Board index ‹ Paul the Apostle

[Bad Monkey]

Paul makes a great deal out of Abraham's faith. We are to be saved by a similar faith, and not by works.

However, I don't think Abraham's type of faith validates what Paul claims, nor can modern Christians have the same sort of faith Abraham had. If we take all stories in Genesis about Abraham at face value, then he never had to worry about "having faith".

Our first real introduction to Abraham comes in Genesis 12. He immediately has God speak directly to him, promising him blessings and curses. As Abraham travels, God again speaks directly to him, telling him he will give Abraham and his decendants all of the land he can see. He is told this several times. God speaks to Abraham multiple times, giving clear direction and guidance. Abraham even gets to argue with God regarding the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Once Abraham seems to completely doubt God's promise. In Genesis 17:17, he laughs at God when got tells him that Sarah will have a child.

So we cannot possibly have the same kind of faith Abraham had. Why? Two reasons.

First, the method of communication. Abraham had a direct conduit to God, with specific instructions for what to do. We do not have this sort of revelation. We have a book that was written 2,000 years ago, and ratified by people 1600 years ago. Our faith is not directly to God, it is the intermediaries that have been used to communicate over the past thousands of years. Abraham had faith in his own sensory data and experiences. It is as different as one person having sustained, multiple visions of aliens and another reading about some group on the internet who claims to have seen aliens.

Second, the type of data we are expected to believe. We are asked to believe a certain historical event occurred 2,000 years. Abraham was asked to obey specific instructions, so that he would see certain benefits in his lifetime. He also had the benefit of witnessing a miracle (birth of Isaac). We do not have either sort of immediate reassurance, with our hope being in an impossible to verify life after death. This would be as different as a child believing they will get ice cream if they clean their room and another child believing they will have an invisible, never accessible bank account set up in their name if they acknowledge that the moon landing was a hoax.

These two together show that Abraham had a completely different faith experience than is even possible for us to experience, there for Paul is wrong to base salvation on Abraham's type of faith.

[jimwalton]

Good. Let's talk. I think you misunderstand the biblical concept of faith. Faith in the Bible is knowledge based on evidences. It's making an assumption of truth based on evidence that makes it reasonable to make that assumption. We call such knowledge "faith" when it pertains to the future.

When I sit in a chair I believe (faith) it will hold me. It's because I know about chairs, have sat in thousands of them, know about structure and stuff, so I sit in chairs believing it will hold me. I can't guarantee it because occasionally chairs break or collapse. But I sit down because I believe ("I know") it will hold me. I am making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable to hold that assumption.

The same is true whenever I turn a doorknob to walk through a doorway. I keep walking because I know (I believe) the doorknob will open the door. I turn the key in my car believing that the car will start because I have evidence that 99.99999% of the time it does. So I act in faith, knowing that when I turn the key my car will start.

Since the consequences of my actions are future, I can't truly say I KNOW the chair will hold me, that the doorknob will open the door, or the key will start the car. But I describe such things in terms of knowledge because the evidence and the odds are overwhelmingly positive. I live by faith. We all do.

Abraham had seen evidences of God, as you say. True. And those evidences prompted him to make further assumptions of truth based on enough evidences to make it reasonable to make that assumption. God speaks to Abe, and Abe acts with quite a bit of confidence about the future because of the evidences in his past.

Paul wants us to respond the same way. We have had evidences from not only the entire Old Testament, but the life and works of Jesus, including his resurrection. Based on these evidences, we can make an assumption of truth about the future with quite a bit of confidence—complete confidence, according to the Bible.

Abraham had direct communication with God, but so did Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and so many others. As far as biblical teaching, so did the apostles and Paul, because they had direct contact with Jesus, who is God.

Our faith is based on 1300 years of biblical evidence (Abraham's and Jesus and all those in between), plus the evidence from our own experience and the Holy Spirit inside us. Because the Holy Spirit is in us, our faith is also directly to God.

> We are asked to believe a certain historical event occurred 2,000 years.

We believe many historical events from millennia past. The time factor doesn't render their historicity invalid.

So I disagree with both your premise and your evidence. The faith Jesus and Paul ask of us is identical to the faith asked of Abraham.

Besides, Paul's point in particular is merely that just as Abraham's faith had nothing to do with the Mosaic law (since he predated it by 700 years), so also ours has nothing to do with the law. If Abraham could know God without the law, so also can we.

[Trickster]

I spent my childhood praying and never heard an answer. I am as certain that I won't get a revelation as you are that gravity will keep your butt in a chair. I went to communion and the wafer never tasted like flesh. Is that what 'atheism is also based on faith' means? That for some reason God has cut me off and all my experiences, my knowledge, my evidence, my reason leads me to the conclusion that there is no god, no angels, no devils, no spirits, nothing supernatural of any kind. My faith in my senses tells me that the bible is fiction, as it depicts fantastic miraculous things that have absolutely no real world equivalent.

[jimwalton]

Prayer isn't really about getting things. It's more about the relationship. When I talk to my friends it's not to get something out of them, but to be friends with them. Prayer is much more about being with God than it is getting stuff.

As far as revelations, I don't get them either. What I know about God I have learned from the Bible. It's more understanding than it is mystical.

My communion wafer tastes like bread, or cracker. I'm a Protestant, so we believe it's a symbol, not the actual flesh and blood.

> Is that what 'atheism is also based on faith' means?

No. I never said atheism is based on faith, though we all live by faith all day long, as I explained. I went to the store today, believing it was still there. I hadn't heard an explosion, there were no plumes of fire in the air, there had been no earthquakes, nor any notices on the smart phone of a store disappearing, so I made an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable to make that assumption, and I drove to the store. We all do this, religious and non-religious alike.

> That for some reason God has cut me off and all my experiences, my knowledge, my evidence

It's very possible that he hasn't cut you off at all, but that you had a collection of improper expectations.

[Mr. Bojangles]

> I think you misunderstand the biblical concept of faith. Faith in the Bible is knowledge based on evidences.

No it isn't. In fact, Jesus said that it is better to believe without evidence (John 20:29)

> Our faith is based on 1300 years of biblical evidence

What is "Biblical evidence?" The Bible cannot be evidence for itself. You only believe it because other people told you to. Nobody has ever actually believed based on evidence because there isn't any.

[jimwalton]

> No it isn't. In fact, Jesus said that it is better to believe without evidence (John 20:29)

Thank you for bringing this up so I can clarify. Jesus most assuredly did NOT say that it is better to believe without evidence (Jn. 20.29). What he said is "blessed are those who believe even though they haven't seen." First of all, there is no implication that not seeing is superior to seeing. He didn't even say that those who didn't see were *more* blessed. There are and will always be evidences of Jesus's resurrection. Sometimes we believe on evidences other than our own senses (such as the testimony of another, the research of another, a news article, etc.). This is no implication that those who haven't seen are experiencing a crippling dearth of evidence. Jesus knew that very soon he would be leaving the earth and people would have to make a decision based on the evidence of the testimony of reliable witnesses, the historical evidence of the resurrection, and the experiential evidence of changed lives. But it's true they would not get to see. Not everyone gets to see, but visible evidence isn't the only kind of evidence, or even the most convincing option. Even visible evidence can have its drawbacks, in case a particular event was a hallucination or a dream. There are lots of different kinds of evidence, but they are not necessarily based in the senses. That doesn't mean faith is blind. The people who believed in the resurrection of Jesus after he ascended were still making a decision based on evidence. It's always a matter of sufficiency of what an individual considers to be convincing evidence so that they can come to the most reasonable conclusion.

> What is "Biblical evidence?"

You know. It's like historical, geographical, cultural and archaeological corroboration with what the Bible says. It's the credibility and accuracy of the authors. It's the Bible's reflection of life and human nature when it talks about love, evil, betrayal, jealousy, pride, etc.

> You only believe it because other people told you to.

This is so far from the truth I hardly know where to begin.

> Nobody has ever actually believed based on evidence because there isn't any.

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence. As I said: historical, cultural, archaeological, geographical, psychological, philosophical, and experiential.

[Bad Monkey]

We don't have the same evidence they do. We have 2000 years separating us and them, and tons of distortions people between then and now have applied. We also have to accept that each link in that 2000 year chain was good, or else the epustemelogical chain is broken. If, for example, the individuals who chose the books we accept were wrong, we are wrong. We are not accepting simple historical facts. We accept that certain Roman emperors existed while denying their claims to divinity.

If Paul wants us to respond the same way that Abraham, Moses, etc. responded, I can agree to that. If God appears and gives me clear, direct commands, I'll follow.

[jimwalton]

> We don't have the same evidence they do. We have 2000 years separating us and them, and tons of distortions people between then and now have applied.

This is not true. The documents we study are from as early as the 2nd century, and hardly anything later than the 4th century. After that, as you say, there's too much chance of distortion. That's why we study the early manuscripts and fragments.

[Mr. Bojangles]

> Thank you for bringing this up so I can clarify. Jesus most assuredly did NOT say that it is better to believe without evidence (Jn. 20.29). What he said is "blessed are those who believe even though they haven't seen." First of all, there is no implication that not seeing is superior to seeing.

Yes there is. That's the whole point. Otherwise there's no reason to say it, and the author has to say that because he knows the audience he's talking to has to believe without seeing.

> There are and will always be evidences of Jesus's resurrection.

Name one.

> Jesus knew that very soon he would be leaving the earth and people would have to make a decision based on the evidence of the testimony of reliable witnesses

There is no testimony from witnesses. The person who wrote this was not a witness and didn't know any witnesses. GJohn was written about 70 years after the crucifixion. The witnesses were gone. The community which produced this Gospel knew that, so they had to argue that belief without evidence was more "blessed" than just knowing something because you saw it. There is still no evidence and never has been. You keep saying there, but you haven't actually named any examples.

> You know. It's like historical, geographical, cultural and archaeological corroboration with what the Bible says. It's the credibility and accuracy of the authors. It's the Bible's reflection of life and human nature when it talks about love, evil, betrayal, jealousy, pride, etc.

In that case, the Bible is f***ed. The Bible is filled with errors, demonstrable falsehoods and contradictions. The Gospels are riddled with legal, geographical and historical errors, demonstrably fictive constructions and many irreconcilable contradictions. The post-resurrection stories alone are hopelessly contradictory and contradictory in significant ways.

> This is so far from the truth I hardly know where to begin.

What actual evidence do you have? How do you explain the Bible's endless errors, fictions and contradictions?

> There are MOUNTAINS of evidence.

Name one example.

[jimwalton]

> Yes there is. That's the whole point.

You've missed the whole point, then, and not paid attention to the language. His point was that seeing wasn't necessary for belief, not that evidence wasn't necessary. His point was that for millennia people would not have the benefit of seeing for evidence, but they would have the benefit of other evidences.

> "evidences of Jesus's resurrection" ... Name one.

We know the tomb was empty, or the belief would not have begun. We know the stone was rolled away, or they wouldn't know the tomb was empty. We know they looked in the tomb, or the belief would not have begun. We know they wrote about what they saw and didn't see, and that their lives were changed based on their observations.

> There is no testimony from witnesses.

Of course there are. Peter, John, and others.

> The person who wrote this was not a witness and didn't know any witnesses.

Some people believe that the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses, but the evidence is strongly in favor of the traditional authors.

> John was written about 70 years after the crucifixion.

This is true. But that's like saying we can't get any reliable information about WWII or the Korean War because it was 70 years ago. Of course we can. There are even a few WWI vets around, but we've had plenty through the years. Remember, Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written earlier.

> The witnesses were gone.

This is simply untrue. No one argues that all the gospels were written after AD 100.

> The Bible is filled with errors, demonstrable falsehoods and contradictions...

I couldn't disagree more. We can talk about this as you wish.

> Name one example.

King Hezekiah. We have his royal seal. His tunnel has been found. He is on other archaeological artifacts. He is established as a historical reality.