I am a little different than most, I think. I actually crave criticism. It is one of the few ways I can learn new things. I absolutely love it when I confront new information that totally "rocks me off my beam."
So have back at me anytime. I always win by losing so you have no fear of upsetting me. But I do insist on the same rules of historical methodology that every other researcher appeals to.
There is a foundational difference between men critiquing scripture and those wishing it to critique and change them. The very foundation of biblical interpretation is in incredibly stark contrast at that point.
One is man-centered and wrested. The other may be, but seeks the opposite.
But I am a pretty hard taskmaster. When it comes to religion, I tend to follow the hermeneutic of first, reading what is there. Second, finding out with a lot of study and research what the verse or passage meant to its original authors and readers (or listeners) and third (and most important) figuring out a way to let that information resonate with me navigating modern life as we know it.
The problem is conjecture. For instance, higher critics deemed that Jonah wasn't in the fish and that the story is figurative. The problem: NOTHING in the text allows for that. Nothing. Whoever came up with that idea first, did not, in fact, follow the hermeneutic you listed above. He went off on a fantasy ride and printed it as if it were gospel and I've seen you, a few times on here, offer similar fanciful offerings that go blatantly against the above hermeneutic which I indeed to applaud and embrace myself. The problem was they left the text way Way WAY before they should have been done wrestling with it. The answer to that story is likely that Jonah died. Jesus said "as Jonah" was in the fish, He'd be dead for 3 days also.
Therefore, a 'scholarly' attempt wasn't very scholastic after all and sent the liberal world spinning erroneously for want of real and clear Bible study methods.
I use what I call "common sense" which usually means for me to discount supernatural events, the more ostentatious miracles of Jesus. And I do not take the sacred, symbolic and metaphoric language of the Bible as literal truth.
It "isn't." It is common but it isn't sense. I've seen the miraculous. I don't want to get into it, but if God is God, man must not then dictate what must be. God gets that place. Why? Because "We" become God if God cannot be supernatural. We become the dictators of the mind of God. Granted we do not see many supernatural events but they are NOT metaphors. That is liberal and isolated thinking and is blatantly wrong.
It was because of doubt and rationalization that Jesus couldn't do miracles, real ones, in His own home area. IOW, you have fulfilled a self-fulfilling prophecy and will never see one (can't, you made sure of that).
The ancient writers of the first century--in my opinion--did not tell literal stories and we are now so smart enough that we take them symbolically. Not quite. They actually told profoundly symbolic stories and--since the Enlightenment--we are now dumb enough to take them literally.
:nono: Again, Jesus couldn't do miracles in His own home because the agnostics wouldn't allow it. Remember the story of Lazarus? Abraham told the rich ruler that even if one sent from the dead came to them they wouldn't believe. I have a relative who had a dream: Jesus came to him and asked him why he should get to heaven. The relative was greatly shaken but did nothing with this though he was greatly shaken. As with this man, we will EITHER dismiss this dream or accept it as a sign/dream from God. What will make the difference? I assert you and I will make the difference. Belief or denial. It depends upon who we are. Scripture says spiritual men see what is spiritual and 'rational' men will see what is rational. I'm using rational here, but I'm not certain it 'is' rational. In fact, I'm certain it is not because they are denying the very thing that exists! I
I think you are right as criticizing some biblical scholarship as "rationalizing." In biblical criticism, we can easily get into the weeds of fundamentalism if we read the text rationally or logically.
Those ways of dealing with reality have proven pretty bankrupt at dealing with our global problems today. And, of course, religious or faith language is never logical OR rational.
I disagree, as noted above. What is 'rational' is that we believe what our eyes are saying to us, even if it seems impossible. Sure, double-check, none of us want to be duped. I am ever perplexed that someone can believe God exists, as God who created everything, yet are stuck in a scientific 'finite' universe of what is possible and is not as if 'they' were the infinite ones OR that nothing but the finite can exist or work. I expect it of atheists, but it is unpalatable from one who believes in the existence of one who is Supernatural/apart from His creation in the first place. So, even though I have impetus, seeing some of these amazing works of God, I'd believe even if I hadn't simply because the logic of God's existence
demands it (as far as I'm able to discern).
It wouldn't be religious if it was.
In my opinion.
Thomas was given proof. Jesus only said those who didn't have it were blessed, He didn't say it was unavailable. There are scriptures that uphold faith that isn't seen and so I do too because the ones who don't are blessed especially for their tenacity, and I think an internal must-have love and drive for the Savior, but such does indeed believe all things, hope all things. Thomas, I think was satisfied, but may have lost a bit in that transaction that the other 11 retained. Their faith was internalized.
I liken it to some of my kids, some of them internalize values better than their siblings. I think their is a better blessing for internalizing what is true because it becomes more a part of them. It is a bit off the trail, but I'm saying it is both, not either or. I believe in miracles because I have seen them.
