How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I almost think it is a catch-22.

The humanists want undeniable proof that God exists, yet Jesus Christ himself values faith in the "things not seen".

How can we reconcile the two? I think the only answer is an open heart and personal experience. Be that as it may, you can scream and holler from the rooftops that you want more proof than what has been give, but even Christ told his followers when they asked for a sign, "no sign shall be given except that of Jonah".

Question to all the humanists on this board:

As a side note,

Would it be possible for you to read one Gospel book, setting aside your biases and need for proof? I.e. without saying: I do not believe that this miracle could happen or God must be terrible to send his own Son to die, etc. Or is this not possible?

[Sip]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

So using your logic...

I used to think Armenians were good because I saw that they are a very hospitable people, very intelligent and give much cultural value to the world, but then I saw that there are certain Armenians who are involved in Insurance fraud and the like, so therefore all Armenians and Armenianism is bad?

I think the more correct extension of my logic is this:

Suppose you have two methodologies for doing things: A and B

A: Let's call this "faith" based. Is not really a logically sound approach by definition. Sometimes it will have positive outcomes (like calming people in stressful situations) and sometimes it will have negative outcomes (e.g. the parents that may let their kids go untreated with proven medical techniques in the hopes that prayer will help or starting wars and such).

B: Fundamentally sound way to reason about thoughts and actions given what we know. Sometimes it will be very unpleasant (like facing the inevitable truth that you are in a shitty situation about to die) and sometimes it will do great things (e.g. all of our scientific and technical accomplishments as humans).

Given A or B as the choices, I would ALWAYS pick B even if I have to face certain possibly painful facts such as life might be completely pointless .. sometimes accidents happen with no good "reason" behind them. In other words, about these people that choose to pray when they face a life threatening situation, I guess I rather die very scared but knowing the Truth rather than be all calm warm and cozy thinking I am going to meet my creator and hang out on some fluffy clouds for the rest of eternity.

[Sip]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Aaaaand ctl-a and delete...

That is OLD school (assuming you meant ctrl-alt-delete)

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I almost think it is a catch-22.

The humanists want undeniable proof that God exists, yet Jesus Christ himself values faith in the "things not seen".

How can we reconcile the two? I think the only answer is an open heart and personal experience. Be that as it may, you can scream and holler from the rooftops that you want more proof than what has been give, but even Christ told his followers when they asked for a sign, "no sign shall be given except that of Jonah".

Question to all the humanists on this board:

As a side note,

Would it be possible for you to read one Gospel book, setting aside your biases and need for proof? I.e. without saying: I do not believe that this miracle could happen or God must be terrible to send his own Son to die, etc. Or is this not possible?

No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.

You mean the one I quoted as well?

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

You mean the one I quoted as well?

No, the long post.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

That is OLD school (assuming you meant ctrl-alt-delete)

No, I meant ctl - "a" to highlight all. Just deleting everything I had typed because you posted about that realization before I could point out that same problem to you.

No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.

No, that's not it all. It was just longer than I had time to read at the time. I am planning to come back to it!

[Sip]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Oh wow ctrl-a is cool ... never knew that!

As far as the long article, I will admit to my bias about reading long texts about church and religion. My problem is, as long as the Armenina Church is fundamentally based on the hocus-pocus part of Christianity which somehow wants to insist Jesus was supernatural, I just can't take things derived from it seriously.

The kinds of things I would love to have dialogs on (and what I think is really precious about Christianity) is the moral teachings of Jesus and how to live life as a good human. The stuff about genesis, resurrection, conversational prayers which often involve humans commanding God to do this and that or trying to barter in some way or another with the almighty, or just the superstitious asking for blessings type of things I could definitely go without.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I feel like the prayer thing or general tendency to attribute things to a deity is problematic also because it tends to promote an external locus of control. Meaning that people attribute their life's outcomes to something external to themselves.


This provides people an excuse and a way to avoid taking responsibility for their own circumstances (in the cases when the outcomes really aren't due to external factors) or feeling helpless to improve their outcomes.


To illustrate with an example not related to religion:

E.g. I failed my exam because my teacher is a sadistic b!tch who loves writing difficult and tricky test questions.

If you do this... what's next? What can you do? You can't study more, study earlier, seek help, go to tutoring, use relaxation techniques during the exam, employ good test taking strategy, etc. You have no control because the outcome is attributed to something we cannot control.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

How much of the Bible must be historical to believe?

This is such a loaded question on so many levels, and within it are many underlying presumptions and ideas that do not necessarily reflect reality. I will try to take what I think is the position of the Armenian Church and all Orthodox Churches, since the beginning of Christianity.

Basics:

The Bible is not one "book", but a compendious volume that encompasses many different types of works from many different authors directed towards specific audiences at specific time periods. It is more appropriate to think of the Bible as more of an encyclopedia than a book, to be exact. For example, you cannot read Proverbs in the same way that you would read the Gospels; the former is wisdom literature of the 800's BC while the latter is evangelical literature of the early 1st century AD. The mistake that many in the West make (especially mainline Protestants who tend to be the most vocal, or at least get the most attention, in American culture), is that it takes all of these books at face value and does not critique them the way they should or were meant to be, as can be seen from ancient times (200's AD forward).

So, given the fact that there are so many different types of literature within the Bible, by more than likely 100+ different authors, how is it that we can make sense of it all. How does the Orthodox Church integrate this into her life as Church, and how does it explain its beliefs to those outside the church?

The answers is: through study, exegesis and commentary of the Holy Fathers.

One of the main problems with Protestant Christianity* - and in my humble opinion that which keeps people away from the Faith - is that every individual member is allowed his or her own interpretation, and they are all equally correct. The Protestant can just say, well the Holy Spirit revealed to me that this piece of Scripture really means this or that. This is why you see more than 30k + denominations in America alone today; anyone who has a theological disagreement just makes their own church, instead of trying to resolve it with church leaders. This is also why you see ridiculously anti-Christian churches such as Westboro Baptist which uses Scripture for its own wicked political purposes. Most assuredly, you have all heard the famous quote of William Shakespeare in his masterpiece, The Merchant of Venice:

Even the devil can site scripture for his own purpose!
An evil soul producing holy witness is like
a villain with a smiling cheek.

This is also very evident in the Gospels, in which Satan quotes Scripture to tempt Christ.

The Holy Fathers: Who are they, and why should I care?

This is where the Holy Fathers come in. The Holy Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church are those people who have been recognized as leading lives so holy and virtuous as to have a certain type of 'authority' within the church of spiritual matters. Since their beliefs are also Orthodox, they are considered to be chief among those whom we should trust in terms of doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. These are not just random people who picked up a pen and decided to write down their thoughts about Christianity, rather they 'put their money where their mouth is', most dying horrible deaths for their defense of Christianity against those who would like to see it destroyed. Some of the Holy Fathers that the Armenian Church recognizes and who have extent works are St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Anthony of the Desert, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Narek, St. John of Lambron, St. Gregory of Tatev, just to name a few.

These Fathers lived anywhere from 200-500AD, with the exception of the last three who came later at around 800-1400AD. It is important to understand that the magnitude of work and the holiness of life that these men (and women) lived was so great, that the Church (at this time, it was one Church) recognized them as having authority - i.e. when they speak you should listen. Although those who are not familiar with the history of Christianity may not know most or even any of these names, people like St. John Chrysostom were basically the most educated scholars of their time. Chrysostom himself should really be compared to the stature of modern day academicians such as Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, etc. (although in fame only, not in belief!); you could even go so far as to say that they were the day's celebrities (although today that carries a lot of baggage as a term, so I use it catiously). Chrysostom himself studied at some of the best Lycees of the Greek world, studying science, geometry, music, literature, history and above all, rhetoric - he asserts that all of these subjects should be implemented by Christian theologians, in order to better inform ourselves of the world around us. It is no wonder why they are so greatly admired by the Church.

What do the Fathers have to say about the historicity of the Bible?

The Fathers are not your modern day Christians, who rely on the doctrine of sola scriptura** to define their beliefs. Rather, they know that Genesis was never intended to be a history book, and that it wasn't even important to the Faith as a whole. From the earliest times, Genesis was regarded as a book explaining God's relationship to man (See St. Augustine's exegesis on Genesis). Genesis was never understood to be literally 100% true down to the last detail, as should be apparent to anyone who reads the first two chapters (two Creation stories)! The Holy Fathers recognized that the Pentateuch was oral tradition that was at one point written down by xxxs nearly 3500 years ago, so it should not be read in the same fashion as say the Pauline Epistles.

In conclusion, the Orthodox Church (and the Church from the beginning) has never worried about whether certain facts do not 'add up'. As Fr. Thomas Hopko always says, 'the Bible is not a Koran'. The Church does not care that there is a difference in accounts between the Synoptic Gospels and the Johannine Gospel. These "trifles" (as Chrysostom called them), have absolutely nothing to do with the validation or refutation of Christ, His Truth, and His Church. The Church is validated by the very fact of its existence. This is something that I can write about later to those that are interested, but now is perhaps not the time nor place for it.

I encourage everyone to examine these ideas with an open mind and open heart. If you want to believe that it is not true, that is up to; I am only expressing my interpretation of what the Armenian Church believes at the core. Do not come to the Armenian Church with an American Christian disposition/prejudices, you are doing yourself a disservice and are in fact being highly un-academic. There is a wealth of knowledge out there if you are just willing to tap into it.

If you want to believe that God exists, but rationally cannot bring yourself to believe, I encourage you to in a sense "pray" for guidance. Pray "to whom it may concern" and ask them to show you if they are real or not - if you keep your heart and mind open, you might be surprised at what you find.

I want to end with a prayer.

Իմաստութիւն Հօր Յիսուս, տո'ւր մեզ իմաստութիւն,
զբարիս խորհել եւ խօսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ:
Եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց, փրկեա' զմեզ, ամէն:

Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom,
to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times.
And save us from evil thoughts, words and deeds, amen.

May you all be blessed on your spiritual walks.

Additional Information: I encourage all of those who are interested in this topic (believing and non-believing alike) to listen to the following podcast by world-renowned Biblical and Patristics scholar Dr. Constantinou. This lecture is fully in line with what the Orthodox Church beleives. It might prove to be very enlightening, regardless of what you believe at the end of it:

Introduction to the Bible, Lesson 2: Inspiration and Inerrancy

Another interesting interview is that between Dr. Constantinou and Fr. Vahan Hovhanessian at the Society of Biblical Literature in 2010, here Father explains the position of the Armenian Church:

Society of Biblical Literature: Part 1 (with Fr. Vahan Hovhanessian)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I use Protestant Christianity as an example, only because it is the most prevalent and widespread theological system in America today. Most of what the 'un-churched' think Christianity believes is influenced by this form of Christianity.

**Sola Scriptura is a new theological doctrine accepted by most mainline Protestant denominations that the Holy Bible (sans what they call the "Apocrypha" and what the Armenian Church accepts as Scripture) is directly divinely inspired, free from human error. This creates many theological problems which the traditional churches (Catholic/Orthodox) do not have.

Okay, read it. Well-written btw. Thank you for the clarity and thoughtfulness of the post (if not for the brevity! *tickle* ).

So, the Armenian church deals with this easily because they're not biblical literalists, basically.
What do they do with the really ugly (violent, antitolerance, anti-woman, etc.) passages though? Just recognize them as products of the times in which these works were written? Can't they just be edited out in an official Armenian Apostolic version? :-/