Correct. You are not required to believe Noah existed as an historical person in order to honestly call yourself a Christian - a believer in the religion of Christianity, which includes a vast spectrum of belief.
One can believe the story of Noah has historical content for many reasons, no matter how liberal or conservative one may be. It helps in several very important theological issues. I gave three such reasons above. Most importantly, fully embracing science doesn’t require dismissing Biblical stories such as this as fiction with a moral.
It would be better to try and understand what the account is supposed to convey to the people it was originally written for. That involves accepting what they understood about both the whole world and God’s ability to manipulate or even destroy it. IOW it’s no use saying that there is not enough water on the earth to completely flood it because that information just wasn’t available when the account was written.Nor are we certain exaclty what the writer knew about the extent of the earth beyond what we now term The Middle East.
Claiming this as a parable is putting a new interpretation on it rather than trying to understand what the writer intended. Admittedly reinterpreting scripture is part and parcel of faith, but we at least have to admit when it is being done. (IMHO)
In my experience I think most people who accept the account literally dismiss the theological issues you mentioned as anthropomorphic in the text. So I find the opposite to be true. I wrote this elsewhere:
We know the content stems from multiple authors and if we accept that there are two versions of creation and the great flood, differences emerge. Genesis 1 presents the God of classical theism. All powerful, in charge, knows what is going on and appears in control. But the God depicted in Genesis 2-3 and parts of the flood is very different. God parades all the animals before Adam only to realize a suitable partner for him is not to be found. He needs to ask where a hiding Adam is and after realizing what has happened, shows newfound concern he might eat of the tree of life and has him banished from the Garden. In the flood account, luckily enough, the omniscient and omnipotent looking deity of Genesis 1 “remembers Noah” (this is a pivotal verse!) and doesn’t really seem to have fully thought things through or understand his creation. He gets upset at human wickedness and after undoing creation and destroying most of humanity with a flood, seems to regret his decision at the end as he oddly vows to never repeat such actions again. Did he do something wrong–did guilt or regret compel this promise? Or if His actions were just and proper, as the Lord of all the earth’s actions should be, is he now refusing to do what is just and proper in the future because of this? Even more strange is if we look at what the text says causes God’s change of heart: the pleasing odor of roasting animal flesh.
This image of God is a little different than the one on Genesis 1. I find that most literalists, influenced by Greek philosophy and other Biblical texts, ignore the part where God “learns” and even “grows” a bit with humanity. Maybe even makes mistakes and regrets creating us and regret the flood. Christians have trouble admitting the latter but if we want to take the “theology” of the flood narrative seriously, it is right there. Is this just an anthropomorphic vision of God where he didn’t have things all figured out or does it tell us something deeper? But again, those who take Noah literally are the ones most prone to dismiss this image of God and gloss over the more “primitive conceptions of God” as anthropomorphism.
Was Noah historical is not the proper question to me. Others with narrower views of scripture (mine is quite broad) might think it’s important. Some also think taking the days of Genesis as 24 hour period is quite essential to faith. I have no interest in placating these types of believers. What does this story tell me about God and my relationship to him? That is the only question that matters to me when reading the Bible. None (or extremely few) of the authors were historians or interested in telling history as we understand it. Taking the details of scripture literally, details never meant to be taken literally, is a constraint on theology that can smother it a times. In fact, I am willing to bet the majority of Christians will push back and claim this image where God learns, grows, isn’t sure of things and maybe makes mistakes isn’t even in the text. Greek philosophy and 2,000 years of Christian tradition won’t allow it. It is the literal, wooden view of scripture that denies what the text plainly narrates.
I may think something the text plainly narrates did not happen but I won’t deny the text plainly narrates something because I don’t want it to. That is delusion and living in a fantasy realm.
History done by historians is largely about evidence for what happened. And this can distort our picture of what actually happened nearly as much as the stories we tell and remember (from the ubiquitous problem inherent in human perception). Evidence is somewhat rare and thus the picture based on evidence misses a great deal, and then there is our perception of what the evidence means which adds further distortions. Of course this is unavoidable. My response is to oppose any pretense to objectivity in such matters.
In June of 1960, the Sampson family moved to Hawthorne Nevada, and we Lutheran preacher’s kids immediately began attending Sunday School/
Having been sorted into “age-appropriate” classes, I and my two brothers were sent to the venerable Mrs. Margaret Hilke’s class for 11+ year olds.
To this day, I still remember Mrs. Hilke’s “definition” of a parable and have used it since she first gave it to us. “A parable,” she said, “is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.” That definition allows any sufficiently astute and intelligent human or divine being “to tell a parable.”
Given that definition, I reason that ‘a parable’ is not a factually accurate story but properly told, it has an instructional meaning.
Anyone "hung up on a definition of “parable” that requires Jesus to be the “origin” of the parable will probably be clueless and confused by my suggestion that the story of Noah and the Flood in the Bible might be a parable.
In other words you make Judas the real sacrifice for our salvation. Jesus gave what? A life which was returned to Him? By God’s manipulation and planning, everything was taken from Judas for all eternity so that we would be saved.
Do I believe this nonsense? No. Human sacrifice does not have any magical power and God needs no magical power to make Him forgive anybody. Jesus was murdered by human beings according to the demands of human beings and not by some plan of God to fulfill some demand of God. Jesus’ death is just one of the many tragedies in life which God did not cause, but which God will nevertheless use for something good.
It may not have been Jesus’ first and best choice, but Jesus was willing to give His life for our salvation, drinking the cup of Socrates. But the aim was not some divine magic, but a transformation of our understanding of and relationship with God. So for those who repent, God would have the role of guide and adviser which He started with Adam.
Good. You shouldn’t. Your italicized there just makes God bound in time, and I may have said this before, he’s not. Why you continually try to so limit him and misrepresent what I say, I don’t know.
Manipulation takes time. Planning takes time. Neither apply to our God who is free from any constraints of time.
Confess and celebrate the wonderful mystery of his dynamic relationship with those of us who are constrained in sequential time.
“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer
Wow! Do you realise this is literally what 99.99% of Christians believe? That it was God’s plan, I mean.
So what do you think would have happened if Jesus was never crucified?
If it was just “accident” then why so much of Christianity revolves around crucifixion??
And don’t take this post as an attack - I don’t like the idea of “blood sacrifice” either.
Yes, well, if that wasn’t “in the plan” but rather just a result of Jesus being seen as threat by some…then I can’t see how that’s “lying down His life”.
If someone gets executed, because of conspiracy against them, who did they laid their life for?
I’m not studied on the different takes. Penal substitution is of course maybe the historically big one.
I would be glad for someone who is conversant on the the several to give us some help. I bet @St.Roymond could, as opposed to an opinionated personal version that someone might have come up with on their own and we might expect from some, but might educate us on the history of different interpretations of how our redemption works?
He would have continued teaching. We still had SO much to learn. He prayed for this in the garden. But it required disciples who would at least stay awake for Him.
Accident? No. It was murder. And even if God didn’t arrange this to happen, it wasn’t a big surprise either – remember how Jesus said it was the long habit of Israel to kill those God sent to them… As His ministry progressed it became more and more the likely outcome, and clearly Jesus prepared for it.
Because it is what happened – how Christianity began. It is just vanity that Christians try to make it the center of God and the universe. It is like the way so many turn “man made in God’s image” around to make God in their own image.
Never!!! I am well aware of many many likes from you.
He makes it pretty clear He could have stopped it if He wasn’t willing. He just had to back down… same as Socrates.
Hebrews 12:2 is not vanity and yeah, reality does pretty much revolve around God and his desires. It was not ‘just murder’ or ‘just what happened’.
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2