Re: spong's bad assumptions and virgin births - for jim

Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 12:02:35 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Jim: All truth is God's truth"

    In a message dated 1/6/03 8:51:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

    > Imagine you witness some events today, would you testify to what you
    > witnessed with some particular philosophical worldview in mind or just
    > state the facts as you experienced them? It seems to me that what is
    > being really questioned is whether the Gospel represent historical facts or
    > fiction. Moorad

    I understand Norman Podhoretz in one of the neocon publications has just
    written an article 'proving' that the prophecies in Isaiah do not refer to
    Jesus Christ. I haven't read the article but I bring it up to respond to your
    concern. Biblical authors always tried to fit current events as they happened
    into their frame of reference. They always had their particular philosophical
    worldview in mind when interpreting events and they always wanted to know if
    a certain occurrence was 'prefigured.' What I get out of the OT should be
    received by me in the way that the material was put in to the OT. If Biblical
    authors chose allegory rather than straight facts that could be understood at
    face value, then you MUST interpret the OT from their perspective, which is
    not fiction as in 'made up words' but truth deliberately framed in allegory
    for reasons that must be understood the way the framers of the allegories
    understood them, not the way an individualist reading the OT in the 21st
    century chooses to understand them. The greatest Jewish minds studying the
    pentateuch (Maimonides, gershom scholem for example) say there is profound
    allegorical meaning woven into the OT. Allegory can refer to historical
    facts, but you've got to interpret them first.
    The OT is not fiction. I never said that. I never will.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 00:32:08 EST