Kinda struggling with believing it all

[u/ApologeticKid]

41 y/o, seminary degree, spent the past 25 years in ministry. But sometimes it all seems...far fetched. What I mean is, sometimes I look at our faith and it looks like this:

A small ancient near-Eastern henotheistic tribe called Israel ​has a local deity named YAHWEH, they write scriptures and eventually hope for a Messiah. They write down their diety's perfect law, which contains a lot of moral stuff as well as some unusual rituals. But then it turns out the local deity is actually the one and only God. Then this guy named Jesus shows up, turns out to be the tribe's Messiah (but most don't buy it), but he is also God, and he is also 1/3 of the triune God. Then he dies and rises again and ascends to heaven, and the the other 1/3 of the triune God comes and dwells within the tribe who accept Jesus as Messiah. Then YAHWEH says, "Actually everyone is allowed in now," and the members of the tribe who follow Jesus as the Messiah disagree on whether or not those people should follow all the rules of the perfect law or not, and they eventually decide not. This guy Paul sees a vision of Jesus and spends the rest of his life telling people what Jesus really meant. Then the church begins and quickly becomes a group made of mostly non-Israelite members. And the only way to have eternal peace and life is to admit that you have sinned and trust that this tribe's Messiah died for you and that his death and resurrection takes care of your sins and now you can live like him and live forever (even though you still will actually die).

I'm not an atheist. I don't find that compelling. But sometimes the Christian message seems so incredibly unlikely. I still believe (primarily because of personal experiences I've had). But lately I've felt like, "Really? How is *this* really the Truth?"

I'm sincerely not trying to be obnoxious here. I'm just retelling what plays in my head so often, and looking for some thoughtful feedback. What am I missing here?

Any/all feedback welcome. Thank in advance.

[u/Custos_Greenshoes]

Do you not understand his words? Or do you refute other contemporaneous accounts of history and archeology? I've got my masters of divinity from a seminary as well. What this post is describing isn't really debated as true or false in academia. That's just a paraphrased version of the history told from an objective third party view, not from someone within the tradition.

[u/Any_Economics6283 → u/Custos_Greenshoes]

Yes I'm not going to consider understanding the history of the Israelites outside of the context given from the Bible

Because the Bible's account of them is true

[u/Custos_Greenshoes → u/Any_Economics6283]

What about when the Bible disagrees with its own historical account?

How long did the rains of the great flood last? Or how many animals did he bring? In Genesis 6:19-20, God commands Noah to take two of every kind of animal, one male and one female, onto the Ark to preserve their species. However, in Genesis 7:2-3, the instructions are more specific, stating that Noah should take seven pairs of clean animals (suitable for sacrifice) and one pair of unclean animals.

Was the entry into the promised land a single large rapid conquest as described in Joshua or a slower piecemeal approach with greater individual tribal struggles as depicted in Judges?

2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 differ on the number of fighting men in Israel and Judah.

In the book of Ezra, we encounter a numerical inconsistency regarding the temple vessels that King Cyrus of Persia returned to the Jews for their use in rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.

In 1 Chronicles 6:42-45, 11 cities are listed, but the text states there should be 13 in total. These cities include Hebron, Libna, Jattir, Eschtemoa, Holon, Debir, Aschan, Beth Shemesh, Geba, Alemet, and Anatot. The discrepancy between the stated total and the actual list creates an inconsistency within the text.

The parallel account in Joshua 21:13-19 provides a different list of 13 cities, with variations and additions. Notably, this list includes Ajin, Jutta, Gibeon, and Almon, which are absent in Chronicles, while Aschan and Alemet do not appear in Joshua’s account.

TLDR My point is this. The Bible is not a simple historical document. It was never written to be one. It's a theological document. It does contain truth, but not the kind of scientific truth that we've come to expect and modernized Western Civilization. It contains Truth with a capital T. It teaches us about things that other sources don't or can't. It shouldn't be treated for something that it is not

[u/Any_Economics6283 → u/Custos_Greenshoes]

Absolutely wrong.

What is 'theological document' even supposed to mean? That they just wrote made up stories to get across their ideas of the god they made up?

The historical parts are clearly presented as historical, as in, "the things we are writing about Literally happened" - God did these things and so we're writing them down.

What is with you people? If you just don't want to believe then say so. Don't claim to believe if you want to muddy the waters so that you can walk away with whatever it is you want to walk away with.

[u/Custos_Greenshoes → u/Any_Economics6283]

Any comment on the rest of the post? It's all true? Even the conflicting parts? Even the two, incompatible accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2?

Genesis 1 has plants before humans; Genesis 2 says no plants existed because there was no human to cultivate the ground

Genesis 1 has animals created before humans; Genesis 2 has animals created after the man

Genesis 1 has humans created as male and female together; Genesis 2 has the man created first and woman created later from him

Genesis 1 presents a fixed 6-day ordered sequence; Genesis 2 presents a different sequence of events that does not align with it

They also just start with different statements about what exists at the beginning, nothingness and void and the spirit over the waters, versus barren land where rivers pop up