Hello,
Generally, I think (perhaps wrongfully) that these debates are not "fruitful". :-) However, having ended a busy workweek with a WildTurkey and pineapple soda, I'm entertaining a little different mood. Hope I'm not stepping too far out of character. If so, please excuse.
Wasasister asked, and Farkel asked why no one answered:
Does not the legitimacy of Jesus Christ as the Son-of-God rely on the veracity of the Bible? If the Bible is not reliable, how can one put faith in the Messiah to whom it points? If the Bible is even occasionally in error, how do we believe what quotations are attributable to Jesus?
I can only answer for myself as a non-fundamentalist believer (and I think I'm in some pretty good company. :-).
I think most of these questions and discussions are directed at the absolute bible unscientific literalness that is espoused by fundamentalism, whether mainstream, orthodox, or bornagainism. Based on my personal study, I have a different perspective of the bible and scripture. In my opinion, it is immaterial whether every word of the bible, as an historical record of the Jewish people, is wholly literal, inspired, true, or whether it was a compiled written record of a people, by a people, written from the perspective of the writer(s), or whether much of it is analogical, any of which happened to have the purpose of an underlying spiritual truth from The Creator.
What historical record does not have error? Does that mean history has no value? Did George Washington chop down a cherry tree and then lie about it? Who cares? Does that story diminish the historical record about George Washington? (I guess that might depend on whether you are French or American. :-)
So to answer Wasasister's question from my perspective, the legitimacy of Jesus Christ does not rely on the veracity of a whole, entire, flawless, scribe-Catholic-compiled biblical record. Not imo. If we refused to believe anything that is even occasionally in error (e.g., newspapers, magaines, history books, science books, evolution books, the bible, etc. etc.) then we would be without anything to believe except our own personal observation of nature? Quite limited.
Wasa also asked:
And finally, did Jesus' own mother, who was the closest and most personal observer of his miraculous birth, believe from the beginning in his ministry? If not, why not?
How could anyone know that? According to John 2, indications are that she held some kind of faith in his exceptional abilities. However, as a point of speculation on the record, it seems that most of the Jewish people did not comprehend what his (and John the Baptist's) ministry was about, including his apostles while he was alive. Many were looking for a nationalistic messianic deliverer to resore the literal throne of David. (As a point to ponder in the biblical 'story', it occurs to me that Mary must have been chosen to be Jesus mother for the very reason that she was the finance of Joseph, because it is he who would have been the one in royal lineage from King David from whom Jesus would have been the heir to the throne in that culture. Just a thought.)
Many biblical scholars conclude that when crowds waved, and "Jesus wept", when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt shortly before he was executed, that the crowd was believing he had come to deliver Israel, expecting a literal messiah, and he wept because they did not comprehend.
To put it in perspective, most mothers don't fully understand their sons and their lives; so why should Jesus' mother be so different (unless you accept the religious pious perspective of everything in the bible record of course)? When I was in Israel about three years ago, our Jewish guide used the account of John 2 as an example of a typical Jewish mother, even though she was expecting something extraordinary. Something like: "Jesus, I ask a little favor. Never mind my pain giving you birth, just a little favor for your mother, make us some wine. Is it so much to ask, for youra mother . . ." :-)
In my opinion, if you're analytical, you'll never find a viable faith in in the fundamentalist literalist biblical perspective. I think the message is beyond religion. Nevertheless, religion does not prove nor disprove Christianity, nor does science, any more than history books prove or disprove history. But that is not to say you should have no faith in history books. The information is fascinating if you really dig for it. But may be my interest--not necessarily yours. The question is, how far should we judge? Not.
Jmo,
~Ros
