A better question would be how is the Bible like ancient pagan religions? It's not. That is why within a period of about 350-years after Jesus' incarnation and resurrection, the polytheistic Greek, Roman, Syrian, and Egyptian religions and pantheons were largely shelved in favor of Christianity. The Christian expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean was nothing less than remarkable. Even Bart Ehrman would agree on this. Scripture covers soteriological, eschatological, and theological matters (particularly the covenant relationship between man and God) in a manner totally absent in pagan myth. Pagan myths tell us about pagan gods. Christianity tells us about who we are in Christ (God)...it's really quite different.
I can understand that, but I had to approach the interview with questions from the book, which primarily dealt with the OT. Maybe in another interview, we'll see.
It's a great book, and glad you got something out of the video. If you think of it, share it with others. And if you think of any subjects you want us to tackle, then just let us know.
We try hard to present facts in a non threatening way and provide the truth so that they may hear it in a reasonable and relevant manner. Thanks for watching.
Oswalt apparently is unaware of the pagan philosophy of Neo-Platonicism which asserts that there is only one divinity that is transcendent. Augustine of Hippo confronted by this field of thought rejected a literal reading of the Bible and held it must be understood in the same way as the god of the pagan philosophers. By Augustine's thinking, one must reject YHWH walking in the garden and making clothes for Adam and Eve, because that would mean he doesn't transcend the physical reality. One must reject the Book of Exodus as mere analogy when it has YHWH use his hand to put Moses in the cleft of the rock and walk past him with his hand over Moses' eyes, lifting it so that he can see His back - because that would have him not be transcendent. One must do the same every time YHWH is filled with wrath or other emotions because that would make him subject to time and not transcendent.
I serious doubt that Oswalt is unaware of the tenants of Neo-Platonicism. I'm more inclined to believe that you have a superficial understanding of Augustine. But to address a major flaw in your assertion. To be "transcendent" does mean that God can't engage within our sphere of existence, or that descriptions of His involvement are "perfect" explanations of his interactions with us. How God reveals Himself to us is inherently an act of grace on his part. And to be clear, the infinite uncreated God most certainly engages within our experience. That is what is marvelous about the incarnation of God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. To be transcendent means that God is not constrained by our reality, that he is inherently greater than the reality of our dimension. Nonetheless, the personal God of all that is created cares enough to oversee our world and is seeking to draw us all to Himself. Augustine certainly believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that his death and resurrection is the atoning sacrifice for sin. Thanks for watching and merry Christmas.
@@askabibleprof7099 The very definition of a transcendent being is one that does not enter the temporal realm. If YHWH enters time He changes and any change from perfection is imperfection. There would be the period before He entered time and knew He had yet to do so, the period when He moved into time and not only ceased to be timeless but also knew He entered time, and the period afterward when He knew He had changed from timelessness to temporal. We could then ask which condition was He superior in, the one before or after He changed and entered time? By this then, one cannot say that YHWH engages with time & human experience, rather humans attune themselves to His will. They change not Him. His providence is fixed from before eternity. If He is sovereign and omnipotent, He does not "seek" to draw people to Himself, He cannot fail to do whatever He wills. Augustine held that Jesus and YHWH were utterly separate persons. To maintain monotheism, Augustine put aside the Bible and plagiarized Pagan philosophical terms to say that there was only one divine "essence." Three "persons" in one "essence". In all cases, the person of YHWH never enters time. The Bible doesn't support a pagan transcendent God, it has YHWH walking in Eden and making clothes for fallen humanity. It does not use pagan terms and categories like "essence", "persons", and "natures". Paul warns against pagan philosophy, Augustine ignored that.
@@wowaconia Regrettably, we must agree to disagree. Your view of transcendence is flawed by its definition. The God of the Bible does not define "transcendence" as you have, and that it the point. Moreover, Paul explained that Jesus allowed some divine attributes to be "muted" (Phil 2.6-11). The biggest problem with your appeal to Augustine is that you approach him as if he was "monolithic," in other words you apparently fail to differentiate between young Augustine, middle Augustine, and late Augustine. Nevertheless, suggesting that Augustine didn't affirm the biblical view of a transcendent God and Jesus as God incarnate reveals that you have a limited understanding of Augustine. Moreover, the reality is that Augustine wasn't correct in all that he affirmed and wrote. His writings are massive, so unless you have read all that he wrote on the subject (which is apparent that you have not), then I would refrain from suggesting that you have a comprehensive understand of him. Have you read his "Retractions"? The reality is that Augustine was a Christian theologian first, and a philosopher second.
@@askabibleprof7099 Augustine does not renounce Classical Theism, which incorporates Neo-Platonism. He holds to it under a theory that like the Hebrews leaving Egypt despoiled the Egyptians (taking their gold), Christians can take pagan philosophy for themselves. Therefore, unlike the Bible that has God being a Supreme Being walking in Eden, Augustine says God is "Being itself" and is "Divinely Simple" - without parts. So Genesis is reduced to an allegory. God doesn't enter time, He doesn't have feet, and He doesn't have a face or mouth. He does not create skin clothes for the fallen couple. Because all that is temporal and requires physical parts. Paul invoking kenosis does not solve this issue with transcendence, because Augustine treats the incarnation different due to the human nature of Jesus. By Classical Theism and its borrowing of philosophy, YHWH is immutable/changeless - but in contrast the Bible has him change emotions all the time. Classical Theism declares YHWH is outside of time and can view all events equally - he is not linear. But in the Bible he often expresses outrage for sin. As He is a Supreme Being, experiencing time and reacting with emotion. The Bible and pagan thought do not work with one another. YHWH is not presented as an abstract "Being itself" but a supreme being that loves obedience and hates sin. You claim my take on transcendence is off, but offer no correction. Please indicate where you think I am mistaken.
@@askabibleprof7099 Please instruct me on where I am mistaken. I hold that YHWH being transcendent means He is unchanging and outside of time and space. He is the source of being rather than a being within the material plane. He was aware of the events of any age before time began because he is outside of time and is all-knowing. While Jesus enters time, YHWH does not so any scripture that holds He is in time and space must be read as an allegory or the claim of transcendence falls.
I regret you didn't benefit from the video, but Dr. Oswalt is well defended in his arguments. The point is that modern skeptic scholars ignore the most significant characteristics the differentiate the Old Testament from ancient pagan myths, while at the same type making a category mistake by asserting that all ancient literature that teaches about God and the pagan gods are the same type of literature and thus have no historical value. Consequently, they are not to be taken seriously. I regret that you were not able to grasp this fundamental argument. Blessings.
A better question would be how is the Bible like ancient pagan religions? It's not. That is why within a period of about 350-years after Jesus' incarnation and resurrection, the polytheistic Greek, Roman, Syrian, and Egyptian religions and pantheons were largely shelved in favor of Christianity. The Christian expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean was nothing less than remarkable. Even Bart Ehrman would agree on this. Scripture covers soteriological, eschatological, and theological matters (particularly the covenant relationship between man and God) in a manner totally absent in pagan myth. Pagan myths tell us about pagan gods. Christianity tells us about who we are in Christ (God)...it's really quite different.
I can understand that, but I had to approach the interview with questions from the book, which primarily dealt with the OT. Maybe in another interview, we'll see.
amazing vid!! i am getting the book! thanks for the suggestion!
It's a great book, and glad you got something out of the video. If you think of it, share it with others. And if you think of any subjects you want us to tackle, then just let us know.
The truth hurts so bad. People don’t want to hear it that they have dedicated their entire life to lies
We try hard to present facts in a non threatening way and provide the truth so that they may hear it in a reasonable and relevant manner. Thanks for watching.
Oswalt apparently is unaware of the pagan philosophy of Neo-Platonicism which asserts that there is only one divinity that is transcendent. Augustine of Hippo confronted by this field of thought rejected a literal reading of the Bible and held it must be understood in the same way as the god of the pagan philosophers.
By Augustine's thinking, one must reject YHWH walking in the garden and making clothes for Adam and Eve, because that would mean he doesn't transcend the physical reality. One must reject the Book of Exodus as mere analogy when it has YHWH use his hand to put Moses in the cleft of the rock and walk past him with his hand over Moses' eyes, lifting it so that he can see His back - because that would have him not be transcendent. One must do the same every time YHWH is filled with wrath or other emotions because that would make him subject to time and not transcendent.
I serious doubt that Oswalt is unaware of the tenants of Neo-Platonicism. I'm more inclined to believe that you have a superficial understanding of Augustine. But to address a major flaw in your assertion. To be "transcendent" does mean that God can't engage within our sphere of existence, or that descriptions of His involvement are "perfect" explanations of his interactions with us. How God reveals Himself to us is inherently an act of grace on his part. And to be clear, the infinite uncreated God most certainly engages within our experience. That is what is marvelous about the incarnation of God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. To be transcendent means that God is not constrained by our reality, that he is inherently greater than the reality of our dimension. Nonetheless, the personal God of all that is created cares enough to oversee our world and is seeking to draw us all to Himself. Augustine certainly believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that his death and resurrection is the atoning sacrifice for sin. Thanks for watching and merry Christmas.
@@askabibleprof7099 The very definition of a transcendent being is one that does not enter the temporal realm. If YHWH enters time He changes and any change from perfection is imperfection. There would be the period before He entered time and knew He had yet to do so, the period when He moved into time and not only ceased to be timeless but also knew He entered time, and the period afterward when He knew He had changed from timelessness to temporal. We could then ask which condition was He superior in, the one before or after He changed and entered time?
By this then, one cannot say that YHWH engages with time & human experience, rather humans attune themselves to His will. They change not Him. His providence is fixed from before eternity.
If He is sovereign and omnipotent, He does not "seek" to draw people to Himself, He cannot fail to do whatever He wills.
Augustine held that Jesus and YHWH were utterly separate persons. To maintain monotheism, Augustine put aside the Bible and plagiarized Pagan philosophical terms to say that there was only one divine "essence." Three "persons" in one "essence". In all cases, the person of YHWH never enters time.
The Bible doesn't support a pagan transcendent God, it has YHWH walking in Eden and making clothes for fallen humanity. It does not use pagan terms and categories like "essence", "persons", and "natures". Paul warns against pagan philosophy, Augustine ignored that.
@@wowaconia Regrettably, we must agree to disagree. Your view of transcendence is flawed by its definition. The God of the Bible does not define "transcendence" as you have, and that it the point. Moreover, Paul explained that Jesus allowed some divine attributes to be "muted" (Phil 2.6-11). The biggest problem with your appeal to Augustine is that you approach him as if he was "monolithic," in other words you apparently fail to differentiate between young Augustine, middle Augustine, and late Augustine. Nevertheless, suggesting that Augustine didn't affirm the biblical view of a transcendent God and Jesus as God incarnate reveals that you have a limited understanding of Augustine. Moreover, the reality is that Augustine wasn't correct in all that he affirmed and wrote. His writings are massive, so unless you have read all that he wrote on the subject (which is apparent that you have not), then I would refrain from suggesting that you have a comprehensive understand of him. Have you read his "Retractions"? The reality is that Augustine was a Christian theologian first, and a philosopher second.
@@askabibleprof7099 Augustine does not renounce Classical Theism, which incorporates Neo-Platonism. He holds to it under a theory that like the Hebrews leaving Egypt despoiled the Egyptians (taking their gold), Christians can take pagan philosophy for themselves.
Therefore, unlike the Bible that has God being a Supreme Being walking in Eden, Augustine says God is "Being itself" and is "Divinely Simple" - without parts. So Genesis is reduced to an allegory. God doesn't enter time, He doesn't have feet, and He doesn't have a face or mouth. He does not create skin clothes for the fallen couple. Because all that is temporal and requires physical parts.
Paul invoking kenosis does not solve this issue with transcendence, because Augustine treats the incarnation different due to the human nature of Jesus.
By Classical Theism and its borrowing of philosophy, YHWH is immutable/changeless - but in contrast the Bible has him change emotions all the time.
Classical Theism declares YHWH is outside of time and can view all events equally - he is not linear. But in the Bible he often expresses outrage for sin. As He is a Supreme Being, experiencing time and reacting with emotion. The Bible and pagan thought do not work with one another. YHWH is not presented as an abstract "Being itself" but a supreme being that loves obedience and hates sin.
You claim my take on transcendence is off, but offer no correction. Please indicate where you think I am mistaken.
@@askabibleprof7099 Please instruct me on where I am mistaken. I hold that YHWH being transcendent means He is unchanging and outside of time and space. He is the source of being rather than a being within the material plane. He was aware of the events of any age before time began because he is outside of time and is all-knowing. While Jesus enters time, YHWH does not so any scripture that holds He is in time and space must be read as an allegory or the claim of transcendence falls.
This made 0 sense.... I think you got dementia man
I regret you didn't benefit from the video, but Dr. Oswalt is well defended in his arguments. The point is that modern skeptic scholars ignore the most significant characteristics the differentiate the Old Testament from ancient pagan myths, while at the same type making a category mistake by asserting that all ancient literature that teaches about God and the pagan gods are the same type of literature and thus have no historical value. Consequently, they are not to be taken seriously. I regret that you were not able to grasp this fundamental argument. Blessings.