Why should Christians study the whole Bible?
One post into Genesis, it is clear that the Old Testament presents difficulties. I would wager that many Christians have devoted time to studying the New Testament without ever studying the Old for a great many reasons:
- A feeling that the New Testament contains all of the information necessary to understanding Christ
- Difficulty with Old Testament language
- A desire to remain ignorant of the challenges presented by the Old Testament
- Doubts about the veracity of Old Testament writings
It is Written
I noted in week 13 that Jesus made numerous references to Scripture. When reading the New Testament, it is important to understand that Jesus Himself was a scholar of the Scripture. From a Christian viewpoint, the primary reason for believing the Scripture to be true is that Jesus confirmed Scriptural writings throughout His time on Earth. Over the next several weeks, I’ll explore a back-and-forth study of the Bible, using the evidence of the actual historical Jesus and that of His miracles as evidence for the sincerity and authenticity of His spoken words.
My primary focus will be on those specific people and places Jesus mentions as recorded throughout the gospels:
Abel
Abiathar
Abraham
Daniel
David
Elijah
Elisha
Gomorrah
Isaac
Jacob
Jonah
Lot
Moses
Naaman
Noah
Sodom
Solomon
Zarephath
Zechariah
There is a reciprocal relationship between the words of Jesus and the text of the Old Testament. If historical and archeological evidence points to a real historical figure who performed real miracles and was really raised from death, His references to Scripture must be considered evidence for the veracity of the Scripture. If Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God and claimed that Scripture was the Word of God, we should expect the Scripture to be accurate and plausible. Evidence to the contrary would be evidence against Jesus as the Son of God. So, it is important in the weeks to come that we study not only the New Testament, but also the source document by which Christ Himself lived His life.
I want to apologize for taking a break from the Biblical text so quickly after Genesis 1. Genesis gives rather clearly the Biblical view of Creation and makes the connection between Big Bang and the Judeo-Christian concept of the beginning of the universe. I think, though, that it will be important to view the New Testament and the evidence for Jesus before returning to the Old Testament text, and I did not want to do so without a short intro. I’ll return to the Scripture next week and I promise there will not be another break for quite some time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
Should a reader of Scripture, who is looking for a literal, historical Jesus, accept the gospels as a dispassionate, historical record?
The gospel writers had theological agendas. As followers of the followers (of the followers) of Jesus of Nazareth, they looked to the Sacred Writings of Judaism to make sense of all that had happened both to Jesus himself and to their community.
None of them treated the traditions they inherited as inerrant. The writers of Luke and Matthew took their sources (Mark, the hypothetical sayings source "Q", and possibly more) and gave them very different treatments when they presented Jesus in their own gospels. For Luke it is "Blessed are the poor" for Matthew it is "Blessed are the poor in spirit" etc.
The creation of the gospels was the slow progression of oral, Aramaic traditions being turned into Greek writings over 2 or 3 generations.
There is also internal evidence that they did not think in the same literal terms we do today. The author(s) of John pokes fun at literal-minded thinkers - for instance, when Jesus states that one must be born again, Nicodemus asks how one can re-enter his mother's womb. The woman at the well doesn't understand "living water" etc. etc.
The birth stories in Matthew and Luke are similar to what Roman HISTORIANS wrote about the conception of Caesar Augustus. His mother became pregnant by Apollo in the form of serpent. This is how people thought back then, as evidenced by the many, many stories of divine conception in popular culture.
If we read Josephus, Tacitus, etc. history was much less objective 2,000 years ago. Their writings are filled with opinions at every turn. Modern historians have to piece things together the best they can. From a historian's perspective, why treat the gospels differently?
Finally, we have internal inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus, in the birth narratives, in who saw the risen Christ first, on whether the Last Supper was the Passover meal or a preparation meal for the Passover, etc.
Is it prudent to interpret the gospels as a court reporter's notes about the life of Jesus?
The gospels were not created in a vacuum. They were written to satisfy the spiritual needs of Christian communities. To see them as dispassionate, historical records of the life of Jesus is to do them a disservice. Surely, they are writings which represent a spiritual reality experienced by the followers of Jesus - the continuing presence of Christ among them.
To be clear, I understand that this week's post was a bit hollow. And, I don't want to give the impression that I'm shying away from the Old Testament. I am fully aware that some of the greatest scrutiny falls on the Old Testament (Noah, Moses, Jericho, Babylon, etc). However, I didn't want to jump from Old to New without an explanation.
"Should a reader of Scripture, who is looking for a literal, historical Jesus, accept the gospels as a dispassionate, historical record?"
No, I don't believe so... not based solely on the Bible anyway. I think we'll see that there is reason beyond the gospels to believe the historical accounts of Jesus. You gave a nice synopsis of some of the great objections to the New Testament writings and I will address Q and each of the gospels in turn (including the birth stories).
Next week, the focus will be on whether Jesus was a real historical figure. Without that, what do we really have to go on?
Also, I think you should really think hard on what the "agenda" of the gospel writers would have been before Christ. The primary reason they had an "agenda" was becuase they believed (presumably) what they saw. If you saw Jesus perform the miracles they describe, you might find yourself with an agenda too.
Agenda doesn't mean "bad". It just means exactly what you said - the gospels are presentations of a faith.
I don't have any "objections" to the gospels - they are works of men describing what they believed in - I think they are a testament to the power of the historical Jesus to inspire a lasting love and way of life with his followers. I do object to believing them as literal history.
By debating the literal history, I put forth that I am also trying to "save" the gospels' relevance in today's world. When interpreted literally, we must also accept the original authors' understanding of the world which has long since passed. This would seem to doom the future of Christianity to the same eventual fate as Zeus and other ancient mythologies.
But to quote John Shelby Spong,
"The modern expositor of a sacred story must probe the historic words in quest for the underlying experience and then seek ways to bring that experience forward in time so that its truth might be known again even in our generation."
The truth is still with us today, like it was back then. The gospels are signposts. Do we stop at the signposts or look where they are pointing?
or as Paul wrote "the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6)
Steven-
Attempting to “save” the gospels is certainly a big hit in pop culture these days, but most of your arguments are ones that have been dismissed by scholars already. In fact, the idea that Christianity was “created” by mimicking ancient mythology is a theory that was dismissed by scholars over a century ago. It simply has no weight.
Specifically, you referenced Augustus. Roman deification of emperors was common and it was totally political. I don’t see the similarity between this and simple Jewish men concocting the idea to write a fake virgin birth story about a dead carpenter/teacher.
Keep in mind that the gospel writers were Jewish (other than Luke, possibly) and that Jesus was a Jewish teacher. We should read the gospel accounts in light of the culture/religious mindset of the Jewish people at the time. The Jews were certainly not expecting a Messiah who would die on the cross and be resurrected. When Jesus died, His disciples recognized that He must not have been the Messiah at all- that is, until they saw Him alive again.
“they looked to the Sacred Writings of Judaism to make sense of all that had happened both to Jesus himself and to their community.”
All that had happened? It seems to me that you’re implying that miraculous things did NOT happen- miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection. Without these things happening, what exactly were the gospel writers trying to make sense of?
Also, what verses in the ancient Jewish text do you think lead all four authors to come up with the same basic interpretation of the events (or non-events)? I’m not aware of any OT verses that explicitly describe the story of Christ’s life. It is only AFTER the knowledge of Jesus' resurrection that the OT prophecies make sense.
To quote William Lane Craig:
The problem many people, even some scholars, have is not being able to put themselves in the shoes of a first century Jew confronted with Jesus’ crucifixion—they tend to look at the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of 2,000 years of Christian theology, and so the idea of his rising from the dead seems natural to them, when in fact it is an anachronism.
Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6136
The proposition that "Jesus Christ" never existed relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable. Showing that the story of Jesus Christ is not based on a person in any meaningful way requires showing that the story of Jesus Christ is better explained as having developed through non-historical methods than it is through historical methods. We can identify literary sources and traditions that are not only capable of providing all of the material for the Jesus story, but indeed it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these source materials, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events. If the crucifixion of Jesus were based on an observed historical event, then we should not expect that virtually every line of the crucifixion narrative comes from existing Hebrew scriptures (including themes that were mistranslated in the Greek sources that were used). Not only does the scriptural basis of the Jesus stories undermine their historical credibility, but we also have historical facts, or lack thereof, which corroborate Jesus' absence of existence.
The suspicion that Jesus never existed was first seriously entertained (within the past thousand years) and addressed in a scholarly fashion in the 19th century. A major flaw in the first generation of "Jesus Myth theories", however, was that they often relied on parallels between the story of Jesus and "pagan" myths. This happened because the first generation of Jesus Myth scholarship emerged from Protestant criticism of Catholicism and there was a tendency at the time to view Catholicism, and much of early Christian history, as "corrupted by paganism". There were good reasons to think this, because many of the later developing Christian traditions and institutions, such as Christmas, the veneration of Mary, and the Catholic hierarchy, are indeed based on pre-Christian Roman practices and institutions. But these later developments cannot be confused with the pre-Catholic period of Christianity. Indeed there are Hellenistic influences on the Christian story and theology, but these influences were largely a part of Hellenistic Judaism itself.
The development of the Jesus Christ story is best explained not as simply a "paganization" of Judaism, but as a part of Jewish literary tradition. What did set Christianity apart, however, was its crossover status into non-Jewish communities, where Jewish literary traditions were not understood. A combination of factors then led to its growing acceptance. The destruction of Judea left many diaspora Jews in despair and without a grounding for traditional Judaism, so the story of Jesus had appeal to them. Unlike most of the Greek and Roman religions, Christianity was highly evangelical with its claims of salvation and "truth". People living in the Roman Empire had grown up with messages of confidence and strength, but in the 3rd and 4th centuries Rome went through a series of hardships so the Christian story of suffering, redemption, and humility, rooted in the history of Jewish hardships, appealed to a people who were surrounded by religions based on a culture of superiority that was now failing. For those who looked deeper into the religion, many were impressed with the degree to which the life of Jesus seemed to have been so completely foretold by the earlier Hebrew scriptures. The numerous parallels between the Gospels and the "Old Testament" convinced many that the religion "had to be true", how else could one account for so many "fulfilled prophecies"? They declined to understand, however, that the parallels are there because the Gospels are made-up stories based on the Hebrew scriptures. As Christians began filling the ranks of the military in the 4th century Constantine and other emperors had reasons to cater to the religion, and they found that people who were willing to die to spread their religion to new lands made for good soldiers.
For those who claim that the "rapid" (actually over a period of about 200 years) spread of Christianity cannot be explained without a real central Jesus figure, the reality is that even if Jesus were real he played no role in the spread of the religion. We absolutely know that the major spread of the religion happened after the writing of the Gospels. Even the spreading of the religion prior to the Gospels occurred due to apostolistic evangelism, the works of Paul and other writings are a testament to this. Paul did not interact with one single group of people that had already interacted with Jesus. People claim that the apostles wouldn't have gone to such efforts to spread the religion if they had not been certain of the truth of their religion because they had personal contact with Jesus, but Paul himself, the only apostle that we actually do have written records from, is proof that this is false, because we know for a fact that Paul never saw a "flesh and blood" Jesus and Paul emphasized over and over again how important his "revelations" from Jesus were. By all accounts the most active and important apostle that we know of, Paul, never had personal contact with Jesus.
Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus at its core, but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed.
Plus, if you rearrange the letters in Judea, Babylon, Sea of Galilee, and Mount of Olives you get:
Jesus made a fool of all lying even about IBEO.
I think there is little doubt...
I love to talk about this stuff. I wish us all the best.
Kristin, I think we’ll have to disagree as to who is seeing the situation “backwards”! I think, from a literal, historical perspective, the scenario which is far most likely to be true is apparent. Craig’s quote seems very odd, because it seems the exact same criticism should be levied against a literal understanding of the Scriptures.
Kristin “Specifically, you referenced Augustus. Roman deification of emperors was common and it was totally political. I don’t see the similarity between this and simple Jewish men concocting the idea to write a fake virgin birth story about a dead carpenter/teacher.”
Really?
Kristin: “Also, what verses in the ancient Jewish text do you think lead all four authors to come up with the same basic interpretation of the events (or non-events)”
I’m sure you know the familiar ones (Second Isaiah, Micah, etc.) or like me, you can look them up easily. And I’m sure you know the likely scenario of the writing of the gospels (Mark first, used as a source for Luke, Matthew etc. etc.)
Frankly, I believe in the resurrection. I believe that Christ’s followers had visions of him. Visions as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, our earliest account. Note that he considers his own vision of Christ as of the same quality as when Jesus “appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the twelve, etc” These are accounts of apparitions, visions of the risen Christ. Later writers slowly literalized the accounts. BTW, note that Paul mentions Cephas and then “the twelve” as opposed to “the eleven” in Luke. Does 1 Corinthians predate the Judas story?
You write of the disciples not understanding what happened at Jesus’ crucifixion, and then understanding it after his resurrection. I agree. I think that visions of Jesus coupled with continuing the traditions of the common, shared meal, and searching the Scriptures for meaning all brought about the resurrection. Consider the “Road to Emmaus” story in Luke. I think it’s probably a “literalized” story of what happened over a period of time to the followers of Christ. They realized through the breaking of bread together, and the study of Scripture that Christ was still among them.
Then gospels writers did use scripture. Psalm 22 (among other OT passages) is used as a pattern for the crucifixion by Matthew - the soldiers cast lots for his garments, the crowd mocks him to ask for God’s intervention. Then Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It’s very, very sad. And beautiful.
How about the “sign of Jonah?” If we interpret Matthew literally, then Matthew’s Jesus cannot count. In Matthew 12:40 Jesus states that “for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth”. But we know that Jesus was raised on the third day in the gospels and in 1 Corinthians. This is Friday evening through Sunday morning - 36 hours, and two nights - not the three mentioned in Matthew 12.
Vernicus, Is it possible Jesus never existed? Yes, it would only take a couple of people to make it up. But I think Jesus did exist and had a great impact on his followers, and then it turned slowly into a different religion from Judaism. I think that Jesus challenged social structures in the traditions of the prophets of old. The scriptures are full of Jesus welcoming outcasts into the full inclusion of society through “healing” and forgiveness of sins. I think he may have challenged Roman rule and the priestly elite in Jerusalem. He caused a disturbance in the temple and paid with his life.
I certainly can’t prove this is true, but if it is, his personal magnetism must have been great, inspiring his followers to see the divine in him. He was slowly and steadily deified by them, and what we have is their accounts.
In a sense, he is deified by me as well. As I experience "him" now, through others, through introspection, through the walk of life.
Randy,
Har! ;)
Hmmm... I wonder what the Comments section will be like when we're actually discussing the New Testament...
I have never seriously examined my belief in the existence of Jesus as a singular, human being. I guess I have never really felt the need to do so. When I was a believer, I took it for granted. As I began to question things, I focused on the religion more so than the actual existence. Either way, it never really mattered all that much to me whether Jesus was a person and a story, several people and several stories, just a story, or any combination of the possibilities.
When I first heard about the study of the historicity of Jesus, I remember being kind of shocked. I asked myself why I believe Jesus was a real person and I realized that my belief was based on a book of sketchy origins, but mainly it was based on cultural narrative. Regardless of the truth of this narrative, I have gone along with it for pretty much all my life. It just has not been worth breaking the social taboo to genuinely evaluate what I think is most reasonable.
So I am looking forward to seeing the evidence and reasons on why it is reasonable to believe one way or another. Or even why it matters. But one thing I find disconcerting is the flippant dismissal of Vernicus by making a joke and then simply stating “I think there is little doubt…” As far as I can tell, Vernicus did not make any wildly outlandish claims; just framed some of the history of Jesus skepticism. Regardless of what side of the issue one stands of, there are significant questions as to the identity of authors, time frames, accusations of plagiarism, translations, historical evidence, and so on.
If the historicity of Jesus is to be dismissed and placed in the category of “there is little doubt…” so easily, then we have to create a whole new category for things such as global floods/extinctions, pristine garden worlds, talking snakes, offspring of formless beings that lie ‘outside’ of the universe, casting out demons, virgin birth, water walking, living 900 years, and so on.
Anagram for Fifty two Blogs to Christ:
Forcibly Fights Two Tots.
;)
The Jesus who was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, turned water into wine, and walked on water......never lived.
Jesus, the carpenter who hung out with a couple dozen social revolutionaries (similar to insurgents in Iraq) and got just popular enough to be killed by the establishment, that guy has lived and died a 1000 times in different times and places.
Saint Nicholas of Myra / Santa Clause
First of all, I just want to say that I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest to state that Jesus never existed. It certainly weakens one’s entire case against Christianity. If you do any research at all you will find that very few if any serious NT critics/scholars (atheists included) give any credence to this theory. I suppose as Randy gets on with things we can discuss the reasons for its scholarly dismissal one by one if necessary; it is probably too much information for this week, especially considering we’re already way off topic.
Steven-
I’m still curious as to what the disciples had to “make sense of” since Jesus did not perform miracles or rise from the dead. You keep saying that when he died they looked to scripture to “make sense of” everything but that doesn’t really add up. If Jesus was just a teacher who died, there really isn’t anything to make sense of.
“I’m sure you know the familiar ones (Second Isaiah, Micah, etc.) or like me, you can look them up easily.”
I guess that’s the problem. I am familiar with the prophetic OT verses and have a very hard time believing that after an ordinary (non miracle performing) teacher died a humiliating death, his students (who had already deserted him) decided to scour the scriptures in order to make him out to be the Messiah, even though the story they came up with went entirely against their Jewish idea of who the Messiah would be. That theory is quite literally unbelievable.
Oh yeah. And I’m still curious how this all ties into the deification of Roman emperors…
"First of all, I just want to say that I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest to state that Jesus never existed. It certainly weakens one’s entire case against Christianity."
LOL
Says a lady who believes in talking snakes, resurrection, virgin birth...
It certainly weakens one's entire case against rationality.
:)
Kristin: "If Jesus was just a teacher who died, there really isn’t anything to make sense of."
I agree. I think that his followers may have thought he was the Messiah, sent to inaugurate an era of social justice (kingdom of God), to reestablish the line of David, to overthrow Rome, to cleanse the Temple, etc. There are many possibilities. His quick crucifixion was probably a complete and utter shock to his followers. They must have had so much hope - just utterly dashed. It must have been a VERY extreme moment of existential angst for the followers.
"....entirely against their Jewish idea of who the Messiah would be."
I think you're right. After the crucifixion, the subsequent visions, and the realization that their movement did not have to end, the Jesus movement was reinterpreted and "re"- understood within the context of several OT passages - Psalm 22, Second Isaiah's description of the nation of Israel as a "servant" (now taken as a description of Jesus), etc.
Sometimes this wasn't accomplished all too well. In Matthew 1:23 the writer quotes Isaiah's reference to " the virgin shall conceive". The word in the Greek translation (Septuagint) carries the connotation of virgin, but the original Hebrew word is "almah" meaning "young woman" which carries no such connotation. The Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah".
I might add that if we read further in that Isaiah passage, we see that "they shall call him Emmanuel" Jesus was his name, and he is not called Emmanuel in scripture. We can interpret it symbolically, of course.
Matthew also references "He will be called a Nazorean" which is not found in the OT anywhere, UNLESS he is referring to the Nazorites or "Holy Ones" of the OT (like Samson) who didn't drink or cut their hair. This certainly is not the case with Jesus, and it certainly does not have anything to do with being from Nazareth, as Matthew suggests.
"And I’m still curious how this all ties into the deification of Roman emperors…"
It was a direct challenge to the earthly political system - Rome. The birth narratives are a statement saying that Jesus was of the same type as the other one who claimed to be "son of God" - the emperor. Except Jesus, a poor Jewish peasant was greater! He deserved his own story of divine conception.
I don't enjoy trying to disprove the literal resurrection, but in the interest of pursuing quality thinking......
Kristin: "That theory is quite literally unbelievable."
But isn't the idea of a literally resuscitated dead body more unbelievable? If you're approaching this from the perspective of reason? No pre-existing prejudices?
I think the gospels are a physical representation of spiritual reality (not that the two "realms" are wholly separate)
This will probably be my last post on this thread, since I know we can go back and forth a million times and I also know we’re going to get into specifics again as the blog goes on.
Steven-
Basically, I feel like you’re putting forth a theory that is easily believed be ordinary people (those that don’t spend much time researching on the subject), difficult to completely disprove (anything is possible, after all), but completely unsupported by evidence. For example, can you cite some early source, reliable texts which directly refute the resurrection story? Which declare that the tomb was not empty- “look, everyone, his body is right here, calm down!” The resurrection story was documented very early, within the lifetime of many eyewitnesses. Christianity also began in Jerusalem, in the presence of eyewitnesses. Why did they not refute it? Why do we instead only have early source documentation that corroborates the Biblical story (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etc.)? Even if you don’t find these sources compelling enough to convince you that it’s true, you certainly can’t claim that your theory is more supported evidentially. In fact, it is entirely unsupported.
Anyway, moving on:
We (Steven and I- correct me if I’m wrong) seem to agree that Jesus existed, was a teacher, had devoted followers (who, during his lifetime, believed him to be the Messiah), was crucified and buried in a tomb. We also seem to agree that his followers were shocked by his death and that they all had some sort of visions of the risen Christ (although we disagree on what they saw).
We also agree that after the shock of his death and after these visions, the disciples, who had already deserted Jesus by this time, suddenly became CONVINCED that He was the Messiah after all. They then began to understand the ancient prophecies as they related to Jesus.
Here is the problem as I see it:
In order for your view to be true, these men all had to have “visions” that were real enough to convince them (people who had betrayed and deserted Jesus by now) to leave everything they had behind and devote their entire lives to spreading the news that Jesus had risen, that He was the Messiah, that the Savior had come, even though this cost them EVERYTHING, eventually even their lives. They believed what they saw so much that not one of them betrayed the story even in the face of death. Wow, that was some vision(s).
If you believe that these men all had the same vision and that the vision was real enough to inspire that kind of belief in men who had already lost all belief, then it seems to me that you do in fact believe that the supernatural is possible. Because it is true that either the visions were supernatural or that they were really one mass delusion (which has been ruled out by scholars/psychologists already as well- in short, groups of people aren’t usually fooled/brainwashed by someone after that someone is dead).
But if you believe in the supernatural, then I’m not sure where/how you draw the line. Supernatural spiritual appearances by God are acceptable, but other supernatural things (miracles, resurrections, virgin births) are obviously crazy? There is a God- but his power is limited to simply producing visions. Is this your position?
“But isn't the idea of a literally resuscitated dead body more unbelievable? If you’re approaching this from a perspective of reason?”
More unbelievable than supernatural visions from God? From what I’m reading, your “reason” allows you to believe in a god who sends visions of a spiritually resurrected man to human beings, yet you find the thought of that same god resurrecting a body impossible. I feel like you need to pick a side. If the supernatural is impossible, you could doubt both. But if it’s possible, then there isn’t any real difference between the two.
“No pre-existing prejudices?”
As far as prejudice goes, the biggest one when it comes to these types of discussion is the presupposition that the supernatural is not possible. If one believes that the supernatural is impossible then it won’t matter how much evidence points toward it, one’s worldview will not allow him to accept that evidence. If however, one is open to the possibility of the supernatural, then he can look at the evidence and honestly assess it. This is the most open starting position.
SUPERNATURAL
I did not mean for "visions of Christ" to be interpreted as supernatural. I think it was more holistic than that. Visions of departed loved ones are not that rare, even today. I think a "supernatural" explanation is a symbol for a natural occurrence, whether it be an actual spirit or (most likely) the subconscious ever-active in our minds' perceptions.
Kristin : "As far as prejudice goes, the biggest one when it comes to these types of discussion is the presupposition that the supernatural is not possible."
This is an interesting viewpoint. If we cannot rely on empirical evidence and reliable natural laws as a solid starting point in deciding the most likely scenarios in the past, then how do we proceed with any kind of consistent methodology?
Supernatural = impossible
Natural = possible
Are these really two equals to be weighed against each other?
I'll say that the physical resurrection is possible, but ONLY in the sense that "anything is possible!" ONLY in the sense that I never feel comfortable communicating in absolutes. There is much, much we don't know - but according to what we do know, it seems we should treat the birth of Christianity like we would any other historical event - seeking out what most likely occurred.
Also, I think perhaps the ancients might have been confused by natural vs. supernatural. People who were epileptic or mentally handicapped were demon-possessed back then. That was what was natural. It was obvious. That's what demon possession was. We have different names and better ways of dealing with it today.
"Christianity also began in Jerusalem, in the presence of eyewitnesses. Why did they not refute it?"
I don't think it was a very big movement in the beginning. I'm sure none of us would go out of our way to refute every new religion that came along. As the movement began to be more successful over several decades, then references start turning up in different sources. There are no non-Christian references to the Jesus movement at all until Josephus.
He mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities (early 90's CE) but not in The Jewish War, written 10 years earlier, despite having sections on "disturbances" under Pontious Pilate. Perhaps the Christian movement took a little longer to get on his radar screen?
Martyr and Tertullian were second century Christians.
The first pagan references (in writing) to Christians weren't until the 2nd century
"these men all had to have “visions” that were real enough to convince them"
Perhaps in a SENSE, but not necessarily the same as Peter or Paul's visions (and were these that similar?). What I mean is, most Christian martyrs in history were not apostles. Therefore we can see that taking religion on the word of another is enough to create a belief strong enough for martyrdom. How is this so? It's because the CONTENT of the vision speaks to them.
" In fact, it (Steven's viewpoint) is entirely unsupported."
except by a modern scientific viewpoint. And by the work of many, many historians - religious and secular.
(WARNING: Tangent approaching!)
But I view it all through a postmodern lens, which refuses to cede meaning in the face of a more modern, scientific understanding. Science is not a "'meaning-destroyer" it just helps us understand the way things work in a better way.
Think of what "spiritual" means. Is it not different than physical? Isn't "physical" what is real? So what is spiritual? What is unreal? I think that what is spiritual is that which is intangible, therefore it can only be communicated by physical representation - symbol. Paul writes that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. yet, we are arguing for a physical, resurrected body of jesus? The gospels literalized it. Actually not all of them. Mark has no appearances. Matthew has brief ones, but even in the face of them "some doubted". but anyway.
So what is spirit then? Perhaps another type of existence? Perhaps the realm of the subconscious? Perhaps a word for that which is physical that we can't quite process consciously?
I'm way off topic, but it's a topic I enjoy
Ah, I have so much to say! But, before I get time for a real post, I just wanted to say that sometimes with Steven I feel like I'm arguing against multiple personalities. Steven- You do realize that you have now refuted Christian Universalism, which is the stance you repeatedly argue for on your own blog, right? It would help me to know which view is your real view and which is just devil's advocate. Surely you can't believe that supernatural is impossible yet a supernatural god universally will save us all in the end...
“I don't think it was a very big movement in the beginning. I'm sure none of us would go out of our way to refute every new religion that came along.”
This might make sense, if not for Paul. In 36AD, a mere three years after the death of Jesus, Paul (then Saul) had devoted himself to tracking down, arresting, and executing the followers of Jesus. Prior to his encounter on the road to Damascus, Saul condoned the execution of Stephen where he “watched over the robes of those who were stoning Stephen.” Clearly, very early on, Jesus’ followers were viewed as a threat. It seems that Saul certainly was under orders to “go out of [his] way to refute [this] new religion….” And certainly, Pilate (who was still alive in 36AD) or any person who served under Pilate could have refuted the claim of the empty tomb and aided Saul in his efforts.
Add to that the fact that we can clearly see that the Romans thought the Christians were threat enough to execute several of Jesus’ followers and to imprison Paul only 25 years after Jesus’ death (and execute him 10 years after that). Anyone 45 years or older (adults at the time of Jesus’ death) could have served as a credible witness against Paul’s claims. To make the claim that no one had reason to bother with the Christians is to ignore the evidence of the early church’s huge growth as well as the evidence of the early Christian martyrs. They were most certainly viewed as a threat to the establishment, and not some rinky-dink band of weirdos. As further evidence, recall that Paul was writing to large, established institutions in his letters. There’s little doubt that the church enjoyed a rapid and noticeable expansion very soon after the death of Jesus.
In this week’s post, I’ll comment on the early church movement a great deal more, so I’m not going to use all of my fodder here, but I don’t believe it’s fair to say that the disciples weren’t refuted because they weren’t taken seriously or weren’t viewed as a large enough threat. Among other things, I’ll look at just how easily the disciple’s claims could have been refuted if there was evidence to the contrary.
Steven-
1. First of all, if you simply equate natural with possible and supernatural with impossible, then you misunderstand the definitions of these two words. The supernatural (something beyond the natural) may or may not be possible; that is unable to be completely proven at this point. You are of the opinion that it is impossible, but it is not defined as impossible.
2. If the visions were not supernatural, then you must believe that the apostles (and the other 500, and Paul) suffered from a mass delusion. This is a theory that has been rejected again and again by scholars/psychology. I’d be interested in hearing why you dispute the view of most scholars on this issue.
3. The apostles were in the unique position to know the truth; they were eyewitnesses to the events. Therefore, their martyrdom is simply not comparable the martyrdom of people of other religions or even later Christian martyrs. Many people (for whatever reason) die for things that they believe by faith to be true, based on secondhand information. But these people are not in a position to know for sure if their beliefs are true. Rarely do people die for beliefs they absolutely know not to be true. Can you explain why the apostles would want to do such a thing? Or are you still just comfortable dismissing this behavior as “existential angst?”
4. “If we cannot rely on empirical evidence and reliable natural laws as a solid starting point in deciding the most likely scenarios in the past, then how do we proceed with any kind of consistent methodology?”
I am relying on empirical evidence. Primary sources, early documents, corroboration of presented facts, looking for embarrassing testimony/enemy testimony, etc. All of these are things that historians look for to determine reliability of sources.
No one is suggesting that we just take the supernatural as a given. But when it is the best explanation of events in question, it should certainly be considered. To rule it out a priori certainly limits the ability to examine evidence fairly. Your view of supernatural=impossible requires you to dismiss any evidence which points to the supernatural. And in this situation, that is a plethora of dismissed evidence. It keeps your worldview intact (which seems to be the goal), but does it allow you to learn what really happened?
5. “Martyr and Tertullian were second century Christians.”
Yes, I’m aware. They simply confirm for us, along with others like Polycarp and Clement, that the apostles did truly believe that they saw the risen Christ. We actually have 9 sources that represent multiple, early, and eyewitness sources that confirm that the disciples saw the risen Christ. We have 11 early sources that show that they were willing to be persecuted and die for their beliefs (again, beliefs which they were in the position to know the truth of). In fact, we have more eyewitness documents and earlier documents for the resurrection than we do for anything else from the ancient world.
Just to give a comparison: We have NO sources about the life of Alexander the Great during his lifetime or soon after his death. The first works we find are from 100 years after his death and both are very small fragments. We actually base everything we know about Alexander the Great on documents written 300-500 years after his death. And we accept it as historical fact.
So the reason people decide to not take the resurrection as fact has little to do with documentation and reliable evidence. It has everything to do with a worldview that does not allow for belief in anything outside of this universe.
One's understanding of Alexander the Great doesn't directly corrilate with a stance on abortion, gay marraige, torture, and the consumption of cable pornography (lol). The same cannot be said for your views on Jesus.
Vernicus-
You are absolutely right. Thanks for adding to my point! Most people reject the resurrection not because of lack of evidence, and possibly not even due to their unwillingness to accept the supernatural, but because of the moral implications of the belief in Jesus.
Disliking moral implications- now that is what I call a scientific, rational reason for dismissing evidence! LOL
I'm glad to help out and honestly look forward to a lively discussion on morality in the Bible.
Having said that, I'd like to make a quick point before we shift gears.
If I were to tell you that I had a dog named Alex when I was seven, would you believe me?
How about if I told you I had a talking dog named Jesus...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
___________________________________
(Ark myth?)
___________________________________
“If I were to tell you that I had a dog named Alex when I was seven, would you believe me?”
I suppose so.
“How about if I told you I had a talking dog named Jesus...”
On your word alone? No.
If:
- you lived your entire life devoted to spreading the news that your dog talked, not changing your story even in the face of extreme torture, and death.
- at least 12 other eyewitnesses of this talking dog gave up everything they had and devoted their entire lives to spreading the news of your talking dog, not changing their story even in the face of extreme torture, and death.
- even your enemies (those that hate talking dogs) confirmed that your dog talked
- a man who was previously an enemy/persecutor of the talkingdogbeliefpeople finally heard the dog talk himself and then turned into a talkingdogbeliefpeople leader, devoting his entire life to defending the talking dog story, even in the face of extreme torture, and death.
- NO eyewitnesses denied that the dog talked
- there were more sources documenting information about the talking dog than about Obama
Then:
I suppose so.
Theology supposing an inerrant viewpoint of Scripture is an interest of mine. I am very interested in what effects Calvinism, Arminianism and Universalism can have on society and how much sense they make within the context of an inerrant viewpoint (which obviously, I do not support). I’m sorry if that is confusing! (I can understand)
I am wondering what definition of “impossible” would work for this blog? Perhaps it is simply a word that serves no purpose since supernatural intervention, either leaving a naturalistic trail of evidence or leaving no evidence whatsoever, can be claimed anytime. Even if you claim God can only be logical, where does your concept of logic come from? Natural law. And God constantly intervening to suspend those laws is highly problematic for any stream of logic.
I am not trying to put the world in a box. In a certain sense I consider anything possible myself, but “impossible FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES” can still be pretty reliable when assessing history.
Is physical resurrection possible?
Is stopping the sun revolving around the earth possible?
Is Jesus reaching heaven by ascending into the sky possible? Even though we know more about how space works now, and the author of Luke thought heaven was right above us? Do we think Jesus entered orbit when he left the atmosphere? Is he still hurtling through space looking for heaven (after all, if he ascended 2,000 years ago and traveled at the speed of light, he wouldn’t even have left our galaxy yet, and our galaxy is one of billions and billions.....)? If heaven is not a physical place, why did he physically rise into the air according to Luke? Was it for show? Was it to make it look like he was entering heaven according to an ancient understanding, even though Jesus knew heaven didn’t lie up in the sky? If so, why didn’t Jesus just correct the onlookers? Or was the story a symbolic description of spiritual truth? And once again, what is spiritual? It is different than physical? If so, why are we arguing physical literalism concerning bible stories? Heck, most christians today don’t even have the view that their physical bodies will be resurrected - they think that they will die and instantly be in heaven with God, and that it is a spiritual, non-physical existence. This despite Paul’s assertion that Christ was “the first fruits” of the resurrection, meaning that our resurrection will be of the SAME type as his. So why do Christians still hold on to a physical resurrection when they don’t consider their own upcoming resurrection to be physical?
These are some of the questions that confront a literalist mindset concerning scripture.
Kristin : “So the reason people decide to not take the resurrection as fact has little to do with documentation and reliable evidence. It has everything to do with a worldview that does not allow for belief in anything outside of this universe.”
The “prejudice against supernatural” argument is clever. It accepts the fact that many ideas of God in the Bible are impossible. Then, instead of “dropping” God, or re-interpreting god in light of a more current understanding of the universe, it simply creates an alternate reality that doesn’t conform to any rules of the universe. It is clever, because it gets rid of any criteria for evaluating the god claim. It gets rid of any need for natural proof. When there is not natural proof for a claim, it is not needed. The supernatural is responsible. However if there is any possible way to stretch natural evidence into support, it is latched on to. 52 blogs argues that Einstein’s relativity laws are “proof” of a creator. 52 blogs argues that causality (a natural function of our universe) requires a supernatural creator. But then where there is no naturalistic proof, “supernatural!” is cried.
The following question is posed presupposing the claimed “Logos” (or strictly and dispassionately logical) perspective of this blog:
Is it easier to believe that ancient folks didn’t record the literal facts of the resurrection right as we would understand it today, or is it easier to create an entirely different dimension of existence (in our thoughts), in order to accommodate the claims of early Christians? And that dimension is just taking “impossible” and replacing that label with “supernatural” or “out of time”.
Look around right now wherever you are. Are you going to bet on natural law or supernatural intervention, in opposition to natural law, for what happens next?
Kristin : “Your view of supernatural=impossible requires you to dismiss any evidence which points to the supernatural.”
No, it leads us to look for natural explanations for the evidence, which are not hard to come by, given the nature of the human mind, the nature of oral transmissions of story, the nature of human memory, the context of a 2,000 year old understanding of the cosmos, the context of imperialism (Ancient Judea was probably like modern day Iraq in its instability), the context of ancient religious assumptions, the internal inconsistencies in the NT, different historical views concerning literalism and symbolism, and more.
Great Post Steven!
Kristin,
I'm glad you acknowledge the difference in believing in Alex and believing in Jesus. I probably find it just as hard to believe in a talking dog as believing in God/Jesus.
But given the criteria you just outlined in how you'd come to believe in Jesus, the talking dog I assume you also believe in Perseus.
If the story of Perseus and his heroic slaying of the Gorgon Medusa and the reclamation of his kingdom is true, then we need no other evidence than that the ancient Greek legends are the word of Zeus. So the question is, did the slaying of the Gorgon actually occur?
Many early pagans believed in the Gods of ancient Greece well up into the time when Chrstianity gained power in Europe. Many of these were martyred for their beliefs at the hands of Christians. This proves that the ancient Greek stories are true, for who would willingly die for a lie?
There is also a record of Perseus turning his enemy Phineas to stone at a wedding before hundreds of eye witnesses.
Furthermore, Perseus' birth and life were all in amazing fulfillment of dozens of prophecies given by the oracles of Delphi and Ammon. Do you know what the odds are against any individual accurately fulfilling EVERY SINGLE ONE of those prophecies, as Perseus did? About one in seventy gazillion to the gamillionth power!
Furthermore, there is the amazing historical and geographical accuracy of the ancient Greek legends. The story of Perseus contains references to many lands and islands in the country of Greece that consultation of an atlas shows actually exist! And historians such as Pausanias and Appollonious make reference to Perseus as a historical figure, the founder of the kingdom of Mycanae, showing beyond doubt that the saga of Perseus, including his divine birth and all his heroic exploits are genuine historical records.
So, anyone who claims that the story of Perseus is just a myth has to answer the question - how do you explain away all those people the Gorgon turned to stone?
Skeptics, the burden of proof is on you to proof Zeus doesn't exist and Perseus isn't his son.
The evidence you provide for Jesus being the son of God feels like me providing a picture of my talking dog as proof of his ability to speak. Proving a man named Jesus existed is far from proving he walked on water or any of the other extraordinary claims.
If you and 13 people come to me claiming to have witnessed a dog speak fluent english, I'd have 14 crazy people on my hands. In fact, I don't know how you'd prove it to me without me physically witnessing the act. The burden of proof is that high. You however have a much easier case....use your relationship with your best friend, an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing Jesus to perform one extraordinary, supernatural act..but you can't. Which is 'evidence' for my theory that it's all in your head...
Steven-
I wish you would have addressed my questions about your view- why you choose to disagree with scholars about mass hallucinations, what sources are you using, how you reconcile your two contradicting beliefs (supernatural is impossible AND a supernatural god will universally save us all- this isn’t confusing, it’s nonsensical), why the disciples died for something they knew without a doubt to be false, etc.? The burden of proof is on the Christian as far as the resurrection. BUT, when someone chooses to create their own theory as to what happened, the burden of proof for that explanation shifts to him. You seem to have abandoned defending your theories from a few posts back.
Not sure why we would need to define “impossible.” But just to be safe, it means “unable to happen.” We DO need to clarify that the definition of supernatural is NOT “unable to happen,” but rather “that which cannot be explained naturally.”
I never used the phrase “prejudice against the supernatural.” I simply said that if one presupposes that the supernatural is impossible, one will not accept the supernatural regardless of the evidence. Not much to argue with there.
Also, Randy and I are (still) not Biblical literalists…
“And God constantly intervening to suspend those laws is highly problematic for any stream of logic.”
1. Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
2. Constantly? I’ve been discussing one event in history… for which there is ample evidence.
“No, it leads us to look for natural explanations for the evidence, which are not hard to come by”
I’ve been anxiously awaiting these explanations!!
Vernicus-
Can you cite your sources which verify that eyewitnesses died defending these claims about Perseus? I’m afraid in all my years studying and teaching classical history, I haven’t come across the early, reliable, and corroborative sources which support the Perseus story comparable to the sources we have supporting the gospels.
Again, it’s the eyewitness testimony documented and corroborated by other sources which makes the Jesus story unique historically. Like I’ve said before, many people have died for beliefs which they can’t verify. It’s the historically proven martyrdom of eyewitnesses (people who DID verify) that makes this story unique.
“In fact, I don't know how you'd prove it to me without me physically witnessing the act.”
It seems to me that even if you did hear the dog talk or see Jesus rise from the dead, you still wouldn’t believe it. You would explain it away. You would have to…the supernatural is “impossible!”
Great comment Steven!
I'm content to leave this week's comments where they are, but I do want it to be clear that the discussion here has nothing to do with a universalist view of scripture.
I view Scripture a bit more seriously than the works of Tolkien, but it's a good parallel. When discussing his works, I can argue about what Frodo would or wouldn't do, because I'm arguing within the context and logic of the Lord of the Rings - the story. That doesn't mean that I think the LOR story literally happened.
I discuss theology within an inerrant viewpoint of Scripture because it's interesting to do so. Plus I believe there are real philosophical hazards in both an Arminian and Calvinist position. I don't hold the Bible to be the perfect word of God, but I enjoy arguing positions as if it were. Basically, I'm a nerd, and, in all honesty, I am still working through the views I had when I was a younger, much more conservative Christian. So, its interesting to me.
Kristin, I am still interested in your view regarding "the sign of Jonah" (3 days and 3 nights as in Matthew 12 or 36 hours as in the passion accounts) and Paul's mention of Jesus appearing to "the twelve" (1 Cor. 15) as opposed to the eleven in Luke.
"I'm content to leave this week's comments where they are"
Okay. I still hope to hear your defense/evidence/sources for your earlier theories if you get around to it. But my guess is that you'll just come up with new ones instead. Should be interesting!
Three Days-
Most scholars agree that "for three days and three nights" is a figure of speech. It was used at other times in the Bible (most cited one is in Esther with the fast) to refer to anything which included three days; it is not meant to be taken as literally three 24 hour periods.
Jesus repeatedly predicted that he would rise, "on the third day." Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 26:61. And obviously "on the third day" cannot be the same as "after the third day."
Luke/1 Corinthians-
The appearance to Peter is the one mentioned in Luke 24:34, which occurred on Easter. The appearance to the Twelve seems to have taken place on Sunday evening (see Luke 24:36-43 and John 20:19-23). "The Twelve" seems to be a conventional way of of referring to the group of original apostles, even though Judas was no longer with them.
That info. is probably in the footnotes of your NIV Bible just like mine. But I'm happy to look up the notes on each and every verse if you need me to.
Steven,
"I am wondering what definition of “impossible” would work for this blog? Perhaps it is simply a word that serves no purpose since supernatural intervention, either leaving a naturalistic trail of evidence or leaving no evidence whatsoever, can be claimed anytime."Impossible: Not possible. (not equivalent to "supernatural")
What do you expect me to say about the supernatural? If you believe "supernatural = impossible", there are much, much better ways to spend your time. This definition precludes God.
"Is physical resurrection possible?
Is stopping the sun revolving around the earth possible?
Is Jesus reaching heaven by ascending into the sky possible?"My question is this:
If you were presented ridiculous amounts of evidence regarding each of the above events, what would you say? What would your conclusion be?
Disregard the evidence?
Reclassify all of the above items as "natural" and figure out some "scientific" explanation for each of them?
Believe them?
I understand your want to nitpick the Bible, but you're not addressing some very straightforward questions and expecting that I or Kristin should take the time to address every potential difficulty throughout the Bible. As Kristin stated, once you offer some other potential conclusion, the onus is then on you to support your alternative. If you can't offer that support, your alternative is moot.
Kristin offered very explicit explanations and asked some very simple questions of you. And your response is to jump from Biblical difficulty to Biblical difficulty? Not only that, but the difficulties you mention are not even pertinent to her points! This would be like me attacking all scientists for cold fusion or ether!
I know you say that you enjoy debating, but what debate is fun when only one side answers questions? I could offer any number of counter-theories to most anything if I didn't have to give any support for my theories.
As you are well aware, the entire crux of your argument rests on the claim of the impossible, according to natural law, being possible. That's why so much time was spent attempting to create a "god-shaped hole" in the early cosmos. So it seems relevant to debate that presupposition. Also, it is one thing to say "this stuff is impossible according to what we know today, but MAYBE it could be true" and another, as this blog contends, that the suspension of natural law by a supernatural creator time and time again is THE MOST OBVIOUS CONCLUSION - especially when analyzing the writings of ancient men, who had an understanding of the world which included demons, a flat earth, heaven just beyond the sky, etc. etc. And these were seen as part of nature. It was their naturalism. It's what they contended with everyday.
I love speculating about the literal history of the origins of the Jesus movement. But, relevant to this post's discussion, Kristin was quite right when she placed the burden of proof squarely on those subscribing to a literal resurrection. We'll move ahead to the next post(s) with more on this, I'm sure.
As far as "nitpicking" the Bible - this blog put forth a few weeks ago that the Bible stands or falls as a whole. Of course, once the debate began, it quickly became "the bible stands as a whole BUT look to the overarching themes, not to specific verses and stories".
Also, we can clearly see that "symbolism" and "figure of speech" can be employed at any time, just like "supernatural" can. I am sure that Luke's recording of the ascension of Jesus into heaven in Acts will also be described as figurative. Are the birth narrative figurative? Are the resurrection appearances figurative?
I suppose I wasn't "content" leaving this week's post after all.
Winks all around. ;)
As far as "nitpicking" the Bible - this blog put forth a few weeks ago that the Bible stands or falls as a whole. Of course, once the debate began, it quickly became "the bible stands as a whole BUT look to the overarching themes, not to specific verses and stories".I also put forth that I didn't want this to be a debate on Hebrew (or Greek) translations. It's just brutal to pore over the text looking for references to "Twelve" instead of "Eleven" when it's not relevent to the discussion at hand... it feels like you're evading the questions by searching for every argument you can find. Again, if we're being reasonable, let's just make the assumption that the authors weren't complete idiots who wrote 11 in one place and 12 in another, and no one bothered to correct them. If this were any other historical document....
Once we get into specific places in the Bible (as with the Genesis 1 discussion), by all means, let's do it. For now, how about trying to answer the questions associated with your alternative theory... it's easy to poke holes when there's no accountability.
Kristin's post brought up the sign of Jonah, so I pursued it. Paul's account of Jesus appearing to the 12 is in the earliest account of the resurrection. It's different than in Luke, and that may be because Paul's version predates the Judas story. It's interesting to think about. We got into references to the OT in the NT, and that was interesting to discuss.
Moving on....
Randy to Steven- "For now, how about trying to answer the questions associated with your alternative theory... it's easy to poke holes when there's no accountability."
Good try, Randy, but it doesn't look like they are going to be addressed. And I agree it is not much of a challenge to present alternatives to our view if you don't have to provide any evidence or sources...
Steven- If you do not accept that the Bible contains metaphors, idioms, etc. then it seems that you favor a more literal view of the Bible than most...
The Bible contains many idioms and metaphors. My point is the arbitrary line that is frequently drawn between the literal and the symbolic.
As far as specific, unaddressed questions, I'm not exactly sure where those are. I may have missed them (not sarcastic!).
But our main sources are the same.
Post a Comment