From a Christian perspective, my faith rests in the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The faith doesn't rest on the historicity of particular OT events.
Moreover, even if Jesus did think Jonah was historical, that doesn't mean we should. See my article on Jesus' errant theological beliefs.
http://randalrauser.com/2014/06/did-god-really-harden-pharaohs-heart/
Perhaps some of the miracles in the Gospels did not happen. The incarnation and the resurrection are really the only two biblical miracles that must have happened in order for Christian faith to be true. Whether other miracles in the NT are true can be debated.
http://legacy.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/should_evangelicals_embrace_historical_criticism_the_hays-ansberry_proposal
Peter Enns I highly recommend Andrew Lincoln's recent "Born of a Virgin?" It deals at great length with this very issue from a position of both faith and commitment to historical criticism.
Luke Van Horn Prof. Enns, does Lincoln's book address the question I asked, about why some people seem to think that denial of the virgin birth would require rethinking Jesus' deity?
Peter Enns Yes. I think you would agree with what he says. He also tackles head on why only 2 Gospels mention the virginal conception, Paul never hints at it, and the reasons the early church had for holding to it as it did (based on a misconception--pardon the pun) of human reproduction.
https://www.facebook.com/luke.vanhorn.37/posts/623282527762672
Karl Giberson I refer to the study by Larson and Witham, considered definitive. Also some more recent work by Elaine Ecklund. Miracles are more complicated and less relevant. Loads of Christians reject virtually all miracles save the resurrection and even define that in a different way.
Robert Firestone At what point is the word "Christian" even meaningful without the bodily resurrection?
Karl Giberson You should read Hans Kung or other leading theologians who explain that. I am not a theologian. I was once, rather provocatively, asked to "draw the trajectory of the ascension." Try it....
https://www.facebook.com/paul.k.moser/posts/10152175853098947
i) One aspect of Rauser's statement is how the essence of Christianity boils down to certain events in the life of Christ. On this view, the teaching of Christ is expendable. What's essential to Christian faith is not anything Jesus said, but only what he did–or what was done to him. This can take two different forms:
a) They may deny that Christ actually said many of the things attributed to him in the Gospels. They think Gospel writers exercised great creative license by inventing speeches and sayings which they put on the lips of Christ.
b) They may grant that Jesus actually made a statement attributed to him, but dismiss the statement as erroneous. Jesus was a child of his time, holding many ignorant, primitive, superstitious beliefs.
ii) Even their emphasis on events is deceptive. For instance, Rauser, like some other prominent Arminians (e.g. Joel Green), is a strident critic of penal substitution. So even at the level of dominical events, he demotes the cross of Christ.
iii) In addition, just as liberals are skeptical about the sayings attributed to Christ, they are skeptical about the deeds attributed to Christ–especially his miracles.
Obviously, these opinions reflect a liberal outlook. The view of "progressive evangelicals." As long as this stayed within liberal confines, it wouldn't be any particular concern. However, it's seeping into evangelical apologetics.
Increasingly, you have some evangelical apologists who stake everything on the Resurrection. The Bible can be wrong on many other counts, but as long as the Bible is right about the Resurrection, Christianity is true.
One basic problem with that perspective is that it makes certain redemptive events nonnegotiable whereas revelatory events are negotiable. That vandalizes the Christology of the Gospels. On that view, we could strip away the teaching ministry of Christ in toto. The Christian faith is reducible to some events in the life of Christ.
Moreover, by overemphasizing the Resurrection, to the detriment of so many other events in the life of Christ, an apologist of this ilk could, in principle, lop off most of the events in the life of Christ. The Resurrection is essential, but what else is essential–given this outlook?
No comments:
Post a Comment