I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:
…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.
I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.
And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.
I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.
Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?
Finding Truth 
“I would actually disagree with you on this –
I’d be very surprised if you’d be happy to think that your hypothesis failed the test of explaining reality in a similar way that the old astronomical model did.”
Hi Powell, I wonder if we are understanding each other here? Do you mean you would be quite happy if your worldview didn’t explain reality? I don’t think that you mean that, but I need to check if you do, or what exactly you do mean please?
“Hence I’m hoping to hear from you what you deem atheistic problems are, which tbh based on your previous list I don’t really see them”
I’m not sure I have anything more to say here. In science, history, detective work, etc, it is a general principal that the best hypothesis is the one that explains the most facts in the simplest way. Call it Ockham’s razor, or the principle of parsimony, or whatever. So if you don’t think it matters if atheism can explain those things well, then I have no more to say. If you think atheism can explain those things, then I can only say I’ve yet to see it.
“namely contradictions and lack of biblical inerrancy etc.”
The issues I raised are really far more important than these. We may (presumably do) disagree on the validity of (say) the cosmological or design arguments, but they are logically constructed, and if successful, at least prove something important.
But arguments about Bible contradictions prove very little about God, they only have force if a person’s belief in God depends on the Bible being without error. I have been a christian for more than 50 years, and I have never believed the Bible was without error, and I have never been taught that – and I have been in some quite conservative churches. So demonstrating some inconsistency is generally irrelevant to my belief. You could probably hold your views about the Bible and still be a good christian.
Yes, I am happy not to discuss the “prime mover God” argument further, but your last paragraph is pretty much correct for me, but of course my belief is based on the cumulative effect of all the matters I raised. Thanks.
LikeLike
@unklee
Yes that is what I meant. If my current worldview fail to explain reality for me, then wouldn’t that make the old worldview the correct one? Or at least there’ll be less objections. So actually I would dare to say that I set out to prove the atheist view as false, but unfortunately I’m unable to disprove it.
In any case, I’m now more interested into finding how you moved from a deistic model to a theistic model. Because as far as I know that didn’t really happen right? You were already a Catholic to begin with since birth?
LikeLike
Hi Powell, thanks for your reply. But I’m afraid it mystifies me.
1. You are confirming that you are quite happy if your worldview cannot explain reality. I cannot understand that. And I cannot see how you could possibly criticise the views of a christian if you think their views are not evidence-based. If your atheist worldview cannot explain reality, then you have gone a long way to disprove it, whether you set out to or not. Are you sure that’s what you mean?
2. How would “that make the old worldview the correct one?” There are more than two worldviews. Perhaps the old one is correct, perhaps something else. But in any case, believing something because you don’t want to go back to the old view seems to me to be a poor reason to believe, if I have understood you correctly.
3. You must have me confused with someone else. I have never been a Catholic and I wasn’t brought up christian. I never was a deist, so I never moved from deism to theism. In my mid to late teens I chose to follow Jesus because I thought it was true. I have questioned all of my beliefs many times since then, changed quite a few of them, but stayed a christian all that time.
LIke I said, I feel a bit mystified and wonder if I have correctly understood you. I certainly haven’t tried to misrepresent you.
LikeLike
“In science, history, detective work, etc, it is a general principal that the best hypothesis is the one that explains the most facts in the simplest way.” – UnkleE
this is sort of true. I mean, if it were literally true, then deism beats out Christianity, because it’s simpler than Christianity and explains just as much, yet you’re a christian and not a deist.
but in reality, some “explanations” arent acceptable if they tip too far on the BS scale. A detective wont close a difficult murder case if an 8 year old provided the case’s only complete “possibility” with “the boogie man must have killed him and then disappeared back into the shadow world from whence he came.” it answers who killed the guy and explains why they cant find the murderer now, but it’s so retarded that I’d imagine a detective wouldnt give it much thought.
having an “answer,” whether that answer is presented as absolute or not, doesnt make it absolute. And sometimes there are things where I may not know the right answer, but i do know what some of the wrong answers are.
and when the evidence is sketchy, sure, i may still form an opinion, but it’s likely one that I am not seriously married to, and i certainly wouldnt use something so shaky in binding others to eternal consequences on.
and besides, christianty presents far too many more questions than it answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
happiness isnt a motivator for me, at least in choosing a world view. It either makes sense or it doesnt. It either holds water or it wont. It works or it doesnt.
of course, it’s not all that black and white, but get my meaning.
happiness is nice, but it’s not what i’m looking for, when searching for truth. happiness is what i’m looking for on a vacation.
and UnkleE, i know you were speaking with Powell, but i do not understand what mean by “atheist world view does not explain reality…” Atheism is just the absence of belief in a god or gods. and even if a christian is satisfied with the questions Christianity answers, sure;y you also see how many questions Christianity poses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…and for Christianity to make sense and answer your questions, you are forced to ignore certain parts, argue that other parts mean something other than what they say, and invent bridges between the gaps and discrepancies that exist.
by the time you’re done with “god’s word,” it’s practically a different book and story.
i just dont get how this is a compelling outlook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m super late to this party, but since I read 80% of the comments the bouncer at the door let me come in =)
UnkleE wrote:
UnkleE, what about the explanation that the universe at large is actually eternal? Sure, our “local” universe may have had a beginning (big bang theory) – but what if the “all that exists” universe is way beyond the bounds of our local universe and has no beginning?
Much earlier in this thread you made a comment about a mystery (the deaths of a 1st century couple) and I really liked it. The funny thing is that I give this same answer when presented with the mystery of the origin of our universe:
I am agnostic concerning the origin of the universe, but I’m an atheist when it comes to the origins of the Christian bible. I think this is an important distinction and I’m wondering if this kind of “atheism” has any problems which I should spend time giving focus/attention to?
—-
And now for something a bit unrelated that will make everyone go “hmmmm…”:
Have you ever wondered why boundaries in time (origins) are given so much attention whereas boundaries in space are never really contemplated much?
If we traveled in a single direction would we ever reach the end of space? Oddly enough I think most of us are happily agnostic on this question. I’m not sure why. No one is trying to invent magical barriers that hold all of space together. No one is arguing about the existence of one type of magical barrier vs. another type of magical barrier. No one is trying to confirm or disprove a “Big Barrier Theory”. And no one is claiming that the Great Barrier is going to “squeeze us all!” if we don’t behave properly. Interesting, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
it is interesting, but i surmise that had the bible commented on such a boundary, that we’d be discussing it. we’d be arguing with Christians on why the boundary defined by the bible actually meant something other than what it said if it didnr match science, or if it was presently unverifyable, they’d claim that as a victory, “i’ll take an answer over ‘I dont know.'”
LikeLike
@Unklee
Hi hi,
I think you might have misunderstood me but I the fault is mine for answering one of your previous question wrongly.
When I said I’m happy, I mean that I wanted to prove the atheist worldview wrong. So if I see that the atheist worldview doesn’t answer questions of the universe, or is internally inconsistent, I would be happy as that would mean that my search for truth has not ended and perhaps there is still a chance (however that slight) that theism may be true.
So that is what I mean by happy. On second read of your original question I realized that we were talking about different things, hence the confusion.
With regards to your personal journey, I’ve always thought that you sound catholic due to the very liberal interpretations and way of thinking. This is generally true for catholics vs protestants who are definitely way more fundamentalistic.
Anyway, from what you’ve said it seems that you have presupposed a God in the first place, and then the rest of the pieces fell in place after reasoning and logic. We can certainly debate whether it is right to presuppose a God or not, but I do agree with you that definitely if you believe then you will see, and indeed that makes sense.
LikeLike
“UnkleE, i know you were speaking with Powell, but i do not understand what mean by “atheist world view does not explain reality…” Atheism is just the absence of belief in a god or gods. and even if a christian is satisfied with the questions Christianity answers, sure;y you also see how many questions Christianity poses.”
Hi William, yes it is true, any question we get answered just opens up another question. We can always ask why? (and children often do!). To me, the important thing is to get answers to the important questions. So a detective ask “whodunnit”? If he or she establishes who the criminal is, they may then ask why they did it, and if they answer that they may then ask why did they get to that point, etc. But the important question was who did it, and the fact that it raises other questions doesn’t diminish the importance of that question.
So yes, I have many questions as a christian, but the most important questions are answered – yes there is a God, I can relate to him, he expects certain behaviours of me, etc. So that is what counts for me.
In the end, blogs like this are discussions of whether there is more truth in theism/christianity or atheism. How to judge that? Surely by which fits the evidence better, or which explains the evidence better. I have suggested there are numerous questions that cannot be adequately answered if there is no God, so I conclude that there probably is a God.
“…and for Christianity to make sense and answer your questions, you are forced to ignore certain parts, argue that other parts mean something other than what they say, and invent bridges between the gaps and discrepancies that exist.”
Surely the starting point for any complex matter is to get the views of the experts? That is a starting point whatever one’s viewpoint. And the experts can tell us lots about Biblical literature and history. They disagree about details but the basics are pretty clear. That doesn’t require ignoring anything, inventing anything. Of course we each will decide how to respond to those facts. I think too often people start with a particular conclusion about the Bible and react to that rather than start with the facts.
LikeLike
“I’m super late to this party, but since I read 80% of the comments the bouncer at the door let me come in =)”
Hi Dave. I’ve met several Daves online but I don’t know if you were one, so g’day!
“UnkleE, what about the explanation that the universe at large is actually eternal?”
It is very arguable whether that is even possible. An eternal thing within time doesn’t make sense to me. (1) You can’t count from here to infinity, so I don’t see how you could count back to minus infinity, so I don’t think a process of events in time can be eternal. (2) if a physical universe was eternal, it would have run down by now and be a thin cold soup incapable of doing anything. The only way eternal can make sense is if it is outside of time – which makes sense for God, but not for a universe where time is the 4th dimension.
“I am agnostic concerning the origin of the universe, but I’m an atheist when it comes to the origins of the Christian bible. I think this is an important distinction and I’m wondering if this kind of “atheism” has any problems which I should spend time giving focus/attention to?”
I guess that’s up to you. It seems to me that agnosticism doesn’t explain the universe any better than atheism does. But that’s only one part of the evidence for God – you’ve got the other 3 or 4 points I made – what do you think about them?
“Have you ever wondered why boundaries in time (origins) are given so much attention whereas boundaries in space are never really contemplated much?”
Yeah I think all that stuff is very interesting, but before I put much thought into it I’d want to read what the experts say. I’ve read Paul Davies’ book on Time, and a bit of cosmology, but that’s about it. I’ve certainly wondered about the limits to space – the ex[perts seems to say that we are thinking wrongly. Space is curved, and so we don’t reach an end but come back to ourselves (perhaps) and the question what is outside all that is meaningless mathematically. But I still wonder if mathematics is always meaningful – e.g. Davies talks about negative time, but can it practically occur??
LikeLike
“When I said I’m happy, I mean that I wanted to prove the atheist worldview wrong. So if I see that the atheist worldview doesn’t answer questions of the universe, or is internally inconsistent, I would be happy as that would mean that my search for truth has not ended and perhaps there is still a chance (however that slight) that theism may be true.”
Hi Powell, thanks for explaining that because I thought I must have misunderstood, and now it’s clearer. Do I infer from this that you are still undecided?
“it seems that you have presupposed a God in the first place, and then the rest of the pieces fell in place after reasoning and logic”
I don’t know if I “presupposed God” when I first believed, it is too long ago to remember, but I can say (1) I don’t think I said anything that should have given you that impression, and (2) whatever happened back then, I certainly wouldn’t say that now. Quite the contrary.
This is how I see it now. Most of us grew up in nominally christian cultures, so the life of Jesus makes us think – was he really the son of God? The historians can tell us that a number of facts about his life and teachings are almost certainly true, and studies show that most of them think that the miracles and the resurrection are well attested historically, it is mostly our metaphysics (naturalism vs supernaturalism) that determine whether we can believe them or not. Further, most scholars believe Jesus saw himself as a messianic or eschatological prophet – some would go further and say he saw himself as the Messiah, some even that he saw himself as the unique son of God. So Jesus made claims about himself which the historians cannot agree on the detail, but agree on the basics.
If there is a God and Jesus was his messenger, then the miracles and resurrection, and the claims to forgive sins and judge the world make sense, if not, then they don’t. So is there evidence for God?
So then we come to the matters I have raised with you already – the universe, humanity and human experience. I find those matters convince me that God exists, but even if they don’t convince, they surely show it isn’t unreasonable to believe God exists. So that means it isn’t unreasonable to believe that the miracles and the resurrection occurred. You can’t prove them, but they’re not unreasonable. And it’s not unreasonable to believe Jesus was someone very special sent by God, perhaps even the son of God.
That doesn’t make it true, but it shows it’s reasonable. So the question comes down to this – do we believe Jesus told the truth or not? I can’t answer that for you or anyone else, but I can quite clearly say I do believe that.
So that is why I believe. I believe the evidence points to a world made by a God who looks quite like the God Jesus taught about, and who did miracles through Jesus.
Does that explain things better? Thanks.
LikeLike
“Surely the starting point for any complex matter is to get the views of the experts? That is a starting point whatever one’s viewpoint. And the experts can tell us lots about Biblical literature and history. They disagree about details but the basics are pretty clear. That doesn’t require ignoring anything, inventing anything.” – unkleE
UnkleE, but a christian must ignore the contradictory passages. they must ignore the brutality of the OT. they must ignore the conflicts with history and science. they must ignore or at least down play the very human origins of the bible. They must ignore the failed prophecies and pretend that matthew’s claims fulfilled OT prophecies of christ are crystal clear. They must invent brides between these discrepancies. They must invent reasons as to why the brutal parts of the OT arent as bad as they seem, or why passages only appear to be in conflict and invent reasons as to how they’re really not…
But what do the experts say? only that some of the people and places were or were likely real. This is not a verification that the miraculous events transpired or that god himself had a hand in any of it. this is why i often reference the iliad. certainly there are differences between in and the bible, but it also has undeniable similarities, yet no one argues that the gods are real, or that they literally intervened in the battle for troy – despite the experts saying that the place and the people were real.
LikeLike
“So then we come to the matters I have raised with you already – the universe, humanity and human experience.” – unkleE
I can see where these may be arguments for a creator or creators, but there is nothing in the universe or humanity that point to the god of the bible. I’d argue that our current knowledge of both argue against the bible, as the bible’s account of many of things dont match what’s been discovered.
The only human experiences that may vouch for bible are not unique, and are found in every religion: a text, prophets, martyrs, visions, claimed miracles, etc…
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE, g’day to you too!
You wrote:
I don’t really see time as something you can be in or out of. You either have events (changes) or you don’t and time is just a way of describing the order of events. Going backwards in time we could find that either there was a first event (nothing happened prior) or that events have always taken place. If the universe (not our local universe) is eternal it would be no different than a God that was eternal (I’ll explain).
You said, “An eternal thing within time doesn’t make sense to me”, but the word eternal is just a description of time. It is “time without end, always existing”.
Does your God do anything? Does it think? Has it created something? These are all events. Was there ever a time when your God did not think or act? If so, he would have had a “first thought” or “first act” and would not be eternal. If not, then he is both eternal and “a process of events in time”. In other words, I think this leaves you with 3 options:
A) God is not eternal
B) God is eternal, but has no events (no thoughts, no actions)
C) God is eternal, and is “a process of events in time”
I think you’ll choose C, but then you’ll have to give up this statement: “I don’t think a process of events in time can be eternal”.
Since eternal events are possible for God that means it is also possible for the Universe.
LikeLike
good point, dave.
as long as there is a past, present or future, then there is time.
LikeLike
Well reasoned, Dave.
LikeLike
I’ve been away for a few days and probably have some comments to respond to, but I first wanted to chime in with how much I agree with what Dave has said. That’s exactly how I’ve viewed eternity and the Universe.
LikeLike
“UnkleE, but a christian must ignore the contradictory passages.”
Hi William, I don’t see how you can say that. I don’t ignore those passages, the scholars don’t ignore them, as influential christian as CS Lewis didn’t ignore them. The passages all say something and mean something, and even if they are not literal history they still say something about the people and culture at the time. If we start with what the scholars tell us, we are not ignoring them.
“But what do the experts say? only that some of the people and places were or were likely real. This is not a verification that the miraculous events transpired or that god himself had a hand in any of it.”
That is all I expect of the experts – to tell me what can be reasonably known, on which I can base my conclusions.
“I can see where these may be arguments for a creator or creators, but there is nothing in the universe or humanity that point to the god of the bible.”
I don’t know if you read my reply to Powell, but in it I outlined how we can start with Jesus and what the historians tell us, and ask the question – was this man telling the truth and did he really rise from the dead? The historical evidence for those things is quite good, and God could do it, so the question is, is it reasonable to believe that such a God exists?
My conclusion is that it is indeed reasonable.
If the cosmological argument is successful, then God is very powerful and he created.
The design argument suggests God’s creation is very tightly designed and he created for a purpose.
The moral argument suggests God values ethics.
The argument from reason suggests God values rationality.
The facts of consciousness and choice suggests God values autonomous beings who can choose freely.
The experience of people in healing suggest God cares about human beings.
The revelation through Jesus confirms many of these things.
So the reasons to believe in God do indeed point to a God very like the God Jesus taught us about.
“The only human experiences that may vouch for bible are not unique, and are found in every religion: a text, prophets, martyrs, visions, claimed miracles, etc…”
I wonder whether they are found to the same degree in every religion? Every one? I haven’t done the research to confirm or refute that, have you? (Remember we are to be evidence-based!)
But even if it were true, which it may be for all I know, what would that prove? It might prove that there is some truth in all religions, or that God is gracious enough to overlook religious affiliation. I think it is easy to mention these things but before they can count for much you have to establish the facts and then show why one particular explanation is better than any others.
I am not at all troubled that God blesses people in other religions – I would be troubled if he didn’t!
LikeLike
“I don’t really see time as something you can be in or out of. You either have events (changes) or you don’t and time is just a way of describing the order of events. “
Hi Dave, I have heard things like this said, but is it true? My feeling is that it is not. I think physicists define time mathematically, and I don’t think it depends on the order of events. But I don’t know.
You have made this statement confidently, and several other have supported it, but no-one has offered any evidence. Are we not supposed to be evidence-based? I want to be, at any rate, so I have contacted a physicist whose blog I follow and who has written about time, and asked him what physics says about this. I will report back.
“the word eternal is just a description of time. It is “time without end, always existing””
I don’t agree with this either. The word eternal used in the Greek Bible means “related to the age to come”. It actually doesn’t imply “everlasting” at all. So if we describe God as eternal, the base meaning is that he lives outside this current age, however we might understand that. Statements about whether God exists in time or outside it (as I think) are no more than guesses. But what we can say is that if God created this space-time universe then he exists outside this space and time.
So I think your three options don’t make sense (the definitions are unclear), they are based on misunderstandings (yet to be fully verified) and don’t exhaust the possibilities.
LikeLike
“I wonder whether they are found to the same degree in every religion? Every one? I haven’t done the research to confirm or refute that, have you?” – unkelE
Oh no, of course not. At least not to the depth I have researched the bible. No, I discounted those over far fewer issues than I’ve found in the bible.
Sorry on advance for the length.
And I don’t think you’ve made decisions based on what the experts or scholars have said, as they can affirm the likely hood of a man named jesus who had some followers. So then you are making a leap based off of that affirmation to then believe something that they cannot affirm, which is that that man also happened to be the son of god, and that he rose from the dead and flew into heaven, saving all of mankind from a fate that they’ll only encounter after death.
I feel like that’s quite a leap. I feel like people in other religions make similar leaps.
I feel like If the cosmological argument is successful, then God or some god or something else is very powerful and he or they or it created… unless it was the universe or something else that was eternal… unless there is some other, yet unknown alternative that would show something else…
I feel like The design argument is an argument based on end products and trying to link it to an old superstitious book. It may suggest God’s creation is very tightly designed, with the understanding that there are indeed many variables and that “tight” may not be very accurate and he or they or it created for a purpose, which could be anything, even entertainment or to serve as an ego boost and way to get praise.
I feel like The moral argument suggests the God of the bible changes in values and ethics and will do anything for any reason he sees fit in a :”do as I say, but don’t do as I do” sort of way..
I feel like The argument from reason suggests God values blind faith, if we’re talking about the god of the bible as reason would make it evident that faith in the bible cannot be faith in god without first being rooted in faith for the men who wrote it.
The facts of consciousness and choice suggests God values autonomous beings who can choose freely, except that he will destroy those who don’t choose his way. Esxept that freewill wont be heaven or else everyone there would be cast out the devil and his angels when they inevitably sin.
The experience of people in healing suggest God cares about human beings and The sickness, suffering and death of young children suggests he doesn’t.
The revelation through Jesus confirms many of these things, but only if we presuppose he is the son of god and that he created the universe, but couldn’t or wouldn’t write his own book or speak to them directly…. And only after re excuse the bad “prophecy” references and internal contractions and other errors.
Once you accept that the problems may not really be problems, it certainly looks a lit a better, I must admit – but my problem is that I think that’s true of anything.
LikeLike
“You have made this statement confidently, and several other have supported it, but no-one has offered any evidence.” – unkleE
but isnt that similar to evidence you’ve given to there being no time?
“outside this current age” argues time as “age” argues time.
I dont care how we count it, but can you think of any way where there is no past, present or future? Where action 1 is exactly the same as action 1000?
or what if you turn the stove on? you can turn it off, but can you make to where it was never turned on once you did it? even if you could travel back in time and stop yourself from turning on the stove, would really mean that you never turned it on? I think the answer would always be no. once you’ve done something, you’ve done it. I think that argues for time in the most basic sense of past, present and future.
you do something in the present, and once it’s done its in the past and the future is where you will regret doing it… until you get there, as it then becomes the present…
space and time are interwoven. is there no space where god is either?
LikeLike
UnkleE,
I was using the common definitions of the words time and eternal. If you want to use this Greek definition, that’s fine. For the sake of discussion, I’ll go along with this concept of time being something you can step out of and eternal meaning something outside of this time/age (even though it seems more hypothetical).
Let’s assume that our current frame of time is local to us and that this God has the ability to look at it from an outside perspective and see everything at once (Like looking at every frame of a filmstrip at one time). This God would still be subject to it’s own time-frame. If it does anything, creates anything, or processes conscious thoughts then it is doing so in an event based reality. So, going back to my 3 options, we are still looking at option C, a God that is both “eternal” and is also subject to “a process of events in time”.
Also, if you can create this special scenario for your God what’s wrong with applying it to a meta-universe? Why not say that the meta-universe is also outside of our local space and time? Getting back to your original point, the meta-universe (or multiverse) explanation should not be ruled out and your claim that atheism has no parallel explanation is not true.
LikeLike
One would think that even someone like Unk could see all of the Special Pleading hoops one has to jump through to justify the existence of a god.
LikeLike
@UnkleE
Sorry to be so late responding, I’ve been swamped at work. A few days ago you wrote:
Can I ask you why you think “if the OT cannot be trusted, my faith in the NT is destroyed”? You obviously know they aren’t all one book, but 66, so why should the accuracy of what Luke wrote be affected by whether Jonah is inerrant history? I really can’t see that.
Let me expand on this a little, as I believe this is a mindset that most here have and I don’t know that it has be explained before.
I would propose that there are 3 main ideas the NT tries to get across to its readers.
1. A messiah has come giving new revelation from God. This new revelation includes God’s plan for humankind’s salvation though Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice. – This would be a summary of the gospels.
2. There are guidelines for how Christians should live, and how they are to worship/conduct church. – This would be a broad summary of Paul’s letters
3. That same messiah is coming again to earth to bring forth a new age for mankind. – This would be a summary of the book of Revelation.
Now here is where Old Testament inerrancy comes into relevancy for the New Testament writings.
Why did we need a messiah to begin with? – You’ll find that answer in the OT
What system were the Israelites using to atone for their sin? – You’ll find that answer in the OT
What is Sin, and why are humans sinful? – You’ll find that answer in the OT
This god the ‘father’ that Jesus keeps talking about who is he? – you’ll find that answer in the OT
In Galatians chapter 3 Paul goes into good detail linking Christ’s message to OT prophecy fulfillment.
The NT isn’t just a separate writing that can stand on its own. It is a continuation of the OT, a new direction mind you, but still the same story line continued. All the claims that the writers make in the NT are in some way standing on OT prophecies or law. Without the OT none of the NT makes sense, the OT frames the background of the NT.
If the OT’s validity is in question then by simple logic the message of the NT is as well. Notice I’m not saying that Jesus wasn’t an actual person that lived, or that the letters of Paul weren’t written. I’m saying that the message they preached is null and void if the OT is bunk.
LikeLike