主播大秀

OMG, do angels sneeze? What a thought. If they do, what other bodily functions do they perform? I'd better start looking up when I'm outdoors from now on. I see I may have more to worry about than birds and flying reindeer.

Angelology? No Comment

"re-presented"? So the gospels are made up ... that's a liberal theologian's way of saying "made-up", isn't it?

What about angels? just kids stories or are they real spiritual beings? What do you say, Dr hartley? When the angels appeared to the shepherds, were the shepherds drunk or did they really see angels?

Comments already! Thank you.
Of course I'm not saying the gospels are 'made-up', but we do have different accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke which are presented as a synthesis in most nativity plays without so much as a cursory nod. It's important to acknowledge the differences in the gospel accounts. As for angels, I'm not an expert by any means, but clearly something happened to the shepherds that made them aware of the profound reality that had taken place. The question should not be 'how' but 'why' did this happen?

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND BELIEVES IN ANGELS TODAY?

THE SHEPHERDS? THEY WEREN'T DRUNK. IT WAS JUST A GOODM STORY THAT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE EVENTS WITH THE PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATING THE DIVINE SIGNIFICANT OF JESUS.

THERE ARE MIRACLE STORIES ABOUT THE BIRTH OF MANY GREAT FIGURES IN THE ANCIENT WOPRLD,INCLUDING JULIUS CAESAR.

THEY ARE MADE UP. FICTION. MYTHS. STORIES. PARABLES, IF YOU PREFER.

IF I MET SOMEONE WHO BELIEVED IN ANGELS TODAY, I'D CONCLUDE THAT THEY WERE A BIT NUTTY.

Cop out, Helen-ann. Either the angels physically appeared or they didn't. What do you really think?

Helen-Ann wrote:

"Of course I'm not saying the gospels are 'made-up', but we do have different accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke which are presented as a synthesis in most nativity plays without so much as a cursory nod. It's important to acknowledge the differences in the gospel accounts."

Helen-Ann: I thought you were going to introduce some interesting perspectives on the different accounts of the metaphorical narratives surrounding the birth stories.

But when you left the 'Gospel of Matthew and the baby in the manger' for the 'Gospel of the Guardian and the bishop in the mercedes' you took me from from the Christmas Oratorio to Hip-hop.

Anyway, Happy Christmas to you and the poor fellow of recently lost memory. I'm not sure, however, that the attention you have drawn to him on this blog will make his Christmas season more joyous.

Cordially,
Michael

At 03:33 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Lynda Lea wrote:

"Cop out, Helen-ann. Either the angels physically appeared or they didn't."

Lynda: If I said that the birth stories are metaphorical narratives, as is Shakespeare's play "Hamlet", would you ask the same question of Shakespeare about the ghost?

First Helen-ann needs to address the question as to whether she believes the birth stories are historical or metaphorical narratives?

Helen-ann?

Regards,
Michael

At 03:33 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Lynda Lea wrote:

"Cop out, Helen-ann. Either the angels physically appeared or they didn't."

An additional thought - I am assuming that Helen-ann will agree that the narrative about the 'bishop in the mercedes' is an historical narrative.

But if we find that the bishop reported seeing angels at the Irish embassy we may have a problem ;-)

Michael

Michael -

No one is arguing that Shakespeare's ghost is real. but angels? many christians believe in the truth of angels.

What piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable!in action how like an angel!in aprehension how like a god!

Hamlet act 2 scene 2

Looking at that photograph those don't look like the gossamer wings of an angel to me, it looks more like a man in part of a chicken suit. I hope he isn't on LSD or he might just jump off that roof. That stuff sometimes makes them think they can fly you know.

Hello everyone.

This is a tricky topic because it means defining words like 'historical' and 'truth' and 'fact'. Are the birth narratives any more or less 'historical' than accounts of the 'bishop in the mercedes' (to quote the recent news story)? The authors of the Gospels are themselves shaping the story of Jesus for their own communities. The Gospels are not straight-forward accounts but rather attempts to tell the story of Jesus through organising groups of material that had been passed on about Jesus from eyewitnesses. This helps to explain the differences between the Gospel accounts (of course there are similarities too). So let's take Matthew's account of Jesus' birth for example. In presenting Jesus, Matthew links him with biblical narratives and themes which confirm Jesus as God's representative on earth (for example Moses), and thus the narrative is shaped with this in mind, alluding to events from the life of Moses and his role of God's dealings with the world.

As for 'copping out', either it happened or it didn't. I repeat what I said in my post, first century heares of this story would not have asked 'how' did this happen, but 'why'? Perhaps we should follow suit?

At 04:46 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen-Ann wrote:

鈥淭his is a tricky topic because it means defining words like 'historical' and 'truth' and 'fact'.鈥�

Helen-ann: Why is it a tricky topic? What is the problem with defining one鈥檚 terms? How else can we exchange ideas?

May I toss a few definitions at you?

Historical: Something that happened physically in the past.

Truth: That which is the same everywhere, for everyone, for eternity.

Fact: Something which can be proven by experiment.

I have used the story of the Boy who Cried Wolf in earlier discussions in these blogs so I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

Mythological narratives (a Marcus Borg term) refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature. An example is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call 鈥榳olf鈥� to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called 鈥榳olf鈥�, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried 鈥榳olf鈥� but the villagers didn鈥檛 come. Why? They no longer had 鈥榯rust鈥� in what he said.

We don鈥檛 know the 鈥榟istorical truth鈥� of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how 鈥榯rust鈥� can be lost by acting 'dishonestly'.

Therefore we should not speak of this story as being 鈥榝actually or historically鈥� true. That is not the 鈥榯ruth鈥� of the story. The 鈥榯ruth鈥� lies in what it says about 'trust' and 'honesty' and as an 'intrinsic truth' it is true for everyone, everywhere, and for all time. Historical research might someday learn that the little boy never existed 鈥� such a finding would change nothing with respect to the intrinsic truth.

And so my question to you is very direct: Do you consider the virgin birth, to be instrinsically (metaphorically) true or historically (factually) true? Do you consider that Jesus is the Son of God physically and not born of a sexual union between a man and a woman?

To continue you write: 鈥淎s for 'copping out', either it happened or it didn't. I repeat what I said in my post, first century hearers of this story would not have asked 'how' did this happen, but 'why'? Perhaps we should follow suit?

Helen-ann I most respectfully disagree. I think this is why we are losing so many young children to the Christian faith. Quoting Borg, we allowed our metaphorical narratives to become historicized and now we refuse to reexamine the reasons why we did this. We now leave our youth with the understanding that these narratives are factually/historically true and then wonder why they reject them.

Thank you for your participation in this blog.

Cordially,
Michael

Mr. Crawley, it seems to me you've had a falling out and it's time you had a heart to heart sitdown chat with the man in charge...of the prop department. That's the most miserable excuse for a photograph of an angel I've ever seen. I know budgets are tight right now but c'mon, things can't be that bad at 主播大秀. Now tell the truth, are those blurry white things actually prop department wings or furry white bathroom floor mats he's got glued to the back of his shirt? And the roof? Is that your office building? Stairway to Heaven? Watch out for that first step, it's a lulu!

A scene toward the end of the wonderful Ruchard Curtis movie Love Actually permits us to grin about the presence of squid, octopus, aliens and a few other kindergarten concotions at the scene of the nativity in much the way that Dr Hartley describes above.

But even a conservative nativity play bears little resemblance to reality. Think, for example, about the role of the Wise Men. Nativity plays routinely feature three kings coming on camels to visit the infant Jesus alongside shepherds and angels bringing a gift each. Firstly, the bible doesn't tell us how many of them there were. There could have been two, there could have been fifty. Second, we're not told that they were kings. They were more likely to have been simply prominent academics or something. Third, there is no indication of how they made their journey. Fourth, they probably weren't AT the nativity. Matthew states they came to a house, not a stable, and that they saw a young child, not a newborn baby. Jesus could have been five years old by the time they got there!

It seems to me that this approach to the nativity is actually, more or less, the evangelical approach to the whole bible. There is more reliance on anecdotal narrative than there is commitment to critical scholarship. Unfortunately, over time, that method will tell a story very differently than it otherwise may be understood.

Hello again.

Michael, thank you for your probing thoughts. I think that any amount of defining terms can lead us well off the topic. Our culture doesn't really do 'mystery' so much, we like things to be neatly boxed and defined. I'm quite happy with the idea of 'intrinsic truths', but again, what exactly is that? I don't agree with your final paragraph. I have regular contact with children and young people, taking assemblies regularly in my local primary school and running a youth service attended by 30 plus kids. On Sunday evening in fact we explored Advent and Christmas quite happily. We could go on at length with this debate but I felt I needed a post here; Borg shouldn't get the final word!

In post 16, Helen-Ann wrote:

"Hello again. Michael, thank you for your probing thoughts. I think that any amount of defining terms can lead us well off the topic. Our culture doesn't really do 'mystery' so much, we like things to be neatly boxed and defined."

Helen-ann: You are forcing me into Lynda Lea's court and her cop-out comment.

May I try again? How does the definition of terms between scholars lead us off topic?

The question I posed and the question Lynda Lea posed goes to your views about angels and the virgin birth in your capacity as an Oxford biblical scholar. To be up front about my own position, I support the view that our metaphorical narratives have become historicized (Borg's terminology). Do you disagree and if so why?

Again, you have puzzled me by saying "I'm quite happy with the idea of 'intrinsic truths', but again, what exactly is that".

In what way are you happy with it if you are unclear what it is exactly?

Was it not clear from 'The Boy who Called Wolf' story that there is an 'intrinsic truth' therein about trust and honesty?

You gave me an anectotal comment opposing my view that our youth is fleeing the church which was:

"I have regular contact with children and young people, taking assemblies regularly in my local primary school and running a youth service attended by 30 plus kids. On Sunday evening in fact we explored Advent and Christmas quite happily."

I'm sure you did have a happy discussion with the children - I will too in my own church - but my understanding is that churches in the UK are losing parishoners at the rate of one congregation per week. We certainly lose them as teenagers once they reject the historicized narratives.

If Borg is not to have the last word you might answer your own question posed at the beginning of this blog in which you wondered "Do Angels Sneeze". We have just had Professor Dawkins under discussion in this blog and I can assure you if your children asked him "Do Angels Sneeze" there would be no hesitancy in his answer.

Awaiting,
Michael

Hello again everyone.

Interesting discussion on the theme of Nativity plays on this morning's 'Today' programme (c. 8.30am, you can go to the website and listen again).

Also, I happened to meet the wife of one of my ordination students that I teach yesterday evening in the local supermarket. I was telling her about my blog posting and the comments that it was receiving and she pointed me to an excellent book by Gervase Phinn, 'A Wayne in a Manger' (Penguin, 2006). It was on the shelf next to where we were standing and so I bought a copy and it is to be highly recommended!

And again Michael, thank you for your comments. I think it is vital that we keep alive a sense of mystery and profoundness in the stories of Christ's life and the way in which those stories are crafted. I'm not a literalist by any means and nor would I wish the young people that I come into contact with to be. It's important to explore and ask questions and that indeed is what the Christmas stories invite us to do.

Quoting Michael Hull:

May I toss a few definitions at you?

Historical: Something that happened physically in the past.

Truth: That which is the same everywhere, for everyone, for eternity.

Fact: Something which can be proven by experiment.

This is a very 'modern' perspective, ignoring the relativity of the present day world - history is written by the winners... truth is relative to its own community... fact is a construct that can at best be partially proven by experiment... I'm not a card carrying post-modernist, but the world is much more subtle than these definitions allow!

Quoting again:

And so my question to you is very direct: Do you consider the virgin birth, to be instrinsically (metaphorically) true or historically (factually) true? Do you consider that Jesus is the Son of God physically and not born of a sexual union between a man and a woman?

The term 'Son of God physically' again surely misses the point - there is no such concept as Son of God physically - you have a physical, historical Jesus (hardly debated by any commentators now), and a fully divine Jesus as God (/Son of God) - able to inspire the early church and onwards - and articulated as divine in the infancy narratives...

Andrew Swift

To continue you write: 鈥淎s for 'copping out', either it happened or it didn't. I repeat what I said in my post, first century hearers of this story would not have asked 'how' did this happen, but 'why'? Perhaps we should follow suit?

I also love a 'Wayne in a manger', and having just got back from my youngest's child's nativity play (albeit at a C of E school), there is still a sense of wonder and excitement in little children at the mystery of the Christmas story.

Keeping them filled with this wonder and mystery as they get older, cynical and secular becomes harder - keeping me, aged 38, filled with this seems pretty impossible at times.

As for the mystery of the Bishop of Southwark - that is probably best left as a mystery, although he has plenty of enemies who would gladly find chinks in his armour. He takes a positive line on homosexuality, I gather, and that can be very threatening to some people/parts of the church. I watch with interest the developments...

In post 19 Andrew Swift wrote:

"Quoting Michael Hull:
Historical: Something that happened physically in the past.
Truth: That which is the same everywhere, for everyone, for eternity.
Fact: Something which can be proven by experiment.

This is a very 'modern' perspective, ignoring the relativity of the present day world - history is written by the winners... truth is relative to its own community... fact is a construct that can at best be partially proven by experiment... I'm not a card carrying post-modernist, but the world is much more subtle than these definitions allow!鈥�

Andrew:

Thank you for these thoughts.

I agree that much of 鈥榟istory鈥� is indeed written from the perspective of 鈥榯he winners鈥� as you phrased it. I learned this first hand when I first came to the USA where I discovered that the 鈥榬ebels鈥� in the American Revolutionary War were 鈥榩atriots鈥�. So what I would say is that the British 鈥榲ersion鈥� of the history of that war does indeed have differences with that of the American one. What I see in this example is that the British have one 鈥榦pinion鈥� about the war and the Americans have a different one. This is OK but I think we might agree that neither side possesses the truth as it is defined above.

Another way I would think about this is as follows. I see snow and groan 鈥� I think about shovelling the stuff and sliding all over the roads. Others see snow and become estatic 鈥� Skiing today! The truth is that 鈥榯here is snow鈥� but the worldviews about the snow are at opposite extremes. One side will write beautiful metaphorical poetry describing the beauty of snow while I will write a 鈥榙eath and destruction鈥� tome about it.

Now on the matter of the birth stories surrounding Jesus I am very happy to teach them as particular 鈥榳orldviews鈥� which is what I think Matthew and Luke were doing and for young children the simple stories are fine. But when I start working with teenagers I don鈥檛 what to use the words 鈥榟istorical truth鈥� because then I need also to talk about other 鈥榟istorical鈥� birth stories that were present in that time period in the Greco-Roman empire. They will learn about this history if they study philosophy but I believe that study should and can begin in the church.

May I add that I am not trying to put Helen-ann down with the directness of my questions or be in any way disrespectful but I think the Christian church needs to meet the needs of modern teenagers and answer their questions succinctly and directly. Then one can hopefully keep their interest to go into more subtle matters.

I understand from Helen-ann鈥檚 perspective that pastors need to be careful as they have a wide divergence of views among their congregations but biblical scholars have a little more leeway and just as Science progresses in its thinking and pushes new understanding down into schools and universities, I think that biblical scholarship should do the same thing through the churches.

Just as a final aside the phrase 鈥榗opping out鈥� was one that I quoted from another blogger in this thread. I understand the possible sensitivity of Helen-ann鈥檚 position and I can see from her latest response that I should not push her further.

I hope this helps in understanding my position. I would be happy to respond further if you require.

Cordially,
Michael

John

That is quite a rocky straw man you are setting up for yourself to knock down ref the nativity.

Are you really suggesting that such nativity plays are scripted by serious bible students?

Where do you really get your concerns about reading the bible as it plainly is as opposed to interpreting it?

What percentage of the time, would you estimate, that the bible actually means what it says, without the need for anything in the way of interpretation?

10%?
30%?
60%?
90%?

Do you use or recommend a recognised system to interpret it or do you just use your own personal ad hoc method?

PB

PB- What percentage of the time does the bible not need interpreted?

0%.

John - neatly avoiding the question there!

Books like revelation, song of songs, psalms, ecclesiastes, and some of the prophetic books clearly use codes, symbols and metaphors very often.

Other books are mainly historical records and should be read primarily as such.

The New Testament epistles are written to encourage and correct; it would rather defeat the purpose of them if they did not mean primariliy what they said.

I will stick my finger in the air and say about 80% can be read fairly literally on this basis, but that is just for the sake of debate and not strictly accurate.

The main qualification I would say is that no teaching can be taken from a verse out of context; all teaching must be balanced against everything else in scripture. so for example you cant build a doctrine on one proof verse.

But if you take teachings such as inspiration of scriptures, divinity of Christ, my understanding is that you reject the plain reading of them all.

My problem is that your interpretations seem pretty much like sexular humanism/liberalism.

So how can I believe that you arrived at them through careful scholarly bible study and not just from adopting a totally differnt worldview in one fell swoop, which is how it appears.

Will you now answer post 22?

cheers
PB

PB- If you have no problem with accepting that books of the bible are of different genres, why is Genesis incapable of being read other than literally?

REF: POST #25

How do you read a history book? read Genesis in the same manner, that will fill in the big black man made holes in your dodgy theology.

Billy- You've yet to prove that Genesis One is historical. Not many books that mention talking snakes are, Billy. Saying that it is does not make it so, just as calling my theology 'dodgy' on a 主播大秀 blog does not make that so. Why don't you make an actual argument?

John

You are making me do all the work here and I think you have a bit of catching up to do with outstanding questions. Come on John, fairs fair, I am putting effort in here!!!

I have no problems with you reading Genesis as myth, I personally dont see it that way.

I have already discused this at length with you in another entry, can you answer some questions now?

I will never convince anyone with a closed mind, but here are a few thoughts;

1) I think the beginning of books correspond fairly well to the endings. Revelation uses symbol, but it gives us the term Armageddon about the final battle with Christ intervening and a new heaven and a new earth. Is it so hard to see the final battle being in the middle east with Jews involved? If Revelation is incredible and non-scientific I am quite happy for Genesis to be also. It also speaks of restoration of the tree of life from Eden etc.

2) Why would God not have described evolution in the bible if it happened? There would have been nothing intrinsically evil about it if it were true.

3) I think the main objection to literal readings of Genesis is by people who dont want God to be really in your face real.
All the rest of the book is historical record and the geneologies go right back to Adam, step by step. So why baulk at creation?

4) Paul in the New Testament speaks of a literal Adam.

5) It seems every culture from earliest times had creation stories incredibly similar to Genesis. If evolution were true then you would not expect so much agreement. Surely some of the cultures would have had radically different explanations for their orgins?

6) Secual geography and history agree with creationism that civilisation originated roughly where Eden would have been [cradle of civilation] within the last 10,000 years. Why wasnt the cradle of civilsation in Europe, Australia or America or Chine or Russia?

Your turn;-

a) What percentage of the bible can be read literally?

b) What do you believe is the Good News/Gospel/Evangel of the New Testament?

c) What actual and specific reasons do you have for believing that genesis was not meant to be read literally? dont skimp here!

John, you owe me some copy, so would appreciate answers to a,b and c please.

Cheers
PB

Why would God place the mythical figures of Adam & Eve (The unbeliever鈥檚 idea) of Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them, into a literal place present day 鈥業RAQ鈥�? The rivers Euphrates & Tigris are actual rivers Gen 2:14 and the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth rivers are the Euphrates. Or are these actual rivers figments of the evolutionary imagination, what does this say to the sincere Bible reader, mythical or literal interpretation of GENESIS, history or myth, fairytale or truth. Perhaps the evolutionist can also do away with the geography of the Bible the same way they use their atheistic imagination to theorize away Biblical history and sin. It doesn鈥檛 make sense to place imaginary figures into a literal place.

oh yes John

Why are you ridiculing talking snakes?

Didnt we have this discussion before and you conceded that you have a number of beliefs that cannot be proven scientifically, one of which is the existence of God?

If God exists, when you stop and thinkg about it, why wouldnt Lucifer be able to take on the form of a snake?

Paul says in the NT he can even appear as an Angel of light.

PB