What is a Gospel?

[Thomas]

Are you thinking that the story that the evangelists told was inspired by God, and tells us what we need to know about what Jesus said and did, but that doesn't mean that everything in it happened literally?

I am saying my faith does not oblige me to believe everything written in the Gospels is forensically accurate.

We both read the same text, we have different beliefs.

Was the veil of the temple torn in two at the moment of Christ's death on the cross? (Mark 15:38, Matthew 27:51 and Luke 23:45).

I think the rending of the veil is a reference that has a greater than physical significance – the implication of the event says far more about the nature of the Cosmos and the relationship between the human and the divine than about the curtain that hung before the temple doors.

Was it then purely an analogous reference then, that did not actually happen?

No, it actually happened, because 'as above, so below'. The event was a physical manifestation of a metaphysical reality.

Similarly the Healing of the Man Born Blind (John 9:1-41) is often explained as a healing of a 'spiritual blindness' and not a physical impediment. I disagree. The man was physically blind, and his sight was restored. The idea of a 'spiritual' interpretation is refuted by the text.

You have spoken, if I have read you right, of how scripture draws on existing figures and tropes to present Jesus. 'Son of Man', for example, you reference to its multiple uses in Ezekiel (and elsewhere) to refer to humanity. I think this is a mistake, I think the reference is to Daniel 7, where the allusion is to a celestial being.

 

[Longfellow]

I am saying my faith does not oblige me to believe everything written in the Gospels is forensically accurate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "forensically." Do you mean provably according to some popular online courtroom drama thinking about what constitutes proof? Or do you simply mean literally, physically? And even if your faith doesn't oblige you to believe that, do you, in fact, think that everything in the gospels actually did happen literally, physically? If you're saying that it doesn't matter if everything happened literally or not, or that it doesn't matter if any of it can be proven or not, I agree.

Was the veil of the temple torn in two at the moment of Christ's death on the cross? (Mark 15:38, Matthew 27:51 and Luke 23:45).

I think the rending of the veil is a reference that has a greater than physical significance – the implication of the event says far more about the nature of the Cosmos and the relationship between the human and the divine than about the curtain that hung before the temple doors.

Was it then purely an analogous reference then, that did not actually happen?

No, it actually happened, because 'as above, so below'. The event was a physical manifestation of a metaphysical reality.

Similarly the Healing of the Man Born Blind (John 9:1-41) is often explained as a healing of a 'spiritual blindness' and not a physical impediment. I disagree. The man was physically blind, and his sight was restored. The idea of a 'spiritual' interpretation is refuted by the text.

You're giving me two examples of things that you think did happen literally, physically, and none that you think did not happen literally, physically. That's why I'm asking if, even if your faith doesn't require it, do you, in fact, think that everything happened literally, physically? I don't think that any of it is impossible, but some of it seems unlikely to me, like calming the storm and walking on water. Not because He couldn't have if He wanted to, it just seems unlikely to me that He did. It seems more likely to me that the healings were physical. Everything else, maybe, maybe not. The sun being darkened could have just been an idiom for cloudy days with no break in the clouds.

You have spoken, if I have read you right, of how scripture draws on existing figures and tropes to present Jesus. 'Son of Man', for example, you reference to its multiple uses in Ezekiel (and elsewhere) to refer to humanity. I think this is a mistake, I think the reference is to Daniel 7, where the allusion is to a celestial being.

I think that it's both, and anywhere else where "son of man" appears in the OT. It looks to me like sometimes it means Israel, and sometimes a person or figure who represents Israel or stands in the place of Israel.

 

[wil]

I think that it's both, and anywhere else where "son of man" appears in the OT. It looks to me like sometimes it means Israel, and sometimes a person or figure who represents Israel or stands in the place of Israel.

I think you have touched on it... the beginnings of it...like a string in a sweater you gotta watch if you pull it...it could tear a sweater apart or unravel a belief one has to be careful.

For me it indicates the stitches that hold it all together, is the pattern that knits the design. And like s sweater, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder as the sweater is formed by the wearer.

It is not just the scripture, it is you...and depending on your experiences in that moment effect your understanding of the words in that moment....and they will change in the future just as you have had different understandings in the past.

That is the joy of it. (for me, your mileage may vary)

 

[Thomas]

I'm not sure what you mean by "forensically." Do you mean provably according to some popular online courtroom drama thinking about what constitutes proof?

As I understand police procedure, often there are two lines of inquiry:
1 – what the testimonies say
2 – what the evidence says.

Testimony is always tricky, as its subjective. I have a distinct memory of witnessing a spectacular car crash, notably a car flying through the air. I have a series of images, but I cannot place them in any consistent order ...

There's an old mafia adage(?) that if there's one witness, you're in trouble, if there's two, you're in good shape, and if there's three or more, you're home free. No two testimonies will align, and a 'good lawyer' will dismantle them one by one.

What we do not have, in Scripture, is empirical data. Incontrovertible evidence.

And even if your faith doesn't oblige you to believe that, do you, in fact, think that everything in the gospels actually did happen literally, physically? If you're saying that it doesn't matter if everything happened literally or not, or that it doesn't matter if any of it can be proven or not, I agree.

Then we agree.

For me, the one indisputable fact is the Resurrection – without that, as Paul said, "your faith is in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:17). The Resurrection is really what defines Christianity – it's what Paul believed, what the evangelists believed, and everything else, Paul's teachings and the evangelists' testimony, points to that one actuality.

 

[Thomas]

You're giving me two examples of things that you think did happen literally, physically, and none that you think did not happen literally, physically. That's why I'm asking if, even if your faith doesn't require it, do you, in fact, think that everything happened literally, physically?

Belief in the Scriptures is a faith thing – the New Testament is that order of text. It's not a scientific treatise, nor does it claim to be, nor is viewing its content from that perspective a valid methodology.

So ... the Virgin Birth ... not all our accounts mention the nativity, it's clearly irrelevant to Paul, Luke and John – and the sources we do have, Matthew, Luke, James, all disagree on its details – was Jesus born in a house (M), a stable (L), or a cave (J)? All three accounts demonstrate clear literary and theological reasoning that underpin their narratives ... so which one of the three is the literal account?

A historian, doing history, would most likely dismiss the virgin birth as history, before even addressing the question of whether or not a miracle occurred. The sources are not unified, and those sources are all late. There is a clear motive – to present Jesus as a Son of David and the Son of God – neither of these two beliefs being dependent on a virgin birth – the High Christology of Paul and John don’t have one.

(An argument for is the very fact that it's not necessary. Why concoct an imponderable tale if there's no reason to do so?)

History is about establishing probability, plausibility, and possibility with regard to its sources.

The virgin birth is theology, not history. Did it happen? I can’t know, nor can anyone, and nor can anyone say it didn't.

I happen to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin – the how of it, say a pneumatic infusion into an otherwise normal process varies based on my context. I cannot prove that it happened historically, and, historically, there are sound reasons to doubt that it actually happened, based on the nature of the available sources. Theologically, though, I believe Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God and was from the get-go, rather than the adoptionist argument of his baptism.

The virginity I also believe because it's a manifestation of a universal metaphysics.

I believe that miracles are metahistorical realities are grounded in intrahistorical events, that the whole Christian thing is the marriage and fusion of the spiritual and physical that was once One and which became sundered.

 

[Longfellow]

I believe that miracles are metahistorical realities are grounded in intrahistorical events, that the whole Christian thing is the marriage and fusion of the spiritual and physical that was once One and which became sundered.

I see that as a good reason for thinking that all of it did happen physically, but I'm still not sure that it applies to every miracle. Not that He couldn't walk on water if He wanted to. I just don't picture Him doing that. Water to wine? I don't know. Maybe. It seems more likely to me that those started out as parables. I think that everything in the gospels is what Jesus taught the twelve to say. It would have included parables about him and them, which were afterwards misunderstood as physical happenings. I'm reconsidering though, considering what the fathers say about the gospels.

 

[Longfellow]

Whatever the source materials – and the simple fact is they are, at present, a mystery ...

I don't see any mystery if the primary sources were what the fathers said they were. Is there something that you don't believe in what the fathers said about the primary sources of the gospels?

 

[RJM]

I believe that miracles are metahistorical realities are grounded in intrahistorical events, that the whole Christian thing is the marriage and fusion of the spiritual and physical that was once One and which became sundered.

^^

 

[Craz]

^^

Belief in the Scriptures is a faith thing – the New Testament is that order of text. It's not a scientific treatise, nor does it claim to be, nor is viewing its content from that perspective a valid methodology.

So ... the Virgin Birth ... not all our accounts mention the nativity, it's clearly irrelevant to Paul, Luke and John – and the sources we do have, Matthew, Luke, James, all disagree on its details – was Jesus born in a house (M), a stable (L), or a cave (J)? All three accounts demonstrate clear literary and theological reasoning that underpin their narratives ... so which one of the three is the literal account?

A historian, doing history, would most likely dismiss the virgin birth as history, before even addressing the question of whether or not a miracle occurred. The sources are not unified, and those sources are all late. There is a clear motive – to present Jesus as a Son of David and the Son of God – neither of these two beliefs being dependent on a virgin birth – the High Christology of Paul and John don’t have one.

(An argument for is the very fact that it's not necessary. Why concoct an imponderable tale if there's no reason to do so?)

History is about establishing probability, plausibility, and possibility with regard to its sources.

The virgin birth is theology, not history. Did it happen? I can’t know, nor can anyone, and nor can anyone say it didn't.

I happen to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin – the how of it, say a pneumatic infusion into an otherwise normal process varies based on my context. I cannot prove that it happened historically, and, historically, there are sound reasons to doubt that it actually happened, based on the nature of the available sources. Theologically, though, I believe Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God and was from the get-go, rather than the adoptionist argument of his baptism.

The virginity I also believe because it's a manifestation of a universal metaphysics.

I believe that miracles are metahistorical realities are grounded in intrahistorical events, that the whole Christian thing is the marriage and fusion of the spiritual and physical that was once One and which became sundered.

 

[Craz]

......

I believe that miracles are metahistorical realities are grounded in intrahistorical events, that the whole Christian thing is the marriage and fusion of the spiritual and physical that was once One and which became sundered.

An amazingly constructed sentence.

So you are saying that the story the Gospels bring together different(important) parts of history, fusing them together to correct the fragmentation of the original intent of creation, that has occurred. So, the story as told is meant to bring humanity back to Truth/God and does not need to be factually correct. It is the lesson that is important.

Have I understood you?

 

[RJM]

Hopefully not taking too much liberty I loosely interpret @Thomas statement in my own words:

Spirit weaves nature and human brains function to reduce the huge input of total reality to the human 3D model of the material reality, that fits the survival senses of sight, hearing and so on. Miracles are a different weaving of nature, by the divine, as a purposeful message, IMO

 

[RJM]

^^

I know that doesn't fully capture what @Thomas is saying. But I think he is saying that the miracles really did happen?

EDIT: However, even if taken as allegory or parable, they still work?

 

[Longfellow]

^^

I know that doesn't fully capture what @Thomas is saying. But I think he is saying that the miracles really did happen?

EDIT: However, even if taken as allegory or parable, they still work?

That's what I was trying to find out. I'm thinking that maybe he thinks that they did happen physically, but it doesn't matter if that can be proven or not. I almost thought that maybe he thinks it doesn't matter if they happened physically or not, but that might be going too far. Maybe just that it doesn't matter if it can be proven or not.

Another part of it if I'm understanding correctly is that miracles happening both physically and metaphorically has a purpose.

 

[RJM]

That's what I was trying to find out. I'm thinking that maybe he thinks that they did happen physically, but it doesn't matter if that can be proven or not. I almost thought that maybe he thinks it doesn't matter if they happened physically or not, but that might be going too far. Maybe just that it doesn't matter if it can be proven or not.

From earlier posts I think @Thomas does believe the miracles really did happen. To say on my part that 'even if taken as allegory or parable they still work' I don't think is really true and doesn't cover the thought properly. If they didn't really happen, they're just made-up stories.

He says the miracles were real demonstrations of 'metahistorical realities' and 'that the whole Christian thing is the marriage and fusion of the spiritual and physical that was once One and which became sundered.'

However I babble too much

 

[RJM]

I personally don't need Matthew's account of graves opening and accounts in the Acts of people being struck dead for keeping back some of their assets from the common purse. To me these events are probably just inserted for effect. But most: the raising of Lazarus and the healing miracles, walking on water and stilling the storm, the tearing of the temple veil and of course the resurrection -- I believe really did happen.

 

[Thomas]

I don't see any mystery if the primary sources were what the fathers said they were. Is there something that you don't believe in what the fathers said about the primary sources of the gospels?

I think I've made my ideas clear on that.

The Tradition does not regard the Fathers as infallible on that point.

 

[Thomas]

I'm thinking that maybe he thinks that they did happen physically ...

Yes, I do ... even the ones you think didn't happen.

... but it doesn't matter if that can be proven or not.

No, because they can't be proven, nor disproven ... say that argument is a monumental waste of breath.

I almost thought that maybe he thinks it doesn't matter if they happened physically or not,

Oh, it absolutely matters that they happened!

Another part of it if I'm understanding correctly is that miracles happening both physically and metaphorically has a purpose.

Every miracle had a point and purpose – God does not perform miraculous for edification or entertainment, or out of some gratuitous display of power.

John's Gospel records seven miracles, and he doesn't call them miracles, he calls them 'signs'. They point at something other than themselves.

 

[Longfellow]

I think I've made my ideas clear on that.

The Tradition does not regard the Fathers as infallible on that point.

It isn’t about infallibility. It’s about imagining that they’re wrong or lying when there is no need to do so, when their story about the primary sources explains the similarities and differences between the gospels better than any copying and source theory.

 

[Longfellow]

I think I've made my ideas clear on that.

The Tradition does not regard the Fathers as infallible on that point.

If you don't believe everything that the fathers said about sources for the gospels, will you please tell me why? I want to know what reasons there could be for not believing what they said. If you've already answered that question, and you don't want to answer it again, will you help me find the place where you answered it?

 

[Longfellow]

Yes, I do ... even the ones you think didn't happen.

I was forgetting what I actually think. It's an open question for me if all of them happened physically or not, but they don't have to have happened physically for the sources of the gospels to be what the fathers said they were.

(later) To put it another way, not believing that the miracles happened physically is not a good reason for not believing what the fathers said about the sources for the gospels.