Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

talking donkey in the NT?

Expand Messages
  • empiricism101
    ... A better question is: Where does a donkey talk in the NT?
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "annika4se"
      <biggles.flyger@p...> wrote:
      >
      > Welcome Steven
      >
      > Thats a good question.
      >
      > /Ann
      >
      >
      > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Steven King
      > <thekingster@g...> wrote:
      > >
      > > New here...forgive the lack of introduction via protocol. If a
      > donkey can
      > > truly speak in the NT - then why would a talking snake have to be
      > a fable in
      > > the OT?
      > >
      > > Steven King

      A better question is: Where does a donkey talk in the NT?
    • empiricism101
      ... donkey can ... fable in ... Empiricism101: Hello Steve. talking animals, especially conversation between animals and people, is a major archetype
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Steven King
        <thekingster@g...> wrote:
        >
        > New here...forgive the lack of introduction via protocol. If a
        donkey can
        > truly speak in the NT - then why would a talking snake have to be a
        fable in
        > the OT?
        >
        > Steven King


        Empiricism101:

        Hello Steve. talking animals, especially conversation between
        animals and people, is a major archetype (tip-off) that the
        literature which includes that bit is more or less a fable.

        If you don't think any of Genesis is fable, then why not share with
        the list your criteria for deciding whether an ancient Hebrew writing
        is fable or other? I mean, if snakes talking to people don't turn
        the trick for you, what does?
      • Steven King
        Hello, I do not wish to imply that fable is not included in Genesis - just what part of divine intervention might be necessary to move plot? Whether it s
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,
           
          I do not wish to imply that fable is not included in Genesis - just what part of divine intervention might be necessary to move plot?  Whether it's literal, as fundamentalists commonly accept - or fable, in this check-the-block criteria you seek to differentiate between literal narrative (I assume) and fable?  I'll reserve comment further until I see the groups' collective tenor...
           
          Regards,
          Steven King

           
          On 12/12/05, empiricism101 <empiricism101@...> wrote:
          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Steven King
          <thekingster@g...> wrote:
          >
          > New here...forgive the lack of introduction via protocol.  If a
          donkey can
          > truly speak in the NT - then why would a talking snake have to be a
          fable in
          > the OT?
          >
          > Steven King


          Empiricism101:

          Hello Steve.  talking animals, especially conversation between
          animals and people, is a major archetype (tip-off) that the
          literature which includes that bit is more or less a fable.

          If you don't think any of Genesis is fable, then why not share with
          the list your criteria for deciding whether an ancient Hebrew writing
          is fable or other?  I mean, if snakes talking to people don't turn
          the trick for you, what does?





          SPONSORED LINKS
          Theology degree Theology Christian theology
          Christianity Theology study Theology book


          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






          --
          "A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd."
          - James Crook
        • empiricism101
          Trinitarians and Oneness Pentacostals agree that HOW Jesus was a single person with two natures, is beyond human ability to apprehend. Something described as
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Trinitarians and Oneness Pentacostals agree that HOW Jesus was a
            single person with two natures, is beyond human ability to apprehend.

            Something described as "beyond human ability to apprehend" is the
            first step toward discovering that it is actually an illogical and
            thus impossible thing. Not being able to understand something
            doesn't guarantee it's illogical. However, it is quite common for
            religious people to fight off critiques of what they believe by
            saying it's a paradox, or a problem of sinful limited human minds
            that don't have all the information. I believe I can overcome those
            retorts and show from the Bible that the Jesus Christ it describes,
            is not merely a paradox of humanity, but an actual conglomoration of
            mutually contradictory attributes. This thesis, if true, requires
            that at least SOME of the NT description of Jesus is in error,
            because it's logically impossible for all of it to be true at the
            same time (the law of non-contradiction says A cannot be both A and
            non-A at the same time).

            32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in
            heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (Mark 13, NASB)

            Inerrantists are quick to say that Jesus, as a man, didn't know the
            day or hour, but that as God, he did, and Mark 13:32 is merely
            quoting Jesus who was speaking from the perspective of a man.

            Now wait a minute....if I told you that I know the day and hour i
            will go to the store and that I also DON'T know the day and hour I
            will go to that store...wouldn't you automatically assume there's
            some sort of problem here BECAUSE IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE CONTRADICTION?

            After all, one person cannot be knowledgable and yet ignorant on one
            single specific piece of info ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT, and saying
            Jesus had two natures doesn't get rid of the creedal/biblical
            statement that Jesus is one single undivided real-life human PERSON.

            So the first problem I raise is that the New Testament describes
            Jesus as a person with mutually contradictory attributes (i.e., one
            person both knows and yet also doesn't know, one and the same piece
            of info.)

            Furthermore, the Trinitarian claim that Jesus in Mark 13:32 was
            speaking from the perspective of his limited humanity, places
            additional burden on Trinitarians, because the person that didn't
            know the day of his return, Jesus describes as the "Son". Is his
            choice to say "Son" a proof that he was relegating his ignorance
            about the day of his return, to his human side ONLY? I will deal
            with "son of man" and "son of god", since "son of Mary", a desperate
            ingenious machination of apologists, violates Mark 13's
            eschatological context in which this "Son" operates with all the
            authority of God himself. And we all know that the immediate context
            of a disputed word or phrase is where you narrow down possible
            meanings to the one most likely meant by the author.

            "Son of man" and "son of God" are both titles that are primarily
            about divinity and not humanity..

            Notice in the immediate context of verse 32, the clues that
            this "Son" who doesn't know the day of his return, is being spoken of
            from the standpoint of his DIVINITY (i.e., arriving on clouds,
            commanding the angels, his words will never pass away, the allusion
            to Daniel's divine "son of man", who would be served by the whole
            world [cf., Daniel 7 , etc).

            Additional proof that Jesus thought "son of man" meant divinity and
            not just humanity...

            "The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (Mk 2:28) Not just any
            human was lord of the Sabbath, that person had to be DIVINE.

            Jesus mentions specifically the abomination of desolation spoken of
            by Daniel the prophet and then mentioning "son of man", putting the
            book of Daniel in his hearers' minds. Daniel 7 describes a figure
            who is like a "son of man":

            13 "I kept looking in the night visions,
            And behold, with the clouds of heaven
            One like a Son of Man was coming,
            And He came up to the Ancient of Days
            And was presented before Him.

            14 "And to Him was given dominion,
            Glory and a kingdom,
            That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language
            Might serve Him.
            His dominion is an everlasting dominion
            Which will not pass away;
            And His kingdom is one
            Which will not be destroyed.
            ==========

            Most conservative inerrantist scholars agree that Jesus believed
            himself to be this "son of man" in Daniel 7. Such a "son of man" is
            who he is because of his divinity, not just his humanity, amen?

            24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN WILL BE
            DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT,
            25 AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are
            in the heavens will be shaken.
            26 "And then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN CLOUDS with great
            power and glory. (Mark 13)

            Here Jesus also refers to the sun being darkened, the moon not giving
            it's light, and the stars falling from heaven, which seems like a
            direct quote from Isaiah 13, Ezekiel 32 and/or Joel 3. But in all
            three OT sources, these signs are precursers to the decidedly
            DIVINE "day of the Lord" judgement, whereas Jesus places these signs
            as precursers of HIS day of judgement:

            10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
            Will not flash forth their light;
            The sun will be dark when it rises,
            And the moon will not shed its light.
            11 Thus I will punish the world for its evil,
            And the wicked for their iniquity; (Isaiah 13)
            ==========

            7 "And when I extinguish you,
            I will cover the heavens, and darken their stars;
            I will cover the sun with a cloud,
            And the moon shall not give its light.
            8 "All the shining lights in the heavens
            I will darken over you
            And will set darkness on your land,"
            Declares the Lord GOD." (Ezekiel 32)
            ============

            14 "Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision!
            For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
            15 The sun and moon grow dark,
            And the stars lose their brightness.
            16 And the LORD roars from Zion" (Joel 3)

            So then, Jesus saying that the "son" doesn't know, is not hardly a
            reference to his limitations as a human, but from the immediate
            context, is a reference to his Divinity, and thus causes the
            Christian to be stuck with a Jesus whose ignorance extends all the
            way into his "Divine side" and not just his human "side". For those
            Christians who would say that verse 32 is where Jesus changes the
            meaning, that's the fallacy of begging the question, because what
            exactly verse 32 means with "son", is exactly the point being debated.

            I can extend this argument by asking those Christians why exactly
            they abandon their acceptance of the law of non-contradiction (i.e.,
            A cannot be non-A in the same place at the same time in the same
            circumstance) in the case of Jesus and the bible, but nowhere else.
            Doesn't the science of Christian apologetics committ those who
            practice it, to the belief that logical fallacies must always be
            avoided regardless of who has them or what they have to lose by
            getting rid of them?

            Let's get real hard and heavy: Would you give up your Christian
            faith on the basis of a proof that it was illogical? If not, why do
            you think a proof that atheism is illogical should motivate atheists
            ti give up atheism? Proving something illogical doesn't mean that's
            the end of it, amen?

            If logic need not always be adhered to in discussions of the bible,
            how did you come to that belief? Are there other situations in which
            you accept mutually contradictory attributes in one person or object
            as being both true at the same time? Or is it only when we are
            dealing with the one book and faith upon whose historical facticity
            you have staked your entire life and integrity on?

            empiricism101
          • Steven King
            Not sure what I was thinking about with a donkey in the NT. Busted me there... Steven King
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Not sure what I was thinking about with a donkey in the NT.  Busted me there...
               
              Steven King
            • empiricism101
              ... Eh, not really I suppose. Let s assume for the sake of argument that the NT DID have a story of an animal conversing with a person in human language. Your
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 13, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Steven King
                <thekingster@g...> wrote:
                >
                > Not sure what I was thinking about with a donkey in the NT. Busted me
                > there...
                >
                > Steven King
                >

                Eh, not really I suppose. Let's assume for the sake of argument that
                the NT DID have a story of an animal conversing with a person in human
                language.

                Your question was, why would the NT version of this not be a fable, but
                Genesis would be a fable.

                My answer would have been: ANY ancient religious literature, regardless
                of whether it pretends to be historical narrative, biography or
                otherwise, MUST be viewed as fable, or at least containing fable, on
                account of the inclusion of something which all scholarly sources agree
                is the major archetype (tip-off) of fable: talking animals.

                The choice would then be the conservative Christian interpretation
                which insists the story is literal history, and they labor to justify
                talking animals with an argument to support miracles.....or.....the
                liberal Christian interpretation, which doesn't give talking animals in
                the bible anymore special treatment than they accord to other similar
                extra-biblical religious literature. It can be seen quickly then, that
                the liberal scholarly attitude is much more fair in it's appraisal of
                these things. They work no harder to justify talking animals in the
                bible as outside it. And that is because they have nothing to lose by
                concluding that the bible contains stories that appear to be literal
                accounts of history, but which aren't really.

                Indeed, the evangelicals' quickness to conclude that a story outside
                the bible with a talking animal, is a fable, is quite inconsistent with
                their efforts to justify the literal truth of talking animal stories IN
                the bible. Their criteria for what is fable and what is literal
                history in ancient religious literature appears to be nothing more than
                whether the story in question is in the bible or outside of it, since
                you never see them interpreting extra-biblical talking animal-stories
                as historical truth.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.