To Justin 2

Justin, Greetings again! I had no idea about the connection with you and Lindsay Barletta. That is wonderful. How in the world does someone in Great Britian go out with someone in the US? Those must be very expensive dates! I am glad to hear it. I do know who she is, though I don't know her well. I knew her brother Zachery better. Her Granda was my 4th grade teacher, if I have the right Lindsay in mind! I look up to you for your industrious attitude given your vision impairment. I admire that in anyone. It makes me feel ashamed of myself, especially when I complain! I will certainly encourage you in your English studies. I also love literature. I did not enjoy English literature as much as I did American literature in college, but I guess its because I didn't really understand Chaucer's English! I love to read widely. I ought to give the English authors another chance. I did read a biography a while back by Edmund Gosse called "Father and Son: A study of two temperments." I felt I could relate with the story given my upbringing. Any way, I just finished a book by John Steinbeck, an American author, called "East of Eden." It's been the best book I have read. Period. You raise many wonderful questions, and I encourage you to keep asking. Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers. I wish I did, but a lot of what I know I simply take by faith since nothing, in the end, can ultimately be scientifically proved beyond a shadow of a empirical doubt. Regarding the differing resurrection accounts, I am not sure what you intend whey you say you cannot believe the Bible to be literal in nature, but rather metaphorical. Some of the Bible should not be taken in a literal sense, in my opinion though some would disagree with me. For example, I do not believe Revelation should not be taken literally in all its parts. It's literary genre is apocalyptical and apocalyptical literature has a very different nature than say a chronology which is meant to be taken in a literal sense. The nature and intent of the Gospel accounts is that they should be taken literally, but granted, the Parables wouldn't be taken literally. So you have to use judgment. This is called Hermeneutics... a very heavy topic, which I love. I suggest you read a book called "A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics" by David Jasper. He approaches hermeneutics from a literary perspective. I know it will help you greatly. So you are correct, I believe, in saying that the Bible is not everywhere to be taken literally. But it is not everywhere meant to be taken metaphorically either. The nature of Dispensationalism (a product of J. N. Darby and a few American theologians Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, etc.) is to take as much as can be literally. Dispensationalism believes the plain reading of the text to be the intended meaning. In part I believe that, but then again, I do not limit the ability of the Spirit to teach high meanings through a non-literal meaning (Origen believed this, an early church father). Dispensationalism then teaches that the best method of interpretation is the plain, historical, literal, contextual reading of the text. They say, "take it at face value." But they run into problems when the text speaks of God "changing his mind" or having "eyes" and "ears" etc. So they make room for that and assign it to a category of language called anthropomorphism. They do not believe God has eyes, hands, ears, etc. So they do not take the Bible literally in the absolute sense. The language of the text of Scripture is different all throughout the Bible. As literature people, but you and I appreciate this. The text of Scripture is not wooden. It includes the personalities of the authors, and I might say, their humanity, though the Church has confessed in all times that they Spirit oversaw the penning of the Scriptures. How the Spirit did this, the Bible is silent, and the Church can only speculate. So yes, it is possible for the authors of the text to present the Crucifixion/Resurrection accounts with different details. Most new testament scholars believe Mark was used as the "template" for the two Gospels of Matthew and Luke. They also believe that John had a very different purpose in mind in writing his Gospel. This should not surprise us since they were four very different men. So just because details "seem" contradictory or misplaced, it does not mean the text is not meant to be taken literally. The text is meant to teach that Christ died, was buried, and rose again the third day. That is the intent, and that is what all four Gospels do. If the details surrounding the event are a bit different that has very little bearing on the actuality/reality of the event. I hope that makes sense. We have to remember that the pre-modern mind (prior to the Enlightenment) is not so interested in what we call "historicism;" that is the historical critical method of recording/interpreting history. The pre-modern records history with accuracy, but their intent is not simply to lay out history objectively, their intent is to prove a point. The point of the Gospels is to teach Jesus was the Messiah and ultimately would die for Israel and the world. I would have to do further reading in the issues at hand, as I am not very familiar with the what is termed "Synoptic Problem." I do know that there are several New Testament scholars who have dealt with them thoroughly. Now regarding the topic of which books were included and assigned the title "Scripture" verses other books written by "mere men" as you say. I have explained in the previous email how the books were included, as a process of the church of discerning right teaching from false teaching and from having texts that had the authority of the apostles and were ultimately recognized by the church as Spirit-given. Why would Philemon be included when the epistle seems to pail in comparison to the epistle to the Romans? Quite frankly, I don't know. I do believe each have equal authority, but not necessarily equal weight. I do not believe inspiration equals dictation. Some Christians do, but that view of inspiration is never a test of orthodoxy. God used men, I believe to pen the Scriptures, but he did not dictate the Scriptures with audible voice or by putting the author in a trance, etc. Could a New Testament writer have used a different synonym or stated something differently? Absolutely. I believe that Paul could have used a different word to describe something, but he didn't. So that is only a matter concerned with theoreticals, with very little use to arguing over. The study of New Testament Textual Criticism will open you to very different readings in ancient New Testament texts. So, it is not always clear which word or phrase was the original. That is a whole other matter though. Rather than dictation, I believe in what is termed "confluence." Men wrote in a human language, using human symbols and characters, using human minds, and human hands, but I believe the Holy Spirit of God oversaw the whole process. That is, what the Spirit wanted to be included was included. The Bible is useful for all matters of "faith and practice" as the Catechism teaches. All that believers need to know about their faith is in Scripture. We do not believe that God left anything out that he thought should be included. God used men to pen the Scriptures. The difference between a disciple and Apostle is one of authority. Jesus had more than 12 disciples, there were many. John the Baptist had disciples. The apostles had disciples. An Apostle was commissioned by Christ to take his teaching "into all the World" and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Apostles carried forth the message of Christ's teaching with authority, where as a disciple was simply a learner or one who was taught by Christ. They have no appointed authority. Apostleship was appointed by Christ (Acts 1:2). Eleven disciples were appointed as Apostles. Judas was not assigned apostleship. And the Christ appointed Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 9. I hope I am being somewhat helpful. I must say, this is all very much to say over email, but I enjoy it. I did have a question. Where do you believe you stand concerning your faith. Would you call yourself a Christian, a Seeker, an Agnostic, or an Atheist, or whatever term you have come up with to describe yourself. I hope that's not too personal or forward. It is not intended to be so. I would like to know "who" I am talking to... I hope I have not simply caused any additional confusion! I am not sure how often I will be able to correspond at this length, but I will do my best to be helpful.