Luke is recording a unique source concerning the Annunciation and the Presentation. The reason why I think that he is communicating with Mary is that it is a very personal and detailed account. And we are told after each narrative that 'Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart' (Luke 2: 19; 2: 51). They clearly weren't known to everyone.
'If you comprehend, it is not God. If you are able to comprehend, it is because you mistook something else for God. If you almost comprehend, it is again because you allowed your own thoughts to deceive you.'
In my experience, people often communicate non-literally. You notice when you take it literally and people laugh at you! People communicate non-literally and expect to be understood non-literally. Sometimes it is for humour purposes, sometimes for insult purposes, sometimes for emphasis purposes, and sometimes to express something indescribable, or to express something in a novel way, to make people think about it with fresh eyes.
In fact, now I think of it, I can't tell if Mousethief's comment is non-literal - sarcasm to prove a point that of course there is non-literal communication - or literal. But that is me not being good at telling such things.
People who say things that are non-literal are nevertheless literally saying something. I was trying to point out the ambiguity of "non-literal communication."
'If you comprehend, it is not God. If you are able to comprehend, it is because you mistook something else for God. If you almost comprehend, it is again because you allowed your own thoughts to deceive you.'
What interests me is how to properly determine the nature of truth from the different forms of writing in the Bible. How does genre affect our understanding of scripture? Do we put more reliance upon the historical books of the Bible because we think that they are more likely to be evidence based accounts?
Historical truth is irrelevant to the fiction woven around it by the people who lived through it. Just as it is now. It's a simple logical fallacy, mousethief will know the name: the historical context of the storyteller is true therefore the story is. The storyteller often pretends to have lived before the history to claim prophecy as the justification for whatever further claim they make.
Virtually nothing claimed about God in any regard in the entire Bible or by its believers can possibly be true, except in rare isolation. For God is love. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. Everything else we - including that Son - make up. And we well might be making that up too.
This is a crock Martin 54. You only think it is true because of your PM presuppositions.
If as you say, nothing can be known apart from the context of its perceiver then nothing being truly knowable is the ‘eternal’ state of the knower.
What do you do with objective reality then? You deny it. So what is the point of thought, life, education or saving the planet or loving people?
You have reduced reality to a digital simulation of itself where the creator of it is also the perceiver it and the evaluator of it. This is actually,logically given the lie by our capacity for self-reflection. If we are capable of this then such power can only logically come from our image of a greater power.
Information and perception has never existed without an author. We discover perception in ourselves and information in the fabric of what we perceive, the creation. We are conduits of information from an otherness and we know this because we ourselves author otherness and it is therefore logical that we sprang from an intelligent author who created ourselves, and what we see and made us capable of what we can build and create.
Now, the danger thinking in your ever decreasing circle is precisely why the Bible has prophecy. God, from beyond time and space predicts what will happen in time and space. Thus, no one should be surprised that a virgin conceives a son. We were told in prophecy that it would happen.
Who was the source for the Infancy Narratives - and are they literally true or only morally true?
Luke’s historical preface to his gospel tells us that he investigated everything very carefully - 'from the very first' (Luke 1:3). Isn't that a reference to his infancy narrative?
The story of Mary presents a detailed personal account of the words of Mary. And Luke also alludes twice to the thoughts and reflections of Mary which suggests a conversation with an eyewitness (Luke 2:19; 2: 51).
We are told that Luke accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and that Paul visited James and all the elders were present (Acts 21: 17-18). So Luke had an ideal opportunity to speak to Mary and collect information for his gospel.
If the other gospel writers had done the same, then surely they would have provided a similar personal account? If Matthew had spoken to Mary then he could have presented a double account which we don't have. So Matthew must have had another source. The dreams of Joseph do not have the vivid details of a personal eyewitness account. Did Jesus recount this tradition to His disciples together with the story of the Temptations?
Or do we see the dreams of Joseph in Matthew and the angelic visitation of Mary in Luke as being cultural contextualisations for the mysterious action of God in the world and as vehicles for their theology of the incarnation?
Certainly Luke has quite a preference for angelic visitations in his narratives. They appear to Zechariah, Mary, the shepherds, the first Gentile convert Cornelius and they release St Peter from prison. Are they real angels or metaphors for the inexpressible?
It is a good idea to always be circumspect when an author tells you that they investigated everything carefully. The question should always arise 'so what are they glossing over or treated as irrelevant?'
If you believe that John the beloved disciple did what he was asked by Jesus on the Cross, i.e. to look after Mary, then there is a big question as to why the gospel attributed him does not have a birth narrative in it and yet two others do.
What is not there in a gospel can be an interesting clue to the author's theme. It is thought that John's gospel was written as a supplement to the Synoptics. He is doing something different. Instead of a birth narrative we have the theology of the divine Logos linking the incarnation to the story of Creation in Genesis 1 and introducing the theme of the revelation of the glory of Christ.
But John's gospel does have the unique account of the miracle at Cana which records the words of a conversation between Jesus and Mary. So perhaps the Beloved Disciple did talk to Mary and selected a story which he included as 'the first of His signs' which 'revealed His glory' (John 2: 11).
Assuming that we think that the unnamed Beloved Disciple really is John and not another likely candidate such as Lazarus.
It could even be an example of John's reader response method in which we are invited to see ourselves as being the Beloved Disciple of Jesus.
Who was the source for the Infancy Narratives - and are they literally true or only morally true
Assuming you mean the source beyond the source, probably the Jewish genealogical records, which were destroyed in AD 70, you are left with the fact that they made it into the gospels so are there for a reason. The writers needed them apart from John and Mark.
IMV they make both historical and theological points. Among other things Matthew demonstrates Jesus’ right to the Davidic throne. Luke that he came from human origin. Both demonstrate that his birth fulfils prophecy.
Justin Martyr in C2nd first comments upon the predictions about the Messiah in the gospels. The Messiah was foretold to be a descendant of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49: 10; Num 24: 17; Is 11: 1), and of the line of David (2 Sam 7: 12; Jer 23: 5; 32: 4-5).
Matthew begins his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham and David (Matt 1: 1-17). Luke's genealogy shows His descent from Adam and David to express His common humanity (Luke 3: 23-38).
The sources I am intrigued about are the narratives concerning Joseph (in Matthew) and Mary (in Luke) which are quite different. Matthew describes a series of four dreams whereas Luke describes a series of three angelic appearances and also tells of Simeon being divinely guided by the Holy Spirit (Luke 2: 27). So there are a variety of forms of divine communication being described in the infancy narratives.
By contrast other Biblical books represent the action of God in the world quite differently. Ruth and Esther are famous for showing the God working behind the scenes of events through divine providence, rather than supernaturally. Does this difference reflect the theological preferences of the particular authors?
What is not there in a gospel can be an interesting clue to the author's theme. It is thought that John's gospel was written as a supplement to the Synoptics. He is doing something different. Instead of a birth narrative we have the theology of the divine Logos linking the incarnation to the story of Creation in Genesis 1 and introducing the theme of the revelation of the glory of Christ.
But John does have in the feeding of the 5000. So that something was in another Gospel was not the criteria for its exclusion from the Gospel of John.
He does - but he is using it very differently in his gospel. John is offering his readers an extra layer of theological reflection to the Synoptic accounts. So the Feeding of the Five Thousand becomes the basis for his Bread of Heaven discourse. John is quite keen on his theological discourses (the Logos, the Vine and Branches, the Farewell Discourses). His miracles are presented as signs of His glory and they make links to the I Am sayings which reveal the divine identity of Jesus.
John is also writing a very sacramental gospel. Although his Last Supper account omits the words of institution John is offering his readers a lot of reflection on the connections between Jesus and bread, wine and water. So what is unique on a gospel is also highly revealing of the author's intent. John is keen to emphasise the deeper significance of Jesus ministry. This may be because the Synoptic accounts are quite sparse and don't offer much in the way of commentary or reflection upon meaning.
Yes but that does not build your case. It would equally possible to rewrite the annunciation narratives for a different purpose. John chooses not to. The question is why?
I think it is because John is presenting a different theological emphasis in his gospel. He has a strong emphasis upon the divinity of Christ. He is demonstrating the cosmic importance of the incarnation by drawing a parallel with the creation story. And he is setting out his theme of glory. He is also avoiding repetition with the Synoptic chronologies by presenting a much more sophisticated reflection upon the theological meaning of the life of Christ to his readers.
What interests me is how to properly determine the nature of truth from the different forms of writing in the Bible. How does genre affect our understanding of scripture? Do we put more reliance upon the historical books of the Bible because we think that they are more likely to be evidence based accounts?
Historical truth is irrelevant to the fiction woven around it by the people who lived through it. Just as it is now. It's a simple logical fallacy, mousethief will know the name: the historical context of the storyteller is true therefore the story is. The storyteller often pretends to have lived before the history to claim prophecy as the justification for whatever further claim they make.
Virtually nothing claimed about God in any regard in the entire Bible or by its believers can possibly be true, except in rare isolation. For God is love. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. Everything else we - including that Son - make up. And we well might be making that up too.
This is a crock Martin 54. You only think it is true because of your PM presuppositions.
Whatever. It's true because it's true. It's true because the claims made for God, like all claims, are made by helplessly enculturated humans.
If as you say, nothing can be known apart from the context of its perceiver then nothing being truly knowable is the ‘eternal’ state of the knower.
Correct.
What do you do with objective reality then? You deny it. So what is the point of thought, life, education or saving the planet or loving people?
What has doing the decent thing got to do with the absence, the meaninglessness of objective reality?
You have reduced reality to a digital simulation of itself
No I haven't.
where the creator of it is also the perceiver [of] it and the evaluator of it.
Well He would be wouldn't he.
This is actually, logically given the lie by our capacity for self-reflection.
No it isn't.
If we are capable of this then such power can only logically come from our image of a greater power.
No it doesn't.
Information and perception has never existed without an author.
Bollocks. Sorry. Yes it has.
We discover perception in ourselves and information in the fabric of what we perceive, the creation. We are conduits of information from an otherness and we know this because we ourselves author otherness and it is therefore logical that we sprang from an intelligent author who created ourselves, and what we see and made us capable of what we can build and create.
Bollocks.
Now, the danger thinking in your ever decreasing circle is precisely why the Bible has prophecy. God, from beyond time and space predicts what will happen in time and space. Thus, no one should be surprised that a virgin conceives a son. We were told in prophecy that it would happen.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
What makes you say that?
Martin 54 continually assumes the tenets of post modernism in all his posts. He assumes these are true a priori. However, this is far from the case. It unvolves an assumption that objective knowledge of history is an impossible thing as it is based on subjective viewpoints. However, we actually base court decisions on such testimony when taken under controlled conditions. If post modernist views of truth we're necessary for court decisions to be reliable ..well..
But to your question:
IMV, The Bible is God's method of solving all such issues. It is his inviolate message to humanity from outside time..if you care to accept it which I realise obviously you do not, preferring the 'Orthodox' tradition you have adopted.
You could argue that. And you could also say that it contains eternal truths but it also contains cultural contextualisations that are not relevant to the people of God today. And that it is an ongoing revelation which is reinterpreted afresh by every generation. Didn't Jesus reinterpret the OT Law in the SOM? And didn't Paul set aside the ritual law for the Gentile Christians? So can't we do the same according to what we understand as being the consensus in the entire message of the Bible ? Culture and the Bible have always been in dialogue together.
You could argue that. And you could also say that it contains eternal truths but it also contains cultural contextualisations that are not relevant to the people of God today. And that it is an ongoing revelation which is reinterpreted afresh by every generation. Didn't Jesus reinterpret the OT Law in the SOM? And didn't Paul set aside the ritual law for the Gentile Christians? So can't we do the same according to what we understand as being the consensus in the entire message of the Bible ? Culture and the Bible have always been in dialogue together.
There is a separate thread for inerrancy and yes, I am an inerrantist by most definitions employed here. I am happy to engage on that if you post there but not on this thread.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
Objectivity is impossible because it is impossible. It is psychologically, scientifically, phenomenologically, utterly meaningless.
This is a discussion about what is true in the Bible. If you simply say that everything is literally true then it will limit the debate. Luther's image of the Bible containing the Word like the manger of hay held the infant Christ is quite a helpful one.
But the question remains as to how to make the distinctions between the essentials and non essentials? Some cultural contextualisations are obvious such as women's hair and head coverings. And certain aspects of the OT ritual law no longer apply. What other aspects of the scriptures are debatable? What interests me are the questions of texts such as the creation myth, apparent moral fables like Jonah and potential literary / theological constructs like the dreams of Joseph and the Annunciation to Mary. Are these texts really only morally true and does it really matter if they are? Can they still be read as spiritually inspired if they are story rather than factual?
So what is your take on the Annunciation Martin54? Did Mary really meet an angel or is this a story expressing Luke’s theological explanation for the mystery of the incarnation?
I want it to be literally true. I want angels and therefore demons to work. Despite the fact that working out the ecology of Heaven and Earth in the face of eternal infinity is made more problematic. I can't believe that the good doctor made it up or that, more rationalistically likely, a later priestly class of group-deluded Jewish-Greco-Roman humanists did. As I worked out with Eutychus and you all: too many people believed as evidenced by the epistles.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
What makes you say that?
Martin 54 continually assumes the tenets of post modernism in all his posts. He assumes these are true a priori. However, this is far from the case. It unvolves an assumption that objective knowledge of history is an impossible thing as it is based on subjective viewpoints. However, we actually base court decisions on such testimony when taken under controlled conditions. If post modernist views of truth we're necessary for court decisions to be reliable ..well..
But to your question:
IMV, The Bible is God's method of solving all such issues. It is his inviolate message to humanity from outside time..if you care to accept it which I realise obviously you do not, preferring the 'Orthodox' tradition you have adopted.
Having been a foreperson on a jury in a nasty little case, I can assure you that we were fully aware of the subjectivity of everyone involved, especially ourselves. And purely based on Occam's razor we banged the nasty bastard - who may well have been completely innocent - up on a majority of the charges.
As Eutychus noted on the demons thread, it is to be expected that the incarnation event would be surrounded by intense spiritual activity in the form of divine dreams and angelic visitors. And there is also the Empire Strikes Back in the form of Herod's massacre of the innocents. The stories of the Baptism and Temptation of Jesus show the same spiritual pattern of good and evil. And we see it again in Peter's Confession of Christ. And throughout the Book of Acts.
And perhaps it does not matter whether the infancy narratives are stories or not. A parable is only a morally true story but it is still a source of spiritual revelation.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
Objectivity is impossible because it is impossible. It is psychologically, scientifically, phenomenologically, utterly meaningless.
There you go again. In effect you are asserting a priori that your post modern assumptions must be accepted by others you interact with. It is like you alone know this secret language that others must accept and participate in or discussion is meaningless.
...and you are asserting your entirely made-up assumptions about the motivations of the writers of these stories and the way they understood truth. Your understanding does not predate the 19th century at the earliest, and has nothing to do with essentially symbolic understanding within which they were written.
As long as you think objectivity is impossible because humans are ‘hopelessly enculturated’ then what you believe will be bollocks. The Bible is actually the tardis that rescues us from that. It is a divine statement from beyond time and culture.
Objectivity is impossible because it is impossible. It is psychologically, scientifically, phenomenologically, utterly meaningless.
There you go again. In effect you are asserting a priori that your post modern assumptions must be accepted by others you interact with. It is like you alone know this secret language that others must accept and participate in or discussion is meaningless.
What's postmodernity got to do with the truth of your a posteriori subjectivity in making a priori truth claims based on unreason? Please adduce any objective truth that I deny? It isn't like that at all. The lack of language is unique to yourself, we can't help that.
What's postmodernity got to do with the truth of your a posteriori subjectivity in making a priori truth claims based on unreason? Please adduce any objective truth that I deny? It isn't like that at all. The lack of language is unique to yourself, we can't help that
Martin 54: This is really just posturing nonsense. What you are in effect trying to assert is that faith in the Biblical God is unreasonable on the basis that it is impossible to objectively prove him?
To me nothing else is reasonable. In support of it begin with the creation.
“The heavens declare the glory of God”
My position is that what Bible asserts, is really all we can know but the fact of creation provides the confirmation of this knowledge. The fruit of denying this is history’s primary lesson.
You do not have to juxtapose postmodernism and the world wide church of God as binary positions and say one liberates you from the other which,looking at your pattern here, is what you appear to have done ol mate.
This is a discussion about what is true in the Bible. If you simply say that everything is literally true then it will limit the debate
Which is why I suggest to use the other thread. I do not say everything in there is literally true as not everything is literally conveyed but I do think it is God’s revelation.
It would be interesting to explore what you mean by the things that are not being literally conveyed in the Bible. Are you referring to Thunderbunk's point about the writers' symbolic understanding of the truth of their stories ?
What's postmodernity got to do with the truth of your a posteriori subjectivity in making a priori truth claims based on unreason? Please adduce any objective truth that I deny? It isn't like that at all. The lack of language is unique to yourself, we can't help that
Martin 54: This is really just posturing nonsense. What you are in effect trying to assert is that faith in the Biblical God is unreasonable on the basis that it is impossible to objectively prove him?
To me nothing else is reasonable. In support of it begin with the creation.
“The heavens declare the glory of God”
My position is that what Bible asserts, is really all we can know but the fact of creation provides the confirmation of this knowledge. The fruit of denying this is history’s primary lesson.
You do not have to juxtapose postmodernism and the world wide church of God as binary positions and say one liberates you from the other which,looking at your pattern here, is what you appear to have done ol mate.
All we can know is what's in our heads. How did it get there?
This is a discussion about what is true in the Bible. If you simply say that everything is literally true then it will limit the debate
Which is why I suggest to use the other thread. I do not say everything in there is literally true as not everything is literally conveyed but I do think it is God’s revelation.
Which was in response to my "No annunciation, no incarnation. If angels and demons don't exist, was God 'justified' in letting us believe that they do by using their form?" I infer.
So no, as has been pointed out, art is communication, signal in itself and can be used as a carrier wave, a medium for other messages. As Stigmata (which I'm afraid I liked, twice) said, the messenger is not important.
But in this case it is. The message, the communication of the New Testament inextricably, irreducibly includes literal angels and demons.
Comments
Colm Toibin in The Testament of Mary imagines how this could have happened.
'If you comprehend, it is not God. If you are able to comprehend, it is because you mistook something else for God. If you almost comprehend, it is again because you allowed your own thoughts to deceive you.'
St Augustine, Sermon 52: 96.
What other kind of communication is there? Figurative communication is no communication at all.
In fact, now I think of it, I can't tell if Mousethief's comment is non-literal - sarcasm to prove a point that of course there is non-literal communication - or literal. But that is me not being good at telling such things.
I understood that icons do, but my knowledge of icons is slight.
Wow! He said that?!
He also said, 'Make me a Christian, O Lord - but not yet!'
He also had a problem with pear theft. (Link may be a slight exaggeration.)
This is a crock Martin 54. You only think it is true because of your PM presuppositions.
If as you say, nothing can be known apart from the context of its perceiver then nothing being truly knowable is the ‘eternal’ state of the knower.
What do you do with objective reality then? You deny it. So what is the point of thought, life, education or saving the planet or loving people?
You have reduced reality to a digital simulation of itself where the creator of it is also the perceiver it and the evaluator of it. This is actually,logically given the lie by our capacity for self-reflection. If we are capable of this then such power can only logically come from our image of a greater power.
Information and perception has never existed without an author. We discover perception in ourselves and information in the fabric of what we perceive, the creation. We are conduits of information from an otherness and we know this because we ourselves author otherness and it is therefore logical that we sprang from an intelligent author who created ourselves, and what we see and made us capable of what we can build and create.
Now, the danger thinking in your ever decreasing circle is precisely why the Bible has prophecy. God, from beyond time and space predicts what will happen in time and space. Thus, no one should be surprised that a virgin conceives a son. We were told in prophecy that it would happen.
I know this logical fallacy. It's called Bulverism.
I accept that and therefore the source should be Mary which is the point of my post.
Luke’s historical preface to his gospel tells us that he investigated everything very carefully - 'from the very first' (Luke 1:3). Isn't that a reference to his infancy narrative?
The story of Mary presents a detailed personal account of the words of Mary. And Luke also alludes twice to the thoughts and reflections of Mary which suggests a conversation with an eyewitness (Luke 2:19; 2: 51).
We are told that Luke accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and that Paul visited James and all the elders were present (Acts 21: 17-18). So Luke had an ideal opportunity to speak to Mary and collect information for his gospel.
If the other gospel writers had done the same, then surely they would have provided a similar personal account? If Matthew had spoken to Mary then he could have presented a double account which we don't have. So Matthew must have had another source. The dreams of Joseph do not have the vivid details of a personal eyewitness account. Did Jesus recount this tradition to His disciples together with the story of the Temptations?
Or do we see the dreams of Joseph in Matthew and the angelic visitation of Mary in Luke as being cultural contextualisations for the mysterious action of God in the world and as vehicles for their theology of the incarnation?
Certainly Luke has quite a preference for angelic visitations in his narratives. They appear to Zechariah, Mary, the shepherds, the first Gentile convert Cornelius and they release St Peter from prison. Are they real angels or metaphors for the inexpressible?
If you believe that John the beloved disciple did what he was asked by Jesus on the Cross, i.e. to look after Mary, then there is a big question as to why the gospel attributed him does not have a birth narrative in it and yet two others do.
But John's gospel does have the unique account of the miracle at Cana which records the words of a conversation between Jesus and Mary. So perhaps the Beloved Disciple did talk to Mary and selected a story which he included as 'the first of His signs' which 'revealed His glory' (John 2: 11).
Assuming that we think that the unnamed Beloved Disciple really is John and not another likely candidate such as Lazarus.
It could even be an example of John's reader response method in which we are invited to see ourselves as being the Beloved Disciple of Jesus.
My attack is on post modernism.
IMV they make both historical and theological points. Among other things Matthew demonstrates Jesus’ right to the Davidic throne. Luke that he came from human origin. Both demonstrate that his birth fulfils prophecy.
Matthew begins his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham and David (Matt 1: 1-17). Luke's genealogy shows His descent from Adam and David to express His common humanity (Luke 3: 23-38).
The sources I am intrigued about are the narratives concerning Joseph (in Matthew) and Mary (in Luke) which are quite different. Matthew describes a series of four dreams whereas Luke describes a series of three angelic appearances and also tells of Simeon being divinely guided by the Holy Spirit (Luke 2: 27). So there are a variety of forms of divine communication being described in the infancy narratives.
By contrast other Biblical books represent the action of God in the world quite differently. Ruth and Esther are famous for showing the God working behind the scenes of events through divine providence, rather than supernaturally. Does this difference reflect the theological preferences of the particular authors?
But John does have in the feeding of the 5000. So that something was in another Gospel was not the criteria for its exclusion from the Gospel of John.
John is also writing a very sacramental gospel. Although his Last Supper account omits the words of institution John is offering his readers a lot of reflection on the connections between Jesus and bread, wine and water. So what is unique on a gospel is also highly revealing of the author's intent. John is keen to emphasise the deeper significance of Jesus ministry. This may be because the Synoptic accounts are quite sparse and don't offer much in the way of commentary or reflection upon meaning.
Bollocks.
What makes you say that?
But to your question:
IMV, The Bible is God's method of solving all such issues. It is his inviolate message to humanity from outside time..if you care to accept it which I realise obviously you do not, preferring the 'Orthodox' tradition you have adopted.
Objectivity is impossible because it is impossible. It is psychologically, scientifically, phenomenologically, utterly meaningless.
This is a discussion about what is true in the Bible. If you simply say that everything is literally true then it will limit the debate. Luther's image of the Bible containing the Word like the manger of hay held the infant Christ is quite a helpful one.
But the question remains as to how to make the distinctions between the essentials and non essentials? Some cultural contextualisations are obvious such as women's hair and head coverings. And certain aspects of the OT ritual law no longer apply. What other aspects of the scriptures are debatable? What interests me are the questions of texts such as the creation myth, apparent moral fables like Jonah and potential literary / theological constructs like the dreams of Joseph and the Annunciation to Mary. Are these texts really only morally true and does it really matter if they are? Can they still be read as spiritually inspired if they are story rather than factual?
Having been a foreperson on a jury in a nasty little case, I can assure you that we were fully aware of the subjectivity of everyone involved, especially ourselves. And purely based on Occam's razor we banged the nasty bastard - who may well have been completely innocent - up on a majority of the charges.
And perhaps it does not matter whether the infancy narratives are stories or not. A parable is only a morally true story but it is still a source of spiritual revelation.
There you go again. In effect you are asserting a priori that your post modern assumptions must be accepted by others you interact with. It is like you alone know this secret language that others must accept and participate in or discussion is meaningless.
Your credentials are nonsense.
What's postmodernity got to do with the truth of your a posteriori subjectivity in making a priori truth claims based on unreason? Please adduce any objective truth that I deny? It isn't like that at all. The lack of language is unique to yourself, we can't help that.
Martin 54: This is really just posturing nonsense. What you are in effect trying to assert is that faith in the Biblical God is unreasonable on the basis that it is impossible to objectively prove him?
To me nothing else is reasonable. In support of it begin with the creation.
“The heavens declare the glory of God”
My position is that what Bible asserts, is really all we can know but the fact of creation provides the confirmation of this knowledge. The fruit of denying this is history’s primary lesson.
You do not have to juxtapose postmodernism and the world wide church of God as binary positions and say one liberates you from the other which,looking at your pattern here, is what you appear to have done ol mate.
All we can know is what's in our heads. How did it get there?
What isn't?
Which was in response to my "No annunciation, no incarnation. If angels and demons don't exist, was God 'justified' in letting us believe that they do by using their form?" I infer.
So no, as has been pointed out, art is communication, signal in itself and can be used as a carrier wave, a medium for other messages. As Stigmata (which I'm afraid I liked, twice) said, the messenger is not important.
But in this case it is. The message, the communication of the New Testament inextricably, irreducibly includes literal angels and demons.
But why do you think that?