Innerrantcy

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So when whodey above claimed that "the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds" was true for ancient Palestinians but false for modern botanists, he was wrong, correct?

Not wrong - irrelevant. It doesn't matter modern botanist know of seeds smaller than the mustard seed today. Nor is there even a unqualified claim being made regarding the size of the mustard seed relative to other seeds. It's all part of an illustration in a parable, that only depends on understanding what truth in the parable is trying to illustrate.

Mar 4:30-33 And He said, "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? (31) "It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, (32) yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE." (33) With many such parables He was speaking the word to them, so far as they were able to hear it;

A parable conveys a truth about something else. The truth in this parable is conveyed regardless if there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed known by modern biologists.

It is reasonable to believe that at that time, the mustard seed was the smallest seed used in farming. It was "smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" in the illustration. And even if at that time, some Joe Blow was farming with a seed even smaller, the point being made would still be the truth indicated in the parable.

So you have to ask when trying to understand the Scripture, is what is the Bible trying to tell me. That's what you need to "hear". What you need to hear isn't "the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world".

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Paul, Peter in the rest testify that their words and teachings were not by their own authority, but there were presenting God's Word. There are many verses that testify for the inspiration of the Bible as God's Word, the revelation of God to men.

I don't think Paul agree with you:

(king James Version)(1 Corinthians)(1Cor-46-25)(Now concerni ...[text shortened]... ord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.)[/b]

This is Paul is conveying something that is a matter of Christian liberty - not a direct command.

Christian liberty is an important doctrine of inspired Scripture. Christians were not supposed to enforce rules on each other in areas of individual liberty.

For instance, some felt that eating meat sacrificed to idols was wrong, but Paul said it was permitted. However, those that felt OK about eating that meat (which was sold at market) were not to eat it in front of brothers who would be offended by the practice.

This is a similar situation. God inspired Paul to say this is an area of liberty - not as black and white as a commandment.

Originally posted by whodey
And perhaps you are thinking like a first century Pharisee who was so wrapped up in Jewish tradition and Jewish law that they lost sight of why the law and such traditions were even given? Chirst had nothing but disdain for such people.

Midrash is not a matter of slavish adherence to Jewish Law. Midrash was a literary style which was
prevalent in the day, a means of creative interpretation to provide theological context for their
experience.

When you call something which is historically inaccurate as 'made up for kicks' you demonstrate the
wrong hermeneutic for reading the NT stories. Trying to refocus the blame on me (calling me a
Pharisee) is just silliness.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Midrash is not a matter of slavish adherence to Jewish Law. Midrash was a literary style which was
prevalent in the day, a means of creative interpretation to provide theological context for their
experience.

When you call something which is historically inaccurate as 'made up for kicks' you demonstrate the
wrong hermeneutic for reading the NT storie ...[text shortened]... . Trying to refocus the blame on me (calling me a
Pharisee) is just silliness.

Nemesio

Yeah, I don't get it. From everything I can glean about midrash from reading snippets, it seems like it's a liberated approach to both scripture and one's personal (and communal, for that matter) response to God.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Yeah, I don't get it. From everything I can glean about midrash from reading snippets, it seems like it's a liberated approach to both scripture and one's personal (and communal, for that matter) response to God.

What don't you get? What Midrash is? Why it isn't 'lying?' Or why people are so obtuse in recognizing
the normative nature of Midrashic style in 1st-century Jewish writing?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
What don't you get? What Midrash is? Why it isn't 'lying?' Or why people are so obtuse in recognizing
the normative nature of Midrashic style in 1st-century Jewish writing?

Nemesio

The third: why you advocate midrash and get labeled as a modern-day Pharisee.* I get why midrash is productive, and it actually is an enticing approach.

*It would have to be a modern-day Pharisee, as the concept of Pharisee as used pejoratively is a misappropriation, of course. Loving the Torah didn't and seeking to uphold it hardly makes one a legalist.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
The third: why you advocate midrash and get labeled as a modern-day Pharisee.* I get why midrash is productive, and it actually is an enticing approach.

*It would have to be a modern-day Pharisee, as the concept of Pharisee as used pejoratively is a misappropriation, of course. Loving the Torah didn't and seeking to uphold it hardly makes one a legalist.

It's actually ironic.

The Pharisees were married to their dogma: The Temple must be X, the worship must be Y, and
so on. The Biblical literalists are doing the same thing with the Bible: There is only one right reading,
there are no errors, if you find an error, it must be reconciled.

I say open your mind, let go of historicity and let the Truth sink in and I get labeled a Pharisee.

It's unreal.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Midrash is not a matter of slavish adherence to Jewish Law. Midrash was a literary style which was
prevalent in the day, a means of creative interpretation to provide theological context for their
experience.

When you call something which is historically inaccurate as 'made up for kicks' you demonstrate the
wrong hermeneutic for reading the NT storie ...[text shortened]... . Trying to refocus the blame on me (calling me a
Pharisee) is just silliness.

Nemesio

Perhaps my silliness is just my Midrash?

Anyway, what type creative interpretation do you think was accomplished for supposidly making up the lineage? What spiritual reason was there in your opinion or does the answer only lie with the author?

Originally posted by Nemesio
It's actually ironic.

The Pharisees were married to their dogma: The Temple must be X, the worship must be Y, and
so on. The Biblical literalists are doing the same thing with the Bible: There is only one right reading,
there are no errors, if you find an error, it must be reconciled.

I say open your mind, let go of historicity and let the Truth sink in and I get labeled a Pharisee.

It's unreal.

Nemesio

I got news for you, everyone has their dogma. For some what is being said can never really be the literal interpretation. For others it is just the opposite. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, however, I do think that the lineage is meant to be taken as literal.

Originally posted by whodey
I got news for you, everyone has their dogma. For some what is being said can never really be the literal interpretation. For others it is just the opposite. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, however, I do think that the lineage is meant to be taken as literal.

Do you think Noah literally rounded up a pair of porcupines and herded them onto an ark?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think Noah literally rounded up a pair of porcupines and herded them onto an ark?

No, I think God did. He has this habit of being all powerfull you know.

I often wonder what people think of the resurrection of Christ on these boards. Was it a midrash? Was it a consensual midrash among all of the authors of the NT? To me the resurrection is one of the most important elements to the Christian faith. All the other details such as Noah's ark are minor details to me. Speaking of midrashes, I think I may have the beginnings of one half way up my back. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
...I do think that the lineage is meant to be taken as literal.

So you think that the authors made an error in the Greek?

Or you think that Joseph had two fathers (even I don't think Jesus was that progressive!)?

Those are your only choices.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Anyway, what type creative interpretation do you think was accomplished for supposidly making up the lineage? What spiritual reason was there in your opinion or does the answer only lie with the author?

First of all, stop saying 'made up.' You'll never get it if you continue imposing your 21st-century
viewpoint on the creative writing styles of the 1st-century Jewish author.

I thought I made this clear already (and KellyJay, though he disagrees with me on whether it is
Midrash or literal, reinforced it).

Lineage was a critical element of Judiasm; which tribe you came from, who your father was, &c,
was a big deal. Of this there is no dispute amongst atheists, Scripture scholars, conservative
Christians, &c.

Naturally, being Mosaic in nature, St Matthew wanted to connect Jesus through David to 'Father
Abraham.' This is explicated pretty clearly in the first verse of the Gospel. This gave Jesus a
Mosaic-type of authority. It's pretty clear that St Matthew viewed Jesus through a Mosaic lens,
given the Pentateuch-type structure of his Gospel.

By contrast, St Luke was a little more mystical. Elijah seemed an important model to him, and
felt that an even deeper connection with creation was more theologically relevant, and so 'traced' His
lineage back all the way to Creation itself.

As Midrashes go, I think this one is probably pretty clearly interpretable, but I would yield to Vistesd
on this issue, since he, having greater knowledge of Jewish mysticism, knows more about Midrash than I.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
So you think that the authors made an error in the Greek?

Or you think that Joseph had two fathers (even I don't think Jesus was that progressive!)?

Those are your only choices.

Nemesio

All of these details regarding the lineage of Christ are interesting, however, I would like to know about your belief in the main teaching concerning the resurrection of Chirst. Do you view it as a midrash or do you view it as an actual literal occurance?

Originally posted by whodey
All of these details regarding the lineage of Christ are interesting, however, I would like to know about your belief in the main teaching concerning the resurrection of Chirst. Do you view it as a midrash or do you view it as an actual literal occurance?

Nice way to dodge the question.

Why do you care about what I believe? If I said I believed in the literal Resurrection, would that make
me more or less credible? If I said I believed that Jesus didn't exist, would that make you more
likely to disbelieve me?

How is this question even relevant to the discussion of inerrancy. Suffice it to say that I don't believe
that the Bible is even close to inerrant. Not even close.

That is not to say that such inerrancy poses the slightest spiritual bump in the road for me. I don't
care, for example, that the Matthian Beatitudes don't likely reflect what Jesus said (that is, I think
that the Lucan ones are more authoritatively Jesus-like). I think that St Matthew reinterpreted them
in an equally beautiful and spiritual way, worthy of reflection, and that Jesus would have been happy
for such an interpretation.

As I've said many times before, my specific 'relationship' to Jesus and to God are not the subject of spectacle,
and I certainly won't share the details of it with a bunch of bloodthirsty literalists ready to damn me
to hell.

If I start a thread saying, 'Jesus is X' or 'You ought to believe that God is Y,' I'll take questions like
this. But if others are going to start threads like that, then they better either sack up and be prepared
to defend their faith or poke holes in my examination of it.

Nemesio