While warning about worldview bias this blogger (jlgragg) seems to displays it in PEOPLES, PLACES, AND PATTERNS: LIFTING THE VEIL OFF THE PATRIARCHAL PERIOD:
In addition, everyone has a worldview—everyone. We are all bias toward whatever viewpoint we hold and have to constantly fight against it if we truly want to follow where the evidence leads. . . .
Furthermore, another reason I think we don’t have more evidence, or that God hasn’t given us more, is that we would probably worship it! Just look at what we have done with the Shroud of Turin. Some folks within Christendom actually worship this piece of cloth that possibly was used to wrap Jesus up after the crucifixion. As valuable as I believe it is, and interesting, we should never prop up a material item…we should always worship the real thing.
Although I agree with most of his posts’ points, I think he’s misinterpreted reverence for worship when it comes to the Shroud. He asks a good question as to why people can so easily refute scriptural writings, especially when if one is learned would realize there is more evidence to scriptures being ‘historical’ then most other ancient writings in history.
Worshiping the Shroud… Humm. I think many “agenda driven” people in the Shroud World who want us to believe the Shroud offer some kind of a physical proof of the resurrection would loved if that could happen more often. One thing is certain : by acting like that, they favored the development of this kind of heresy. Yes, I call it an heresy because God don’t want us to worship any material object but to develop a loving and true relationship with him instead ! Remember the gospel of John ? “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” The Shroud of Turin doesn’t fit into that category of a true worshiping.
And for what Ron said about the scriptures being “historical”, I agree to a certain point. It’s true that a lot of parts of the bible contains real historical facts and events but it’s also true that many other part (like Genesis or the book of Revelation, for example) are more like parabols or legends used to tell a truth. With the contribution of many modern biblical scholars like Raymond Brown and many others, it is also evident that even some parts of the gospels are not totally historic. I don’t think I make a mistake here by saying that some stories or teaching of Jesus were rearranged by the writers to “fit” their theological belief or to “fit” the kind of teaching they wanted to proclaim to their community. Sometimes, those rearrangements were also influenced by the polemical context of the time in which they were written (it is particularly true for the gospel of Matthew). This is why it’s not easy to read the bible because we cannot take anything for granted like if everything was totally historic and true. Knowing the context in which those books were published help a lot to understand what have more chance to be historic and true, and what have more chance to be a personal addition from the writer of the book or what has to be considered a legend or a parabol and not an historic account. Sometimes, it’s not an easy task.
Comments are closed.