When I was kid, I loved to ask my minister questions about things that, to my young mind, made no sense when I read them in the Bible or more likely heard them in Sunday school. Kids are good at uncomplicated questions about Bible Stories. Kids are not yet programed to assume that just because it's in the Bible or that God said it and must know what He is talking about, the story is true or even inherent in light of 2000 years and more of improve in human mental and knowledge. His answers were all the time rather bland and not a little aloof since, after all, he was the pastor and I was just a kid. I never met a minister in my youth that did not mean well. They had accepted the Bible at face value themselves and I suspect as kids, began early in life to interrogate their own pastors in a time when becoming a pastor was still considered a very high calling. For great or worse, today it is not so much due to the fact that the admonitions settled upon the membership to avoid"vanity, jealousy, lust and greed," are just as much a part of human pastor types as with them. Human is human. We need to get used to that concept.
Pastors suffer credibility problems today as well due to the availability of data to the midpoint someone that was unheard of in past times. The Internet can of course give the many other sides of a Biblical interrogate or provoke questions to be asked that most never dreamed of as the "I never conception of that" gets tweaked by new information. Had I had the internet to hunt out the answers to my questions, I seriously doubt I would have gone on to spend 26 years in the ministry myself. Internet is to knowledge for the masses as books were in times past. There was a time when books were too expensive for the midpoint Christian and taking the minister's or priest's word for it was accepted practice. When passage to books came along, including the Bible that even a lay someone could read from and get the bigger photo than what he was naturally being told by the Church, a new threat to the Church was upon it. No longer would "just take our word for it," or "Well, God does not see as man see's and the ways of God are not the way of man," work. These phrases are still used today by minister's as the write back to questions that make them uncomfortable, but they are less effective than in times where there was a wallop behind the threat to back off on the questions or the Church will have to deal with you. Today, if you don't like the answers in one Church, you can naturally go to another. In times past, there either was no other Church to attend, or you were labeled a "heretic" and subject to being chased all over creation by the "True" Church. Today, Churches can only yell louder that they are the true church with the true answers to all sincere questions about who and what God is and what on earth he is doing, than the other true church down the street or on the internet.
Book
The solution, for the Church, to this threat of data causing problems for itself was simple. Ban the books or burn them. Sometimes they did both to real people too. Disfellowshipped, marked and declared anathama was one way to control people who strayed from the Church, and if that didn't work, burning them like a book all the time seemed to do the trick for awhile.
I got a lot of looks but very few answers. As the years went by, I ended that most of the real answers to my of course sincere questions were not going to be naturally addressed by the minister or the Church. I would get what I learned later would be an "apologetic." Funny word that! As a kid, it just sounded to me like the Church was apologizing for its position in some way, but that's the way it was. I of course conception that "apologetics" were the artful way a church had to go about denying the reality of good science or good theology that contradicted its own position. Kind of like, "Ok, we know you are getting close to the truth of this matter, and we are sorry, but this is still how we look at it." Hmm, maybe I am still not so far off on this feeling. Genuine apologetics are a bit more technical and accepted in theological circles than that, but hey, I was a kid. I knew that when I had to apologize for something I knew I must be wrong, so it just seems like maybe they picked a bad word for the convention of defending the true teachings of the true church. Actually, I still feel that way today, but the art of apologizing for refusal to bend on issues where new data sheds more light on old Biblical perspectives still seems to be the way questions are answered. You know like, "That's a of course good interrogate Dennis, and we are so sorry that you are no longer welcome here." That's a typical apologetic many fundamentists issue when pressed to give answers to Biblical questions that they either don't have, or cannot admit to as it will not look like the same write back given by the denomination for the past 1800 years. You know, "Dennis, we'd love to help you out. Which way did you come in?"
Most educated Biblical scholars would recognize, for example, that the book of Daniel was not written during the Babylonian captivity by a literal Daniel in the 6th Century Bc. I grew up mental that and being amazed, as a pastor, at the detailed and exact prophecy the book proports to expound, not the great stories of dreams, lion's dens and spooking writing on the the wall. It "predicted" the rise and fall of all the great nations, in order and the 11th episode was naturally an amazingly detailed prophecy that few could grasp. Actually, the only people I ever met who did "grasp" it were looney tune ministers who felt they also saw their own ministry or church written between the lines. Daniel appears to be exact because it is prophecy culled from history and not history prophecied. I realized that the accuracy of the book was due to hindsite, not vision and where it could not of course see the future, and that would be beyond the 160's Bc, when of course written, it became vague and very general in it's predictions. That's a human thing, not a God thing.
This book is about guestions most pastors and priests will hate to be asked and may stumble colse to on to answer. I say most because I have met a estimate of very open and honest very Biblically literate layman and ministers along the way. By literate, I mean that they have gone behind the text and are not mere Bible readers, which all too often is the only schooling they have. Bible readers yell the loudest in sermons and are the most judgemental of those that don't see things their way.
Theologically educated men and women tend to keep their perspectives to themselves if they wish to keep their jobs or at best, they don't give sermons on these topics that they know the congregation will not find more threatening than enlightening. They know that knowledge is threatening to the midpoint someone who still naturally feels that "God said it. I believe it. That does it for me." I remember glitching during a sermon before about 8000 people when explaining how Matthew seems to over reach in his need to elaborate Jesus. If I tried to prove my point about Jesus in a paper the same way that Matthew tries to prove his point in the Gospels, I'd get some very low grades. I slipped on the topic of the "Virgin Birth" and said "Come on folks, where do babies come from?" See, asking those uncomplicated kids questions again! Have you ever heard 8000 people all inhale at the same time? That little voice in my head had a chat with me and said, "Nice going there Dennis. I suspect we will be hearing about this soon." We did. A few months later the powers that were delcared that I knew a lot about Jesus, but did not know Jesus. Well....that was the exit from my pastor life interview in a nutshell. I didn't know it was one or the other and knowing a lot about Jesus was not playing well at denominational headquarters evidently. Damn questions I guess.
So let's have some fun. These questions are not long drawn out rants. They are the uncomplicated kind of questions a young child or teen would sincerely ask of any pastor, minister or minister if so inclined to even bother. It's like Lions and Lambs led by little children who seem to have to have the inate ability to ask the distinct before the Church apologetic pounds the coarse sense out of them. Let us begin.
These questions will concern the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and assume that order. I am going to ask the questions taking the three Synoptic, or similar Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke along with the dissimilar one of John as a whole. We'll ask our questions just as an inquisitive young someone or lay member would as they spend week after week hearing the "Old Old Story" told by the pastor or minister as he flips back and forth between these four books on a regular basis as if they were all coherent and harmonious accounts of the literal events of Jesus life, death and resurrection. We will ask questions as any regularly thoughprovoking church member might who is anticipated to believe what they are told, approximately without interrogate but still there are questions. We will ask questions because we want to know how something could be or happen. We will ask why it says that this may have happened but then in an additional one place it says it didn't or it doesn't say or it says it happened differently. We'll ask why there are distinct contradictions in the texts that can't both be right and we will not feel badly for looking what we see nor be disuaded by answers that comprise "man does not see as God sees." In fact, it might be good to cover a few of the answers to our sincere questions that we are not curious in hearing nor will prove helpful in getting to the bottom of what we see as a real interrogate deserving a real answer.
But first...Unacceptable Anwers to Our Real Questions.
Proverbs 14 :12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death" Translation: "Well, what seems like a good interrogate to you is going to naturally get you in big trouble." or "I know your think your interrogate has merrit, but you are heading down a slick slope."
Jeremiah 17: 9 The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?" Translation: You are kidding yourself, you evil bastard, if you think you are evn asking as sincere question. Humans are so evil, their questions are all the time suspect as are yours even as we speak. Just what are you trying to do to the Church anyway?
Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." Translation: You can't ask a interrogate that God would even be curious in, nor we by extension. We think great and more clearly than you do, for if you conception like we do, you would of course not think to ask such a question.
Proverbs 28:26 "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool..." Translation: You are trusting that you are asking a sincere question, when infact, you are a fool. You cannot ask questions from your heart or your head as they are untrustworthy by nature. Thus, in reality, you can never ask any questions which is of course what we think you need to stop doing, you fool.
I Corinthians3:19-20 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness' and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile..." Translation: No matter how smart or clever you think you are, God is laughing at your question. God knows, as do we the Church, that your interrogate is suspect so you need not waste any more time even to think we trust you ask it from a good attitude.
Corinthians 2:14-15 "...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned..." Translation: You are not even spiritual sufficient to ask a good question. And what seems to be a good interrogate to you is foolishiness to God, and us by the way. Any spiritual write back we give you will be lost on you because this interrogate comes from your natural man which we are not even going to deal with.
Proverbs 18:2 " A fool has no pleasure in understanding, but in expressing his own heart." Translation: You are a fool and don't of course want the right answer. You are all caught up in your own thinking, understanding and questioning and insincere in doing so.
I Corinthians 1:20-21 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world..." Translation: You are not smart enough, don't write well enough, nor suspect good sufficient to ask a question. And if you did, your worldly wisdom and views are still foolish to God, and us...mostly us.
I think we get the point as many are the quotations that send the message loud and clear that humans are incapable of asking sincere questions due to their deceitfuness, disingenuous spirit, or human reasoning. I Corinthians 1 makes it very clear that "God " uses what seems foolish to confound those that seem wise. This is pure apologetic. It is a duct written and used by the Church to control those who interrogate anyone they don't understand. When all else fails, just tell the questioner that they are using "human reason." Never mind the fact that human mental is all that humans have. anyone that implies that their mental is more like that of God is kidding you and themselves big time!
All humans suspect with human reasoning. This is how we get three Gods in One and sinless babies born of the Holy Spirit and a somehow sinless female. It's how we get dinosaurs on the ark, or not, and no consequences when a man raises his hands to stop the sun and the moon so the Israelites have a bit more time to fight on in daylight and slaughter everyone in sight. Human mental is what has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust. Human mental is what gets apologists through the hard questions without having to yield any ground. It is what keeps churches stuck in the dark ages and ministers from being honest about that which in their guts they know to be a more informed perspective than the one they have been taught. It's all human mental when it comes down to it.
A few more answers which are also unacceptable.
"It's a Mystery." "We can't know." "Aren't you Dave Dimwitt's son?" "Now what's a young man or woman like you asking such a big grown up questions for?" "You need to just get out more and play and leave the Bible up to me." "Son, how old are you?" "Listen here, I have been a pastor 20 years." "Listen, I have been a pastor 40 years." "So you think I would teach you wrong?" "You got this off the internet right?" "Oh, so you think you are old sufficient to know truth from error?" "Satan is after you son." "Satan is after you girl." "Well, you know you're not the first someone to come up with that question." "So you think you know more than the Church?" "So you think you know more than Jesus?" "So, you think you know more than God?" "Oh, so you think you know more than the Apostle (fill in the blank)." "You ain't from colse to these parts, are you boy?" "You are kind of a smart ass aren't you?"
Answers that imply motives beyond wanting a uncomplicated explanation to a uncomplicated interrogate are not accepted any time. What one will find is that the more the pastor or minister feels pressed or pushed into a corner, the more likely they will be defensive, depending on their education. Bible readers ministers will more effortlessly fall back to development fun of the interrogate or imputing motives to the questioner. On some rare occasion, one might of course meet a very enlightened pator or minister who is able to say without guile "Now son, that is one good interrogate and one I have struggled with my entire ministry. Let's see if we can find a good answer." This would be an highly rare reaction and maybe sincere, but don't be fooled It is also one that can be used insincerely to give the impression of an open mind that has learned that "if you can't beat 'em, join them, until you win them over." Sorry to say, that is not so much sincerity as a ploy and technique used to throw the questioner off guard. One can hope though. The key is to feel the interrogate has of course been answered well.
A Word About Kidding Ourselves.
As a pastor, I needed the Bible to be inerrant and true in every way, including in the details. After all, if God, who for sure wrote it, made mistakes or told contradictory stories, what's with that? If I could find just one mistake, inaccuracy, exaggeration, contradiction or mistake, would that not make it less than the perfect inspired word of God? Well of course, some would say "No of course not," others would say. Often those that believe there are no real reasons to interrogate the Bible call questions "alleged contradictions," or "scriptures that seem to contradict. While admitting to the difficulties the Gospels can be present, these are often dismissed as being typically overstated. We have to perceive that when one has to believe something is true in every way, all difficulties are overstated and exaggerated. Typical of this apologetic are observations such as this:
"One is often surprised to find how many apparent contradictions [in the Gospel Resurrection accounts] turn out not to be contradictory at all, but merely supplementary... Divergences appear very great on first sight... But the fact remains that all of [the Resurrection accounts], without exception, can be made to fall into a place in a single orderly and coherent narrative, without the smallest contradiction or mystery and without any suppression, invention, or manipulation, beyond a trifling exertion to imagine the natural behavior of a bunch of startled people running about in the dawn-light between Jerusalem and the garden." Dorothy Sayers, The Man Born to Be King, p. 19f.
So here we see that contradictions are seen "often" yet are only "apparent," and "merely supplemental." In other words, the often seen contradictions that are distinct merely make the story more accurate. Differences appear as "great" but of course not even "small." This is apologetic at it's best or worst depending. It is truly the ability to say "what snake" after it has bitten you. Denial truly is more than a river in Eqypt. We often hear the differences in the Gospel accounts are very much the same as how four dissimilar people would view an accident. All accounts are supplemental and not contradictory. They would see things from dissimilar street corners and angles, or would be viewing one car more than the other, but it is all the same accident. But often and in fact, it is more like viewing an urgency and having the following conversation.
"Wow, that yellow bug of course got whacked by that truck."
"Truck.? What do you mean? It was the Bug that hit the Bmw."
"Excuse me! It was the bus that hit the Bmw. What Bug?"
"Umm, people! That airplane came out of nowhere and hit the Bug and the Jeep."
Of for Pete's sake. What Jeep and what airplane? You weren't even there."
"There was an accident?
End Part One
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น