agree that there is not a shred of evidence for the theory of evolution!
Regarding the Old Testament characters that you clearly do not believe in - you are right that Josephus is but one historian who takes these people literally! There are many many more including a man called Jesus of Nazareth!
It is clear that Jesus believes they are real and lets face it he should know - he did in fact bring them into existance.
His use of language when referring to Scripture can only conclude that Jesus believed that Scripture was the authoritative Word of God and that these people were historical figures. Jesus points out that it was the Holy Spirit that spoke the word of God through the writers of the Old Testament. Quoting Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22.43 for example, Jesus said ‘‘How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls (Jesus) ‘Lord’? ’’
Abraham:
Jesus said about Abraham:
* ‘ Before Abraham was born I am’ (John 8:56-58)
The crowd wanted to kill Jesus for saying these words – if Abraham was thought to be imaginary in those days – their reaction simply doesn't make sense.
Moses:
is repeatedly referred to by Jesus as ‘the giver of the law’:
* ‘Moses said, ‘Honour your father..’’ (Mark 7:10)
* ‘What did Moses command you?’ (Mark 10:3)
* ‘Moses permitted you to divorce …’ (Matt 19:3)
Quite clearly, a fictional character could not be the giver of the Law or utter words that would be understood by real people as a command to them to act in a certain way. A made up person equally can not permit a real person to divorce. This would be nonsense!
Jonah:
Jesus clearly was of the mind that even Jonah was an historical character. Matthew 12:41 records Jesus as saying:
‘The men of Nineveh will stand up on the day of judgement, with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah and now one grater than Jonah is here’ (Matt: 12:41)
As Preowne comments: (Obadiah and Johan: Cambridge: 1894) Are we to suppose Jesus to say:
‘that imaginary persons who at the imaginary preaching of an imaginary prophet repented in imagination, shall rise up in that day and condemn the actual impenitence of those his actual hearers?’
The Law and the Prophets:
These too were seen as God’s word and actual people. Jesus continuously declared that he came to fulfil the (imaginary?) Law and the prophets
* 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets ...' (Matt 5:17)
* ‘this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets’ (Luke 11:50)
Jesus made similar comments about Adam and Eve and Noah ('As it was in the days of Noah') of Isaac and Jacob and many more. If those of Jesus’ day and more seriously Jesus himself respected these people as historical figures, who did as Scripture says they did, who are we as Christians some 2,000 years later to contradict Him?
Now you go on to make assumptions, both about what I believe and about Brueggermann, which I'm guessing you haven't read.
I have no problem with the historicity of Abraham and Moses. My problems lie with Adam, Eve and Noah as historical characters. I am of the tradition which sees them as characters in a religious myth: myth being a real genre of religious writing and one which is well accepted within Christianity. To call something a religious myth is not a perjorative at all, nor to denigrate it, it is merely to recognise a literary divice, which sadly many modern Christians have lost the power to recognise, but which the early listeners and readers would have easily identified.
The story of Jonah, I think it is clear, is a parable, which does not diminish its power at all.
As to the Law and Prophets, no arguments there at all.
In terms of "who are we as Christians two thousand years later to criticise Him?" Well, we are those to whom God has given the power of intellect to question and learn. To ask searching questions of the historicity of the Old Testament is not to criticise Jesus at all. Why would you say it is?
In the incarnation, in Jesus human nature, he made a pretty good job of challenging the religious mores and attitudes of his day. I don't find it at all odd that he chose his battles carefully, nor that he referred to the tradition of the Jewish scriptures to make his point when it suited him: you don't have to believe in them literally to take significant learning points from the stories, whether they are myth, parable, history or interpreted history. That would have been as true two thousand years ago as it is today.
To use these stories in the pulpit to make a religious point does not imply that you take them literally. I may still say "As Jonah said....." or "As Noah said.....". On the other hand, I don't think you can use them at all if you believe they have no religious value.
So what I am saying is that I am not dismissing them at all, merely that I do not necessarily accept them all as literal or as history in the way we understand history today. I understand them in a different way, but I still value them.
Sorry, not familiar with Preowne: when I google it it only comes back to this post. I can't find him/her recommended on any reading list for the O.T. Whereas Brueggermann is a standard for theological colleges and ministry training.
Just to reemphasise, I have a problem when a document tells me that it is its own sole authority - sort of brooks no contradiction. My God is too big to be constrained by the scriptures of any faith.
Now I have taken up too much of your blog and do not want to hi-jack it.
The discussion continues over at my blog: all are welcome to come and share your views and I'll leave Neil to get on, and comment no further on this string. What I will do, as Neil has, is to double post this on my site as well.
Thanks for the chat.
Not sure why you said in the second comment subject that there is not a shred of evidence for either if you really believe evolution is fact and not as its title suggests -'Theory of ...'
Will have to settle for you believing in Abraham and Moses for now but the evidence is strong to show that you are wrong that Jesus didn't eg believe Jonah was real. The New Testament writers are even clearer in the belief that Adam and Eve wre historical characters.
Rats, I wasn't going to comment again. That's it. No more!!!
Oh I've done it again. Bad me.
Exits stage left in high dudgeon!