In my last post, discussion turned to the question of whether or not we need God. One of my regular contributors, William, posted the following comment, and I felt it deserved its own post:
I am just having problems understanding whether humans “need” a god.
Do humans “need” a father? it may be beneficial if it’s a good father, but we can see many who get along fine who have not had a father, so “need” is the wrong term.
And what if that father is never around, left before you were born, and only left a letter to you explaining (not always in the easiest or most direct of terms) how he expects you to behave and promises that he’ll take care of you and promises to severely punish you for disobedience or for leaving him?
is that a good father? is that a father we need? isn’t it laughable that such a father could even begin to threaten the child for “leaving him” (since the father clearly left the child) not to mention how absurd it is to think that such a father actually does anything to really take care of the child?
I’m having a hard time understanding how we’re ingrained to “need” such a father, or why we’d even call such a father good?
Finding Truth 
“I think the alleged errors in the NT are not very great, especially as most of them are not incapable of being resolved, and so may be resolved one day. They are certainly within the parameters of historical documents of the day. And therefore not really validly used as arguments against drawing reasonable historical conclusions, although obviously good arguments against inerrancy. But we were talking about history, not inerrancy (at least I was).”
unkleE, you say the alleged errors in the NT are not very great. I think this one is. You also say you were talking about history. So am I.
As a side bar, you talk about Matthew’s 3 groups of 14. It’s actually 2 groups of 14 and 1 group of 13. Count them.
LikeLike
unkleE, This was not a trick and I mean no disrespect. But if you are going to make statements like you did above, I think it’s only fair to expect someone might challenge them.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure which one you are referring to. Are you talking about the genealogy?
My point is this. When I read the scholars, I find (1) a lot of places where they conclude certain things are likely true or likely not, and (2) a few places where they are fairly agreed there are inaccuracies. I accept their judgment as a starting point, but I note that items (1) are not “known errors”, just places where their historical judgment, by no means unanimous, is against the historical truth of that fact. When it comes to (2) there are only a few I’m aware of – the birth stories, the harmony of the resurrection stories and a few minor details like names – and most of these are still open to interpretation. So I don’t know of any serious discrepancies that throw the general historicity of the NT into doubt like there are for chunks of the OT – and this is what the scholars say. But perhaps you can be more explicit about what things you are referring to?
I’ve already said the list is symbolic (and may even be related to numerology, I don’t know), so this isn’t important. Besides, there are various explanations on offer for those who find it important – see Wikipedia. I’ll leave you to it!
LikeLike
Hi kcchief1, thanks for your assurance here, but I infer no trick nor any disrespect. It’s a free world and a free blog (until Nate gets sick of us all! 🙂 ). I’m not sure which statement you are referring to, but I try not to make any statements lightly, and am happy to be asked how I would justify them. If I cannot, I am happy to withdraw and apologise – well, not entirely happy of course! 🙂 Please feel quite free – I only ask for courtesy, which is generally a hallmark of this blog, and which you have offered. Thanks.
LikeLike
Thank you unkleE. Earlier you made the statement in a response to Nate , “I think the alleged errors in the NT are not very great……” That was your oppinion which is not shared by me and I doubt that I am alone.
Again, I think the one I mentioned earlier IS very great . Yes it had to do with genealogy but more importantly the arguement I copied and pasted challenged the reliability of Jesus being the Messiah period. And it used Historical evidince to argue the point ie: the man’s seed, the woman’s egg and the genealogy.
I was asking you to respond to it, that’s all. Your earlier response concerning the Authors of the Gospels was, “They didn’t seem to find the issue you raise important and so neither do I. Sorry, not to play that game.
I’m sorry, but of course they didn’t think it was important. They weren’t too concerned about being challenged as 90% of their audiance couldn’t read. The manuscripts that make up the Bible were not read by the masses until hundreds of years later. Earlier because they couldn’t read, later because “The Church” wouldn’t allow them to. This is History.
LikeLike
Please forgive my spelling earlier. I was typing fast and wasn’t using spellcheck. 🙂
LikeLike
Actually, the Diatesseron shows that there was early concern about the problems in the gospels, notably, the genealogies.
LikeLike
Nate, many Christians aren’t aware of the “Redactor’s Pens” which were used to “Harmonize” the Scriptures. They have no idea how altered what we call the Bible has been from the beginning.
LikeLike
Very true. I know I wasn’t. By the way, I meant to add that I thought you made a good point earlier about the incredible illiteracy rate back then (and all the way into the Enlightenment).
LikeLike
Thank you, Nate ! I think you and I do share a similar history. I too was a devout Christian for many years. When I couldn’t get answers to troubling questions I had about the Bible and my Faith, I started reading and thinking “Outside the Box”. Reimarus, Strauss, Weiss, Schweitzer to name a few really opened my mind through their writings. Unlike you, I still believe in a Deity. I hope you reconsider this some day too, but I certainly won’t question why you don’t today. I’ve certainly enjoyed being a part of this discussion and hope I haven’t overstepped my boundaries. I try to have respect for everyone here and their oppinions. Thanks for allowing me to be here!
LikeLike
@Josh: You said:
Sorry to jump back a bunch of comments, but I just wanted to say that as you have worded this above I am in agreement. I also don’t see that as problematic. If someone were to feel that they are using good reasoning and evidence to conclude that a particular God exists then the fact that they don’t completely understand every aspect of that being would not be a problem. None of us have all the answers when it comes to our worldviews so this seems fine to me. Obviously I or others might disagree on whether the reasoning or evidence is good enough, but that would be a different issue. Also, if there are certain descriptions of the being that you believe in that don’t make sense then that too could become problematic depending on how you deal with them. I’m being a bit general here because I can’t remember the specifics of this discussion after 335 comments. Just wanted to let you know that I don’t really disagree with your statement above.
LikeLike
Nate,
Ironically, I am currently reading “A History of the Synoptic Problem” and I’m on Pg 42 where it mentions Tatian and the Diatessaron.
LikeLike
Thanks, kc! It’s been great having you here! 🙂 And that’s pretty funny that you happened to run across a mention of the Diatesseron just now. It’s certainly not something that pops up in everyday conversation…
LikeLike
Yes that is my opinion. I have asked you for examples, so far we have two.
The first is the genealogy and the “argument” about the Messiah. But since I think pretty much everyone agrees the genealogies are symbolic (even if they think them literal they recognise they are incomplete) that can’t be an “error” at all. I’ve never come across the “argument” before, but it isn’t in any way an error, just a fanciful argument someone has come up with, so I don’t see how that example makes any case at all.
Then you have said variously: ““The Church” wouldn’t allow them to. This is History.” and “the “Redactor’s Pens” which were used to “Harmonize” the Scriptures. They have no idea how altered what we call the Bible has been from the beginning”, hinting at something that you haven’t made clear. Perhaps you would like to explain, with some reputable references, so I could comment. Thanks.
LikeLike
unkleE, I think Nate made a comment about the Diatesseron written by Tatian in between our most recent posts. This was a document he wrote to try and harmonize the errors and inconsistancies he saw in the Gospels. Redactors Pens and Church History are things you can look up yourself. I’m not sure I could provide what you would call reputable references. You seem to trivialize any point I make, so I doubt that it makes any sense to continue down this road. When you don’t see errors for what they are and you call other people’s arguments “Fanciful” , that doesn’t seem to leave much for conversation. No worries, the best to you.
LikeLike
Actually, KC, geneology is only dependent upon the mother in Jewish culture: http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-category/the-basics-of-judaism/?p=933
The geneology in Luke is Mary’s lineage. Matthew’s account (Joseph’s line) is meant to convey the symbolic generations of HIS-tory. The Bible is not mainly a historical text, but rather is limited to a history of redemption itself.
As to women not being considered to pass on the genes, this is ridiculous considering the mention of both Rahab and Ruth in one or both of the geneologies. The seed or sperma came from the Holy Spirit supernaturally; and so, through Mary Jesus is established as a Jew, and through the Holy Spirit, Jesus is fully God come in the flesh.
I am aware that many Bible teachers do not believe in the virgin birth (Rob Bell questions it as well), but I don’t have a problem with the supernatural intersecting this world. However God intersects the world would have to be supernatural. 🙂
LikeLike
JudahFirst, I think the link you provided is giving the definition of lineage from Contemporary Judaism not Ancient Judaism. I don’t think you will find any genealogies in the Old Testament using women. Let’s assume you are right for the moment. If Mary passed her genes on to Jesus as you claim, then wasn’t Jesus born a sinner like all the rest of us ? After the discovery of the female egg in 1827 isn’t this when the Catholic Church came up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception making Mary’s birth sinless ? Mary must have thought she was a sinner because in Luke 1:47 she says, “How my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior” . If she didn’t think she was a sinner, she wouldn’t need a Savior. I am not a Theologian and this is just my oppinion.
Here is something I found on the Internet as well: The absence of literal blood relationship between Joseph and Jesus, the fact that the Jews never introduce women as direct genealogical links, and the loose way in which Bible writers use the terms “son” and “father” are probably responsible for the seeming discrepancy by which Matthew lists Jacob as Joseph’s father, and Luke gives Heli. Either Luke or, more probably Matthew, uses the expression “son of” (in Lk 3:23) or “begat” (in Mt1:16) in a strictly legal and genealogical sense rather than in a strictly literal sense, since Joseph, the husband of Mary, could not be the literal son of both Heli and Jacob. This seeming discrepancy has been explained on the basis that Luke presents Jesus as the actual blood descendant of David through Mary (cf. Rom1:3, 4), but without listing Mary as a link in the chain of progenitors, whereas Matthew gives the royal and legal line of descent through Joseph, who was Jesus’ father by Jewish law. Joseph could have been the literal son of either Jacob or Heli and the adopted son of the other, perhaps through a levirate marriage by either. Horn, Siegfried H., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, (Washington, D.C.:Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1979.
Thank you for your comments and links.
LikeLike
JudahFirst, I stand corrected about not listing women in the OT.
Perhaps the most interesting facet of the genealogy is the inclusion of women—and unexpected ones at that. While it is not unprecedented to include women in a biblical genealogy (see, for example, Genesis 11:29, 22:20–24, and 1 Chronicles 2:18–21, 24), it most certainly is unusual and, generally, women are not included in genealogical lists in the Bible. What’s more, the women who are included are not the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah, who are Jesus’ ancestors) but rather women whose stories are, truth be told, fraught with difficulties, at least at first reading.
I don’t mind admitting if I made a mistake. 🙂
LikeLike
He has not left us, he has been here always and is always here for you and you have the choice whether you want him in your life or not. It is just like your real father in the sense that when you are a child you don’t really have a choice in the matter, children are not accountable for their religious beliefs or whether or not they have a relationship with their father, they are not old enough to decide but once you become an adult if you have a father, and a father I might add who does want more than anything to be in your life and who loves you unconditionally and is perfect and does not make any mistakes and you choose not to allow him in your life and suffer for it, it is not him making you suffer you are choosing to suffer, you are choosing to have no father or to not trust your father or believe in him. God is not punishing you, you are punishing yourself. It is not a matter of punishment it is a matter of choosing his Love or denying it, it is a free gift, if you don’t want anything to do with your creator than you will have nothing to do with him for an eternity, If you want to be all-knowing like him and don’t trust him or think your way is better than his this is like the Devil did in the Bible. it is not a punishment to allow you a choice, punishment would be to force you to when you do not want to, it if your choice and what you wanted no matter what happens to you after this. I actually had a real father who was like the God described in this blog and I assure you God is nothing like him. Separation from God is sin and we have all seen sin on this Earth and suffered from it and there is only one way to make it stop if you want it to stop, just accept his Love and trust him. Talk to him have a relationship with him, that is all he wants, why is that so awful? That being said I have had all the same questions in all of these blogs before and have worked through them in the past almost becoming an atheist myself and definitely agnostic at one point, not even wanting to live anymore at one point so I do understand everyone’s doubts. Once I worked through them I had more faith than before. It is good to question things and seek out the truth so I am glad to see a lot of you doing that. I believe God wants that and wants it to be a true choice. Just imagine if you had very loving parents but rebelled as a child but they were always willing to forgive you all you had to do was ask, but imagine if you never asked forgiveness, never wanted it, never wanted their love or their help always questioned them to the point that you never trusted them, they may continue loving you regardless unconditionally but until you decide to accept their love you will suffer not because they are punishing you, again because you are choosing to. They are trying to save you from suffering they are they are the solution to it not the cause of it unless you just want to blame them for bring you into the world and then you choosing to rebel, that never would have happened had they not brought you into the world (and yes I have actually prayed this before like Job that I wish I had never been born so I do get this but no longer feel this way). . .
LikeLike
Nate: I just looked at your list of books you’ve read since 2010. I have read several but have marked several more to go onto my “Read List” Thanks for sharing !
LikeLike
Actually Amanda, the relationship is entirely up to him. I’m here, and I’ve been looking for him my entire life. If he wants a relationship with me as badly as you say, he knows where he can find me.
But thanks for the comment.
LikeLike
“…he knows where he can find me.”
Nate, I have every confidence He will do just that. 🙂
“If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he will rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that didn’t wander away! In the same way, it is not my heavenly Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish.”
LikeLike
“Baa baa” 🙂
LikeLike
Nate, ewe never know wether it will be tomorrow! 🙂
LikeLike
It’s nice to know he comes after those of us on the lamb! 😀
LikeLike