The Foundation of the Church

[technomage]

OK, folks, for some of you this is going to be an old and tired subject. However, I'm hoping that I can maybe entice some folks into entering into the conversation because I'm taking a bit of a new slant. As those who have interacted with me in the past know, I am more than a little skeptical concerning the claims made in the Bible, and some of the traditional claims made about the Bible. However, the "new slant" is this: I am asking these questions not as someone who's trying to "attack" Christianity, but as someone who honestly and sincerely is trying to learn.

So I'm going to take a skeptical look at the foundation of Christianity ... not as an attack, but as a "fresh look." To start that look, I need to engage in a bit of speculation. So with your indulgence....

Back in the years that we now call the late 20s and early 30s of the common era, during the Imperium of Tiberias and the procuratorship of Pontias Pilate, there lived a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and exorcist named Yeshua. Yeshua may have been a source of unrest against the Roman rulers, or he may have been unpopular with the Pharisees and Saducees ... whatever. He was crucified. End of story, right?

Not ... exactly. Some of his folowers claim that he rose from the grave. So maybe the Jewish Priesthood makes moves to clamp down on them, or maybe one man in particular named Saul of Tarsis makes it his personal "mission" to denounce them. Well, along the way Saul has a vision of this self-same Yeshua, sitting at the right hand of God ... and comes away a believer. He hooks up with some of the former students of Yeshua, and while Saul and these former students have some different ideas, they can at least get together on the main thesis: that Yeshua rose from the dead.

So Paul (as he is now known) goes around preaching Christ crucified and resurrected, as do a few other people. Now, during the time that he's alive, Paul writes some letters that have survived to this day ... some say four, some say eight, but let's just say "some." However, during and Paul's life, other letters are also written in his name ... and Paul's not the only person who gets a bad case of identity theft. Between 50 CE and 120 CE (and even later), a heck of a lot of literature gets written ... some of this will later be accepted into the Christian canon, some will not, but at this time all of this literature is out there, available. Each epistle, apocalypse, gospel, and story of Yeshua is trying to give the author's explanation of what happened, and what it means ... yet some of the texts are metaphoric, or philosophical, or doctrinal.

That's basically a "neutral" history of "the Way" that eventually became Christianity--Christian and skeptic alike could claim that history with few or no changes. Yet there are a few questions that remain:

What if Paul was speaking of a "spiritual resurrection," and this teaching got twisted into a physical resurrection?

This is a distinct possibility from the "historical / critical" school. Paul sees a vision of Christ and says "Jesus rose again ... I saw Him in heaven." The later Gospel writers (remember, the historical/critical school posits the Gospels as having been mostly or entirely post-destruction) write this as "Jesus rose again ... the grave was empty."

What is to prevent the miracles from being the products of mythologization?

I've heard a lot about how mytholygizing a historical person or event takes a long time ... yet I think that with the advent of the post-9/11 media frenzy, we can safely state that the creation of a myth can be a process that takes weeks, or days, or perhaps hours.

What is to prevent the "fulfilled prophecies" from being redacted re-writes of the life of Jesus?

An important point in Christian doctrine is how many of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, yet it must be noted that the first chronicler of fulfilled prophecies--the author of Matthew--interpreted many of these prophecies in ways that the mainstream Jewish religious community of that time would have completely failed to recognize. Now, we've all see the process of "reinterpretation": many mainstream Christians have noted that process in sectarian groups, schisms, and movements throughout the history of your Church.

I could go on, but my hands are giving me some grief, so I'll have to cut this short. My basic thesis is this: I like to think that I'm a reasonable person, and that I have a fairly good "layman's" understanding of history, human psychology, and the politics and culture of the ANE during the Roman occupation. There is evidence that the history and chronology claims of the Bible may not be accurate ... and while I prefer to avoid saying credo qui absurdum, I do not want to simply dispose of the Gospel accounts. In the face of evidence to the contrary, how is a reasonable person to reconcile the Gospels--or any of the claims of Judeo-Christian scripture, for that matter--with the evidence that contradicts them?

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

Justin- good questions from a sincere and astute poster. I'll drop by a bit later when I've got some time to engage them.

[technomage]

No problems, Rando ... I realize the questions above are some hairy ones ... I've been wrestling with them since I left Christianity. :rueful grin: However, I'd rather have a good answer slowly than a half-baked answer quickly. :wink:

Justin

[jpholding]

Hey ho! :thumb: Let's get right to the tacks.





What if Paul was speaking of a "spiritual resurrection," and this teaching got twisted into a physical resurrection?

This is a distinct possibility from the "historical / critical" school

That it may be, but it isn't even a possibility from the school of credible scholarship. The premier passage in 1 Cor. 15 clearly describes a physical resurrection...attempts to turn it into a "spiritual resurrection" require a serious mangling of the text. I have a full article on this at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html of which I'll post some samples of most relevance...

******
Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical is intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the "whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested). Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.

Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body. Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]

The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection. This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.

2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view. "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?

Phil. 3:21. Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection. A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one makes no sense in the social context.

In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:

Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.

This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73] There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)

Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments?...

1. "Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)

Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength...

We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].

2. "Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:

God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven...

3. "Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'."
Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature...The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. (Wright [351n] adds that adjectives of material end in -inos.) Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

And Wright adds these classical uses, showing that the word is used not for what something is made of, but what it is "animated by": Aristotle speaks of wombs "swollen with air" (hysterai pnumatikai) and Vitruvius refers to a machine "moved by wind" (pneumatikon organon). The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

... Wright (Resurrection of the Son of God, 315) adds the pertinent point that as it happens, the pagan philosophers of the day DID hold a "Mormon" view of spirit as "composed of material, albeit in finer particles." Thus indeed if Paul was teaching the sort of "spirit body" resurrection supposed, "his argument would be unnecessary, since many people in Corinth believed in that anyway." A "spiritual rez" thesis makes 1 Cor. 15 an argument for something that the Corinthians would have already believed in!
. Paul sees a vision of Christ and says "Jesus rose again ... I saw Him in heaven." The later Gospel writers (remember, the historical/critical school posits the Gospels as having been mostly or entirely post-destruction) write this as "Jesus rose again ... the grave was empty."

***
That should take care of 1; but let's discuss it first before we move on to 2. The bottom line for 1 is that the "what if" simply is without grounding and is not the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 held by the most credible, depth scholarship on this subject.

[Undomiel]

Justin,

I would suggest for you, a general study of the topic of the miraculous and unexplainable. Part of the problem when questions such as this arise is a tendency to be skeptical about anything unusual, but as we all know, just because a thing is unusual (or infrequent) does not automatically advance that it never happens (or happened).

Second, a closer study of mind over matter occurences, spiritual manifestations, alien abductions, demonic possessions, and anything relating to the "supernatural", would be beneficial as well.

Thirdly, and this is a big one in my opinion, study the incidences in mythology (which modern skeptics believe are fairy tales) of certain themes. The clincher here is the preponderance of similar themes across vast stretches of the globe, during a time when mass and long distance communication did not exist.

Let's take for example, the similarity of the "mythology" (and I use that word loosely, as I don't believe the ancient stories are mythological but historical) of the Bushmen of Australia, comparitive to the "mythology" of the Inca and Viracoccha, or the ancient Egyptians, or the ancient Sumerians, or the ancient Israelites, or the ancient Greeks, and etc. I believe their similarities prove, rather than disprove, the validity of the stories in the bible. In fact, I believe the various ancient "mythologies" on the planet, verify each other.

This is where my skeptical side comes into play: modern day skeptics believe all those people were either hallucinating or the victims of tribal lords who were grasping for a way to control their tribal members. How terribly presumptuous of them. Do you not find their position to be equally or even more, untenable? I can't imagine what happens to empirical process when the time arrives to validate the historicity of these topics. They must temporarily suspend them, because to do otherwise, would require they face the prospect that there is more to our history and our universe than pure mechanistic thought can conceive (especially in light of the fact we don't even know all the mechanisms).

The reason I bring up these subjects for your study and/or further consideration (or comment), is that the foundation of skepticism is the result of the lack of information or absolute refusal to view the universe any way but demonstrably mechanical (which is limited to their own understanding - et.al, in the absence of understanding, experience and so on, resides the spectre of skepticism). This tendency bleeds over into everything else, including the validity of particular religious historical figures, their words, the words attributed to them and so on, such as Jesus Christ.

Resolution for their skeptical dilemma is to apply modern day concepts to millenia-old people and events. How they don't notice their own short-sightedness and inability to correctly apply empirical evidence to all of history and not just those moments in history since the advent of a purely demonstrable mechanical universe, is beyond me.

[Amazing Rando]

OK, folks, for some of you this is going to be an old and tired subject. However, I'm hoping that I can maybe entice some folks into entering into the conversation because I'm taking a bit of a new slant. As those who have interacted with me in the past know, I am more than a little skeptical concerning the claims made in the Bible, and some of the traditional claims made about the Bible. However, the "new slant" is this: I am asking these questions not as someone who's trying to "attack" Christianity, but as someone who honestly and sincerely is trying to learn.

You come across as someone who desires only to learn, Justin. That's commendable.

So I'm going to take a skeptical look at the foundation of Christianity ... not as an attack, but as a "fresh look." To start that look, I need to engage in a bit of speculation. So with your indulgence....

Back in the years that we now call the late 20s and early 30s of the common era, during the Imperium of Tiberias and the procuratorship of Pontias Pilate, there lived a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and exorcist named Yeshua. Yeshua may have been a source of unrest against the Roman rulers, or he may have been unpopular with the Pharisees and Saducees ... whatever.

Likely a bit of both, though it's very unlikely that the "unrest" Jesus planned was a violent one. :wink:

What if Paul was speaking of a "spiritual resurrection," and this teaching got twisted into a physical resurrection?

This is a distinct possibility from the "historical / critical" school. Paul sees a vision of Christ and says "Jesus rose again ... I saw Him in heaven." The later Gospel writers (remember, the historical/critical school posits the Gospels as having been mostly or entirely post-destruction) write this as "Jesus rose again ... the grave was empty."

To answer your "what if" question, if Paul was originally talking about a "spiritual resurrection," then we've been dead wrong for a very long time!

Needless to say, I don't think that's the case, or I wouldn't be a Christian anymore. :wink: The Resurrection of the dead in Jewish circles was almost without exception a physical resurrection. Take, for example, Ezekiel 37, in which the prophet sees a vision of dried bones being given new life, and real, physical breath being given to them. Resurrection for the Jews meant resurrection in the body, and you cannot separate Paul from his Jewish origins. To do so would be terribly anachronistic, not to mention unfaithful to Paul's Hellenistic Jewish background.

But aside from that, I think that Paul's letters themselves give very clear evidence as to what he meant when he said that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. In Galatians 5:11, Paul writes

11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

His mention of the "offense of the cross" is, I believe, clear evidence that Paul was referring to a physical death of Jesus on a physical cross, because of the embarassment of the shame of death on a cross. And, if he was speaking of a physical cross, why in the world would he be speaking of a "spiritual resurrection?" :nsm:

Secondly, in 1 Corinthians 15, he wrote

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

This mortal body is sown perishable, but it is raised imperishable! That very same physical body that dies will be raised again somehow in "glory" and "power." Paul is talking about the very same body, even as he mentions "heavenly bodies," elsewhere in the chapter, he makes it quite clear, I believe, that it is the very same body that is raised, albeit transformed into a "spiritual body."

What is to prevent the miracles from being the products of mythologization?

:teeth: Only the post-Enlightenment arrogance that thinks we know the way the world works, contrary to those "stupid ancients." :wink:

I've heard a lot about how mytholygizing a historical person or event takes a long time ... yet I think that with the advent of the post-9/11 media frenzy, we can safely state that the creation of a myth can be a process that takes weeks, or days, or perhaps hours.

The reason I reject the "mythologization" explanation is because of my faith in the accuracy of the transmission process. The gospel materials were circulating orally for less than a generation before they were written down, and they were written down to keep the memory of Jesus alive as that first generation of witnesses was dying- yet they were also written with the intimate aid of those witnesses, as both Luke and John's gospel explicitly claim.

Also- you're anachronistically assuming here that the conditions necessary for "myth-making" are the same today as they were 2000 years ago. The mass media of the present day facilitates instant communication around the globe, and as such, if one is powerful and influential enough, one can indeed create a myth "instantly." But this is not the case with the ancient world, where communication was much slower. The strength and accuracy of the oral transmission process in the ancient world is well documented (see Holding's site or any scholarly survey of ANE culture for more information on that); it was a skill we moderns have allowed to falter because widespread literacy and telecommunications enable us to put far less emphasis on oral tradition than was done prior to the advent of the printing press, for example.

Plus, mythologization would not have been possible as long as there were living witnesses of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. These witnesses would certainly have served as guardians of these stories, preventing them from attracting excessive mythological accretions during their (the witnesses') lifetimes. As I'm sure you're aware, Paul himself makes appeals to the testimony of eyewitnesses in 1 Cor 15 "most of whom are still living" (verse 6), saying in effect, "Go check with them yourselves if you don't believe me!" And this was circa AD 55, perhaps 10 years prior to the completion of Mark's gospel.

One more thing before I shut up- in Acts, Luke preserves the tradition that the disciples earliest public testimony to the Resurrection involved appeal to eyewitness testimony:

God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

Even if you reject this itself as later mythologization, you're still stuck with the fact that there was a strong tradition of appeal to eyewitness testimony on the part of the early Christians.

What is to prevent the "fulfilled prophecies" from being redacted re-writes of the life of Jesus?

An important point in Christian doctrine is how many of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, yet it must be noted that the first chronicler of fulfilled prophecies--the author of Matthew--interpreted many of these prophecies in ways that the mainstream Jewish religious community of that time would have completely failed to recognize. Now, we've all see the process of "reinterpretation": many mainstream Christians have noted that process in sectarian groups, schisms, and movements throughout the history of your Church.

This is an article of faith, and really can't be defended IMO. I believe, for example, that many of the prophecies were not specifically about Jesus in their original, ancient Hebrew context, but were in fact typological fulfillments. For example, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 in its original context within the book of Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever. Yet the author of Matthew explicitly takes it out of context and applies it to Jesus as a "sign" of Immanuel, God with us. Is this an illegitimate use? I don't think so, because, I've got faith that the writers of the gospels were, in some sense, "inspired," though what that means exactly, I do not know. It's an article of faith for me that the fulfilled prophecies mentioned in the NT are just as true about Jesus as they were about the fulfillment within their original context, only in a different way.

You can't really use the prophetic element successfully in an apologetic because not everyone has that same faith in the typological fulfillment as we do.

I could go on, but my hands are giving me some grief, so I'll have to cut this short.

Know that you've got my :pray: for your hands, Justin.

My basic thesis is this: I like to think that I'm a reasonable person, and that I have a fairly good "layman's" understanding of history, human psychology, and the politics and culture of the ANE during the Roman occupation. There is evidence that the history and chronology claims of the Bible may not be accurate ... and while I prefer to avoid saying credo qui absurdum, I do not want to simply dispose of the Gospel accounts. In the face of evidence to the contrary, how is a reasonable person to reconcile the Gospels--or any of the claims of Judeo-Christian scripture, for that matter--with the evidence that contradicts them?

Justin

Just keep your eyes open to the evidence that supports them too Justin, and don't shut it out just yet, and perhaps the Spirit will give ears to hear. :wink: God bless!

-Rob

[Amazing Rando]

That should take care of 1; but let's discuss it first before we move on to 2. The bottom line for 1 is that the "what if" simply is without grounding and is not the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 held by the most credible, depth scholarship on this subject.

:yes:

[technomage]

Hey ho! :thumb: Let's get right to the tacks.
HI, JP,

First and foremost, I want to thank you for taking the time to make a response. I know you're busy, and I know that any addition to your discussion schedule is rather like trying to fit ten pounds of manure in a five pound sack. :wink: I want you to know that I truly appreciate it.

That being said, I do want to mention something as a starting point:

That it may be, but it isn't even a possibility from the school of credible scholarship.
Now, I don't claim to be a credible scholar--"credible village idiot" might be the best I can do. :silly: However, while the questions I'm asking have been informed by both secular and Christians sources, the research and whatever passes as scholarship is my own. In as much as possible, I've gone back to primary sources and reputable translations (such as Aland for the NT, ccel.org for the ANFs, and the like).

The premier passage in 1 Cor. 15 clearly describes a physical resurrection...attempts to turn it into a "spiritual resurrection" require a serious mangling of the text.
I've read your article ... as a matter of fact, I read much of your website before I came here, and your research has been informative in my opinion of the Josephus citations of Jesus. However, while I agree with some of the article, I have ... well, not "objections," per se, but there's a large logical gap that doesn't make sense. (Side note: I'm not currently concerned with the assertions that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is interpolated--frankly, I've read the argument, and the folks who make it don't prove their case as anything but speculation.)

Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body.
Well, let's look at two relevant verses from that passage:

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Can you see how a reasonable person could come to the conclusion? Yes, the word "soma" refers to the body as a thing, but what does "soma pneumatikon" mean ... especially as it stands opposed to "soma psuchikon" in the sentence? (And I know you're quite aware of the ink and pixels that have been expended trying to argue the meaning of that phrase).

Now, I do not mean that Paul taught that Jesus rose as some form of immaterial being. I cannot wrap any possible meaning around "soma pneumatikon" except for some form of tangible body. But look at v 50: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." To my best understanding, Paul did not believe that the physical body would be raised: that means there's a corpse remaining in the grave, but the pneuma puts on a soma pneumatikon, and leaves the soma psuchikon behind.

The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.
Begging your pardon, JP, but denotatively speaking the word only means "Standing up." Refer to Luke 2:34 for a usage of anastasis that has nothing to do with physical resurrection.

Connotatively, yes that is what it means, especially since Paul and the Gospels. What did it mean is pre-NT writings? This is one I haven't been able to track down.

2 Cor. 5 ... Phil. 3:21.
:yes: These are good references that can be argued as a physical resurrection, and certainly make sense (especially when combined with the word "changed" 1 Cor 15:51). And the "clothed over" form/connotation is one I hadn't caught before--thanks.

Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems.
Hmmm. JP, I really don't see a connectivity between the two passages. I mean, yes, taken together they're doctrinally consistant, and they are interesting, but I truly feel that applying Paul's condemnation of neo-Platonism as an argument for a physical resurrection is stretching the logic. :shrug: Maybe I'm just being a little too picky, but that's how it looks from here.

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments?...

1. "Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

2. "Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

3. "Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'."

I'm going to dispense with the arguments here mainly because (for #1 and #3) we've discussed it, and (for #2) the skeptical arguments are overblown. Even I can see the logic that Jesus could be a life-giving spirit, whether or not the grave was empty.

. Paul sees a vision of Christ and says "Jesus rose again ... I saw Him in heaven." The later Gospel writers (remember, the historical/critical school posits the Gospels as having been mostly or entirely post-destruction) write this as "Jesus rose again ... the grave was empty."

***
That should take care of 1; but let's discuss it first before we move on to 2. The bottom line for 1 is that the "what if" simply is without grounding and is not the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 held by the most credible, depth scholarship on this subject.
Well, like I said, I'm not the most credible scholar there is. :wink:

This has certainly given me much to consider. When you're ready, we'll hash out the comments I made above.

Thanks again,

Justin

[jpholding]

Hey there!


First and foremost, I want to thank you for taking the time to make a response. I know you're busy, and I know that any addition to your discussion schedule is rather like trying to fit ten pounds of manure in a five pound sack. :wink: I want you to know that I truly appreciate it.

My pleasure! And for an earnest inquirer like you, it is worth it.

(Side note: I'm not currently concerned with the assertions that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is interpolated--frankly, I've read the argument, and the folks who make it don't prove their case as anything but speculation.)

Bob Price's item, do you mean?


Can you see how a reasonable person could come to the conclusion?

Oh, by all means. The issue lies in a technical point of Greek language which an English reader would never get offhand. It would not be the first time that decontextualiztion had caused a problem.

. But look at v 50: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

I did look at it. :smile: It's in my post from before.

To my best understanding, Paul did not believe that the physical body would be raised: that means there's a corpse remaining in the grave, but the pneuma puts on a [/size]soma [size=-1]pneumatikon, and leaves the soma psuchikon behind.

As I noted, Phil. 3:21 and 2 Cor. 5 stand against that idea; as does the Jewish conception of resurrection. You may recall that the Jews kept bones in ossuaries, which makes sense only if they though the old soma was going to have some part in the new one. As a side note of interest, one Jewish scholar has proposed that the idea of ex nihilo creation came about when Jews needed an answer to pagan charges that a body decayed into dust and the dust was then used in other bodies and things; thus how could there be a resurrection of the same body?


Begging your pardon, JP, but denotatively speaking the word only means "Standing up." Refer to Luke 2:34 for a usage of anastasis that has nothing to do with physical resurrection.

Given the eschatological tenor of the passage, I wouldn't be so sure that physical resurrection isn't involved in the package. Unfortunately the Lukan commentary I own here at home does not say anything either way about this.

Connotatively, yes that is what it means, especially since Paul and the Gospels. What did it mean is pre-NT writings? This is one I haven't been able to track down.

N. T. Wright looks at some uses in his book on resurrection; one from Aeschylus says that after the blood has run into the ground, there is no anastasis. I did my own search for an earlier article and found no other uses of the word myself. Not to say there won't be one somewhere.


Hmmm. JP, I really don't see a connectivity between the two passages. I mean, yes, taken together they're doctrinally consistant, and they are interesting, but I truly feel that applying Paul's condemnation of neo-Platonism as an argument for a physical resurrection is stretching the logic. :shrug: Maybe I'm just being a little too picky, but that's how it looks from here.

Actually what is seen is not so much Platonism as a sort of proto-Gnosticism. Would that make a difference?


This has certainly given me much to consider. When you're ready, we'll hash out the comments I made above.

Thanks again,

Justin

My pleasure. Feel free to respond at your convenience. :smile:

JP

[technomage]

His mention of the "offense of the cross" is, I believe, clear evidence that Paul was referring to a physical death of Jesus on a physical cross, because of the embarassment of the shame of death on a cross. And, if he was speaking of a physical cross, why in the world would he be speaking of a "spiritual resurrection?" :nsm:
OK, hold on a minute. If Jesus existed as a historical person (and I believe that he did), and if he was crucified (which is reasonable), then he came down from that cross as dead as four-o-clock. (And don't ask me what that phrase means, except that it means dead. It's a phrase I've picked up since I moved to the South.)

My big thing is this: I cannot wrap my brain around the concept of the Gospels as an accurate account of his life and ministry. Now, part of that is an emotional reaction against the "verbal-plenary inspired, infallable, and historically and scientifically accurate" teachings that I received as a child: that's my problem, and I'm trying to get over it.

The reason I reject the "mythologization" explanation is because of my faith in the accuracy of the transmission process. The gospel materials were circulating orally for less than a generation before they were written down, and they were written down to keep the memory of Jesus alive as that first generation of witnesses was dying- yet they were also written with the intimate aid of those witnesses, as both Luke and John's gospel explicitly claim.
:yes: That's a big point, and while there have been some changes in the Christian corpus, most of them have been relatively minor. Even in the biggest change I can think of--the added ending of Mark--the added text was quite in line with the balance of the text, and introduced no new doctrines that were not in line with the balance of scripture.

Also- you're anachronistically assuming here that the conditions necessary for "myth-making" are the same today as they were 2000 years ago.
Ummm ...no. In this case, I'm working with personal experience.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was working at a call center for Sykes, Incorporated. When the attacks occurred, our phone and data networks went down before the second tower was hit: the data trunk was overloaded from all the requests to news websites and the like, and it took the phones with it. I saw the process of speculation to rumor to "known fact"--in some cases, it took about fifteen minutes.

It can occur within a very short time. Now, for me to sit here and definitively state that the Gospels are the process of mythologyzation would be irresponsible in the extreme. At the same time, I have to take the possibility into account.

Plus, mythologization would not have been possible as long as there were living witnesses of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
Again, I must beg to differ. How many of us are "living witnesses" to the events of 9/11? Yet how many witnesses have engaged in "mythmaking," ranging from that nice little letter from Boeing (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blosamaboeing.htm) (I truly enjoyed that) to the idea that all of the Jews who worked at the WTC had taken the day off? (I didn't enjoy that one at all, and told the red-necked idiot who relayed that particular rumor to me just exactly where his head was.)

One more thing before I shut up- in Acts, Luke preserves the tradition that the disciples earliest public testimony to the Resurrection involved appeal to eyewitness testimony:
Yes, but if my estimates of the date of Acts is correct (80 CE at the earliest), that's over fifty years after the events. Who knows if the author of Acts gave an accurate account.

However, I probably need to mention something here: I cannot believe that the authors of the NT were cynical liars saying "Hey, let's write a fraudulent series of books to mnake a religion that will take over the world." These people sincerely believed. But we have all seen situations of people who sincerely believed, and were sincerely wrong.

Once again, however, my hands are worn out, and I'm going to have to take this up later. However, as a final note:

Just keep your eyes open to the evidence that supports them too Justin, and don't shut it out just yet, and perhaps the Spirit will give ears to hear.
I am. Rob, I'll tell you and JP the truth: in some respects, I'm desperately searching for a way I can believe in the Bible again.

Justin

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Dear Justin,
It is good to return to these old points that have been done over and over. It is good because there still aren't any new ones. You still owe me an apology.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[technomage]

Hi, Mr. Mxyzptlk. Haven't seen you in a while. :smile:

Dear Justin,
It is good to return to these old points that have been done over and over. It is good because there still aren't any new ones.
Oh, I know ... it's old hat. But the things that I bring up are things that have been weighing on me. My questions and the discussions here won't change anything on the scale of theological scholarship, but they may help me settle some unanswered questions in my own mind.

You still owe me an apology.
Mr. Mxyzptlk, I called things as I saw them. Now, if my analysis was accurate (even if my words were insulting), I can't in good conscience offer an apology for telling the truth.

But I do not know, and cannot know, if my analysis was accurate, and it sure was insulting. So yes, I apologize for the insults, and for the possible inaccuracy.

Pax?

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, but if my estimates of the date of Acts is correct (80 CE at the earliest), that's over fifty years after the events. Who knows if the author of Acts gave an accurate account.
The indications are that the author of Acts (and Luke) carefully gathered and sifted the information he used to write. He even took into consideration the testimony of those who ordinarily wouldn't be listened to (women).

[jpholding]

Now, part of that is an emotional reaction against the "verbal-plenary inspired, infallable, and historically and scientifically accurate" teachings that I received as a child: that's my problem, and I'm trying to get over it.

On the side, Justin, you may appreciate the site run by Venerable Bede, aka James Hannam, http://www.bede.org.uk who is a Ph D candidate and who has helped me on several projects. He doesn't buy into inerrancy either but I consider him to be on solid ground and an invaluable resource. (Disclosure: He also recommends my site and rates it a 10. :teeth:)

You're entering into Point 2 some, so I'll give some points from one of my articles about that now. Here's a summation (I was answering Robert Price).
********
Here is where we reach the crux of the matter: Price fundamentally misunderstands the apologetic arguments being presented. Apologists do NOT simply say that ANY legends should have "waited" a certain amount of time before forming; what is being said is that it takes time for legends to be able to "stick" and earn the status of gospel truth, thus replacing or supplementing what was really true! The argument, then, allows that legends could arise, but would then be countered by the hard facts, and die within a short period - UNLESS they were put together so late that it was impossible to check their validity by normal means. The point of the apologetic arguments is that the "legends" (as the skeptics like to call them) of Christianity (divinity claims, resurrection, etc.) were "invented" (again, as the skeptics say) so early that they would still be in the squashable stage at their most critical period - and that they were NOT squashed is testimony that they are NOT legends. In other words, they were NOT legends, and they were NOT invented - they actually happened! And this, indeed, is another place where Price's parallel using Sevi fails. Since Sevi apostatized within a short time after declaring himself to be the Messiah, there wasn't time (nor, perhaps, the interest) for the legends to be sufficiently, critically analyzed. Time to verify, yes; time to embellish in the short-term, yes; but to embellish and stick in the long-term, holding up under investigation and spreading as would have had to have happened if skeptics are right about Christianity - no chance.
****

Let me ask you -- you refer to rumors about 9.11. Does anyone believe any of those rumors NOW, three and half years later? And if they do, have they checked into them?

Will people believe them 10 years from now? 20?

Finally, are there not many published responses to these rumors as well?


Yes, but if my estimates of the date of Acts is correct (80 CE at the earliest), that's over fifty years after the events. Who knows if the author of Acts gave an accurate account.

50 years isn't that long; reputable historians report events as many as 100-150 years later than they happened and I have not heard of historians discounting them on that basis....


I am. Rob, I'll tell you and JP the truth: in some respects, I'm desperately searching for a way I can believe in the Bible again.


Well, I hope we help you find what you are looking for. :smile: I hope you don't mind the sentiment.

JP

[Amazing Rando]

OK, hold on a minute. If Jesus existed as a historical person (and I believe that he did), and if he was crucified (which is reasonable), then he came down from that cross as dead as four-o-clock. (And don't ask me what that phrase means, except that it means dead. It's a phrase I've picked up since I moved to the South.)

For sure! That's one thing among several about the events of Holy Week that the gospels make abundantly clear, perhaps go out of their way to do so!

My big thing is this: I cannot wrap my brain around the concept of the Gospels as an accurate account of his life and ministry. Now, part of that is an emotional reaction against the "verbal-plenary inspired, infallable, and historically and scientifically accurate" teachings that I received as a child: that's my problem, and I'm trying to get over it.

Don't worry- that's not the model I take either. You told me once you spent time at Bob Jones U- that is a significant hurdle to overcome, and you can hardly be blamed if you ran too far to the opposite end. :wink:

I believe the Bible is inspired by God somehow, though I don't know exactly what that means. I don't mean it in the fundamentalist sense you were describing above, but neither do I mean it in the subjective "artisically inspired" sense either.

:yes: That's a big point, and while there have been some changes in the Christian corpus, most of them have been relatively minor. Even in the biggest change I can think of--the added ending of Mark--the added text was quite in line with the balance of the text, and introduced no new doctrines that were not in line with the balance of scripture.

:smile: I'm glad you recognize that.

Ummm ...no. In this case, I'm working with personal experience.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was working at a call center for Sykes, Incorporated. When the attacks occurred, our phone and data networks went down before the second tower was hit: the data trunk was overloaded from all the requests to news websites and the like, and it took the phones with it. I saw the process of speculation to rumor to "known fact"--in some cases, it took about fifteen minutes.

It can occur within a very short time. Now, for me to sit here and definitively state that the Gospels are the process of mythologyzation would be irresponsible in the extreme. At the same time, I have to take the possibility into account.

Sure it can- but the possibility is made much stronger today than it was 2000 years ago due to the incredible speed of communication now compared to then. In the premodern era, legends took a very long time to grow because of the accuracy and competence of the ancients at preserving oral tradition. Take for example, Mallory's Le Mort D'Arthur (I think I spelled that right!). How long did it take the legends of King Arthur to reach such an embellished level? If you grant the opinion of many British historians that there was a "historical Arthur" back in the 300's or so when Roman influence in Britain was waning, then it took darn near 1000 years for those oral traditions about Arthur to finally reach the form we know them today- in Mallory's book.

I know you said you're familiar with much of Holding's site, but I'd refer you to his research here (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html) for some more information about the strength and skill the ancients had in passing on oral tradition with few modifications.

Again, I must beg to differ. How many of us are "living witnesses" to the events of 9/11? Yet how many witnesses have engaged in "mythmaking," ranging from that nice little letter from Boeing (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blosamaboeing.htm) (I truly enjoyed that) to the idea that all of the Jews who worked at the WTC had taken the day off? (I didn't enjoy that one at all, and told the red-necked idiot who relayed that particular rumor to me just exactly where his head was.)

Again- I'd point out that such "mythmaking" is expedited exponentially due to the wonders of modern telecommunication in ways that just would not have been possible for First Century Jews.

Yes, but if my estimates of the date of Acts is correct (80 CE at the earliest)

I could go with a date of 80 CE. It's certainly reasonable. :smile:

that's over fifty years after the events. Who knows if the author of Acts gave an accurate account.

His stated proximity to the events narrated in Acts is crucial- he was there with Paul for much of his journey and undoubtedly would have made the aquaintance of at least some of the other apostles and other eyewitnesses. I take his statement in the introduction to his gospel to mean that he was aware of accounts "handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" and his claim to have made a "careful investigation" to provide "an orderly account" to mean that he would have used those much earlier sources available to him, including the gospel of Mark and the logia of Matthew (which incidentally I believe is the oral gospel "Q") to help him. I think that modern scholarship has been helpful in uncovering his sources- they demonstrate that he wasn't just making this stuff up out of wholecloth, as some scholars suppose.

Don't mistake me- I do not believe that the Scriptures are inspired in the "verbal-plenary inspired, infallable, and historically and scientifically accurate" way you said you're still reacting against; but I do believe them to be reasonably reliable testimony to the events surrounding the formation of Christianity that accurately narrate, by and large, what happened. I recognize that they are not modern "histories" in the way we use the term (because there was no such thing back then!) and that they are documents of faith, but that does not in the least preclude them from preserving the truth of the events they narrate.

I suppose my understanding of the Scriptures is perhaps the same as this fellow here (http://www.bede.org.uk). You may find his writings to be interesting. I'd love to know what you think! :smile:

However, I probably need to mention something here: I cannot believe that the authors of the NT were cynical liars saying "Hey, let's write a fraudulent series of books to mnake a religion that will take over the world." These people sincerely believed. But we have all seen situations of people who sincerely believed, and were sincerely wrong.

:yes: I had no pretentions you were a snotty atheist stuck in the Enlightenment saying "the gospel writers were liars!" You're one of the most intelligent and sincere posters I've come across on Tweb in my year and a half of dwelling here and I've got a lot of respect for you Justin- that's high praise! :thumb:

Once again, however, my hands are worn out, and I'm going to have to take this up later. However, as a final note:

Just keep your eyes open to the evidence that supports them too Justin, and don't shut it out just yet, and perhaps the Spirit will give ears to hear.

I am. Rob, I'll tell you and JP the truth: in some respects, I'm desperately searching for a way I can believe in the Bible again.

Justin

That sincerity comes across well in your words on this site Justin. It's a welcome break from some of the buffoons who dwell exclusively in Apologetics 301. Just so you know, I'm pulling for you to win Alumnus- if not this month, then next! :teeth: I pray you find what you're looking for.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Hi, Mr. Mxyzptlk. Haven't seen you in a while. :smile:


Oh, I know ... it's old hat. But the things that I bring up are things that have been weighing on me. My questions and the discussions here won't change anything on the scale of theological scholarship, but they may help me settle some unanswered questions in my own mind.


Mr. Mxyzptlk, I called things as I saw them. Now, if my analysis was accurate (even if my words were insulting), I can't in good conscience offer an apology for telling the truth.

But I do not know, and cannot know, if my analysis was accurate, and it sure was insulting. So yes, I apologize for the insults, and for the possible inaccuracy.

Pax?

JustinGood man! What a guy! Good onya! That was very gracious and nice!! I simply must learn how to use some of the features available here so I could put bells and whistles on here forya! Most heartfeltedly (?!) accepted!!!
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[jason]

What if Paul was speaking of a "spiritual resurrection," and this teaching got twisted into a physical resurrection?

This is a distinct possibility from the "historical / critical" school. Paul sees a vision of Christ and says "Jesus rose again ... I saw Him in heaven." The later Gospel writers (remember, the historical/critical school posits the Gospels as having been mostly or entirely post-destruction) write this as "Jesus rose again ... the grave was empty."

Two problems with this. Firstly Jews would have not understood the idea of a "spiritual ressurection". They already had a category for what you suggest and it is a ghostly apparition or angel appearance. So your possibility has the serious handicap of explaining how this unheard of idea came about.

Secondly if course, Paul is not the only one running around preaching this. Are you really keen to argue everybody dreamt up the fundamentally unjewish concept ?

What is to prevent the miracles from being the products of mythologization?

I've heard a lot about how mytholygizing a historical person or event takes a long time ... yet I think that with the advent of the post-9/11 media frenzy, we can safely state that the creation of a myth can be a process that takes weeks, or days, or perhaps hours.
What myths from 9/11 are you referring to that have not been debunked ? Seriously this is a very vague claim so if you could provide some more details that might help flesh the idea out.

To be relevant examples they will need to be myths that can be checked out. Not elaborate conspiracy theories that lack any possibility of evidence.

What is to prevent the "fulfilled prophecies" from being redacted re-writes of the life of Jesus?

An important point in Christian doctrine is how many of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, yet it must be noted that the first chronicler of fulfilled prophecies--the author of Matthew--interpreted many of these prophecies in ways that the mainstream Jewish religious community of that time would have completely failed to recognize. Now, we've all see the process of "reinterpretation": many mainstream Christians have noted that process in sectarian groups, schisms, and movements throughout the history of your Church.
Actually as I understand there is no reason to think that it was that big a deal at the time. At least not in the way we think. Apart from the fall of the temple, the one really notable prophecy that nobody comments on being fulfilled, youcould argue all of the prophecy is read back in after the fact as nobody disputes that the Gospels were written after the events in question.

Although if you are going to use this as a stick to attack christianity with then you create a really serious problem.

If fulfilled prophecy was important and reported upon then that would lend serious credability to the idea that the Gospels that predict the fall of the temple predate the fall of the temple. Or else you must account for why no mention is made of this.

Worse yet, the stronger you think the argument is for the importance of prophecy the stronger the argument becomes for a pre-70AD date for the writing of the Gospels that record the prophecy but neglect to mention the fulfillment.

Which is an unfortunate bind to be in.

On the one hand you can push fulfilled prophecy, thus making the Gospels early and containing a genuine prophecy, or you can discount the importance of prophecy, but that would seem to be a potent argument.

In the face of evidence to the contrary, how is a reasonable person to reconcile the Gospels--or any of the claims of Judeo-Christian scripture, for that matter--with the evidence that contradicts them?
You'd need to look at "evidence that contradicts them" in a case by case manner.

This is a friendly chat so bring your evidence forward and we can deal with it.

I don't think there is any compelling reason to accept the alternatives to the truth of the resurrection, based on the evidence and the quality of the competing theories.

I have yet to hear a convincing alternative account of the resurrection that provides an adequate explanation of all the surrounding events.

All of the ones I have heard presuppose that a resurrection is impossible and as a result they automatically become a defacto better explanation, but I see no reason to grant the impossibility of a resurrection given the not particulary outrageous assumption that God exists.

Jason

[Amazing Rando]

Hey Justin? You still there, bud?

[technomage]

Still here ... dealing with the weather, so I'm keeping it to short moments, except for my discussion with Pythagoras. I'll get back to this thread either Tomorrow or Tuesday.

Look for me then. :wink:

[jpholding]

Yikes. It was 35 degrees here this morning so I can only imagine what it is where you are...

[Amazing Rando]

Yikes. It was 35 degrees here this morning so I can only imagine what it is where you are...

35 degress? HA! It hit 6 degrees last week here in VA.

[technomage]

Hi, Rando,

I wanted to comment on a point that I let go last time.

The reason I reject the "mythologization" explanation is because of my faith in the accuracy of the transmission process. The gospel materials were circulating orally for less than a generation before they were written down, and they were written down to keep the memory of Jesus alive as that first generation of witnesses was dying- yet they were also written with the intimate aid of those witnesses, as both Luke and John's gospel explicitly claim.
Well, there are several problems with this:
1: I'm going to have to go with modern scholarship on the dating of the New Testament texts ... which means that the interval ranges from forty years (for Mark) to about fifty years (for Matthew and Luke) to about 110 years (for the gospel of John). Now, there may have been earlier versions--I'm quite open to the possibility of an earlier account by Matthew that didn't survive--but for the versions that we have, that's the best info I have. (And yes, I've seen JP Holding's articles about the authorship of the Gospels: while there was certainly a lot of information to consider, there's also a lot of info that the articles don't go into that leaves me unconvinced. JP, if you want, we'll start a new thread on that later.)
2: Oral transmission is not as reliable as you seem to feel it is. There's a recongized phenomenon called "folk process"--it's usually discussed in the context of folk music, but oral history is also an applicable field--that discusses how quickly information can get garbled: unfortunately, the only example I have deals with a 500 year gap, rather than a 50 year gap. (That particular example deals with the Moranos, the "secret Jews" in Spain.)
3: Some of the Gospels claim to have been written by consulting witnesses. OK, that's a substantive claim ... but it's one we can't verify. And yeah, while I'm not going to go spouting bumper-sticker logic about "Extraordinary claims," you have to admit ... this is a substantial leap of faith to take on what basically amounts to an unprovenanced document. (OK, people are going to object to the "unprovenanced" remark ... again, I'll cover that later in the thread.)

As I said before, I'm keeping my eyes open ... but the more I open them, the worse the picture looks.

[technomage]

Yikes. It was 35 degrees here this morning so I can only imagine what it is where you are...
Not as good as that, but not as bad as Rando. Though right now it's a positively balmy 61 (F). Heavens, they're dropping like flies in this heatwave! :lol:

[Bill the Cat]

35 degress? HA! It hit 6 degrees last week here in VA.

:offtopic2: Rando, what part of VA are you in? Northern?

[Amazing Rando]

:offtopic2: Rando, what part of VA are you in? Northern?

I just moved to Luray for seminary in August. It's where the Luray Caverns are in the Shenandoah Valley. :teeth:

Howzabout you?

[Bill the Cat]

I just moved to Luray for seminary in August. It's where the Luray Caverns are in the Shenandoah Valley. :teeth:

Ya, Beautiful area. Where are you attending?

I'm 10 minutes south of Richmond


Sorry to interrupt folks...:shy: :blush:

[technomage]

Two problems with this. Firstly Jews would have not understood the idea of a "spiritual ressurection".
Jason, I'm just not sure about that, for the following reasons:
1: There was significant Hellenistic cultural influence on 1st century Judea ... and there had been since the advent of Alexander the Great. Now, the Greeks certainly had this kind of concept ... we see it in the Gnostic philosophy, and in the Gnostic-influenced heresies of Christianity. (Side note: not all Gnosticism is a Christian heresy, as Gnosticism was an outgrowth of Neo-Platonism, and technically predates Christianity.)
2: The NT reads more like a series of 1st century Greek texts--not the language, the cultural milieu and stylistic context. The most "Jewish" text within the NT is the Apocalypse. Now, there has been some nattering about the Apocalypse being a redacted and updated Jewish apocalyptic text, but since I've not seen the original, I'm not buying.
3: Paul was Jewish by ancestry and (originally) by religion, but his books were obviously written in a Greek style, to Hellenistic audiences.

Jason, we may not be dealing with a "Jewish" resurrection concept, but with a Greek one. Now, the reasons I've given above are not absolute proof of that, but they're rpproblematic to a "purely Jewish" sect.

Secondly if course, Paul is not the only one running around preaching this. Are you really keen to argue everybody dreamt up the fundamentally unjewish concept ?
Paul is the most prolific one running around preaching the Resurrection. He never mentions the empty tomb specifically, though JP's given me enough evidence to establish (in my own mind) that he probably believed that the tomb was empty.

What myths from 9/11 are you referring to that have not been debunked ? Seriously this is a very vague claim so if you could provide some more details that might help flesh the idea out.
The most pernicious one I can think of right off the top of my head is the "The Jews all took the day off" one. And yes, it's been debunked ... but debunked or not, it's still spreading like some nasty, virulent virus. And people are still believing.

Actually as I understand there is no reason to think that it was that big a deal at the time. At least not in the way we think. Apart from the fall of the temple, the one really notable prophecy that nobody comments on being fulfilled, youcould argue all of the prophecy is read back in after the fact as nobody disputes that the Gospels were written after the events in question.

Although if you are going to use this as a stick to attack christianity with then you create a really serious problem.
You may not have read far enough into the thread .. or I may not have expressed it clearly. I'm not looking for a stick. My parents want me to go back to Church. OK, I could do that ... but at present, I'd be going for them. Which means I'd be twiddling my thumbs and watching the clock, and to my mind, that's disrespectful at best. I'm looking for a way to reconcile my doubts as to the historicity of the NT account.

I've got to leave this for now, but I'll be back. :wink:

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

Hi, Rando,

I wanted to comment on a point that I let go last time.


Well, there are several problems with this:
1: I'm going to have to go with modern scholarship on the dating of the New Testament texts ... which means that the interval ranges from forty years (for Mark) to about fifty years (for Matthew and Luke) to about 110 years (for the gospel of John). Now, there may have been earlier versions--I'm quite open to the possibility of an earlier account by Matthew that didn't survive--but for the versions that we have, that's the best info I have.

I'm quite certain that there were earlier versions, but of course, there's no way to prove or disprove that.

(And yes, I've seen JP Holding's articles about the authorship of the Gospels: while there was certainly a lot of information to consider, there's also a lot of info that the articles don't go into that leaves me unconvinced. JP, if you want, we'll start a new thread on that later.)

That's some of his strongest material in my opinion, even though I don't agree with all his conclusions. That would be a worthy debate! I'd love to watch you two do a Tennis Court thread or a debate in the Gym. It would be awesome to see two such intelligent, thoughtful posters discussing these issues.

2: Oral transmission is not as reliable as you seem to feel it is. There's a recongized phenomenon called "folk process"--it's usually discussed in the context of folk music, but oral history is also an applicable field--that discusses how quickly information can get garbled: unfortunately, the only example I have deals with a 500 year gap, rather than a 50 year gap. (That particular example deals with the Moranos, the "secret Jews" in Spain.)

:smile: Ah, but again we neglect the differences between us moderns and the ancients. In the 21st century, our minds just aren't conditioned to passing along stories and teachings orally because
1.) Most people these days are literate.
and
2.) Mass communication has rendered such folk stories all but obsolete in America (much to my chagrin).

As I was trying to explain with my King Arthur example in my previous post, this is how the ancients passed on the vast majority of their stories! This is what they did for fun! In this day and age, we Westerners cannot fathom being able to recite such an enormous body of work as they could back then. It's an entirely different mindset, ya know?

3: Some of the Gospels claim to have been written by consulting witnesses. OK, that's a substantive claim ... but it's one we can't verify.

True. :yes:

And yeah, while I'm not going to go spouting bumper-sticker logic about "Extraordinary claims," you have to admit ... this is a substantial leap of faith to take on what basically amounts to an unprovenanced document. (OK, people are going to object to the "unprovenanced" remark ... again, I'll cover that later in the thread.)

I'd disagree with you there- the gospels were "provenanced" from the very get-go as far as we can tell. The earliest extant extrabiblical Christian literature places apostolic authority behind each one of the gospels, and they were all accepted into the canon almost instantly and nearly without debate (unless you include Marcion, but I don't- he's a heretic! :flaming: :wink:)

As I said before, I'm keeping my eyes open ... but the more I open them, the worse the picture looks.

I've reached different conclusions than you have, but I still greatly respect the honesty and sincerity of your search.

[One Bad Pig]

I just moved to Luray for seminary in August. It's where the Luray Caverns are in the Shenandoah Valley. :teeth:
Do you listen to 89.9 FM? I'm on the bleeding edge of its listening area just on the other side of the Potomac.

[Amazing Rando]

Do you listen to 89.9 FM? I'm on the bleeding edge of its listening area just on the other side of the Potomac.

My wife does- the signal is very strong in Luray and she listens on her way to work. I've always been more of an NPR guy than a contemporary Christian music guy. :wink:

I should note that we leave 89.9 on for our parrot when we're both out of the house to keep him entertained. Perhaps he'll become a Christian too. :rofl:

[One Bad Pig]

My wife does- the signal is very strong in Luray and she listens on her way to work. I've always been more of an NPR guy than a contemporary Christian music guy. :wink:
I've always been a more Christian rock/heavy metal guy than a CCM guy, but it's not worth putting in a CD for a 10-minute commute. :hehe:

I should note that we leave 89.9 on for our parrot when we're both out of the house to keep him entertained. Perhaps he'll become a Christian too. :rofl:
:lol:

[Amazing Rando]

I've always been a more Christian rock/heavy metal guy than a CCM guy, but it's not worth putting in a CD for a 10-minute commute. :hehe:

:lol:

:smile: I like Five Iron Frenzy! That's my kind of Christian music. Or U2. Definitely U2. :em7:

[technomage]

:smile: I like Five Iron Frenzy! That's my kind of Christian music. Or U2. Definitely U2. :em7:
U2 up until "Zooropa." That one stank, yea, verily.

I haven't heard the latest one yet, so I don't know too much about it ... just the previews on the TV. So far, I like Vertigo well enough ... the video is definitely trippy.

[Amazing Rando]

U2 up until "Zooropa." That one stank, yea, verily.

I haven't heard the latest one yet, so I don't know too much about it ... just the previews on the TV. So far, I like Vertigo well enough ... the video is definitely trippy.

I'm a huge fan of "All That You Can't Leave Behind." :em7:That's what got me into their music in the first place. Bono's a guy who really lives his Christian worldview as far as I can tell.

[technomage]

Nah ... I gotta stick with "Joshua Tree." I've got a lot of respect for Bono as a person, but Zooropa and All You Can't... were way over-produced, IMO. They sounded too slick.

[One Bad Pig]

:smile: I like Five Iron Frenzy!
I never got into FIF for some reason. I'm not sure why. I like other bands who refuse to take themselves seriously, and I like ska. :shrug: Then again, I'm not impressed with Brave Saint Saturn either.

[One Bad Pig]

Justin, have you visited Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank? He has a lengthy article here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html)(unfortunately incomplete thus far) on the canon. He tends to go a little more in-depth than JPH.

[technomage]

Justin, have you visited Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank? He has a lengthy article here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html)(unfortunately incomplete thus far) on the canon. He tends to go a little more in-depth than JPH.
I have ... but Pig, it's a lot more apologetic than explanatory. The "predictive model" that he gives is not actually predictive, in that his assumptions stem from the Protestant, Evangelical model, which is in turn based on the Canon as already established.

Now having said that, I'll also say this: it would be a Syssiphian task to try to actually make a "predictive" model, and would require re-creating the entire process all over again. And when you re-create a process like that, you also take the risk on coming up with different conclusions. Indeed, it would be darn near impossible to take a critical look at the Canon (especially in light of modern scholarship) and come up with the exact same list.

And there are also the cultural differences, specifically how different cultures write, and how they receive and interpret texts. OBP, I'm sure you'll agree that if Jesus was walking the earth today, the books that would be written would be radically different. Jewish culture is radically different than it was then--for one thing, the differences in gender relations would give Paul fits.

But the text is the crux of my difficulties: the Gospels and Acts are too close in character and substance to other Greek "miracle texts," many of which were considered for either Christian Canon (or even Jewish Canon) but rejected. The doctrine shows influence by Neo-Platonic thought (especially the books from the Johanine community), many of the books are (by the best info I have) either pseudepigraphic or anonymous, and the doctrine is mostly interpretive, rather than explicitly stated.

Now, in and of itself, these things don't confront me ... where the problem really comes in is where someone comes at me and says "Oh, these things are true." Now, if by "true," they meant "This is what I believe, expressed in metaphors appropriate for the time," I'd have no problem ... but that's not what is usually meant by "true." The "truth-claims" are usually phrased as "This is not only true, it's factual." And the more events the claimant says are "factual," the bigger my problem with the claims.

That seems to be the keystone: claims of historic (and sometimes scientific) accuracy. Case in point: my parents are Fundamentalists ... and I mean that in the strict denotative sense. They adhere to the doctrine of Verbal-Plenary Inspiration, Infallability, and historical and scientific accuracy of the entire Bible. Now, they want me to go back to church ... but they don't accept any church that does not accept the doctrines the same way they do as a "real church." And I do not feel I can go to a Fundamentalist church ... for me, it would feel like I was wasting my time and theirs.

There's a lot more ... but it doesn't really fit into the category of "Church History," so I may save it for a different thread. But as for the NT Canon ... OBP, I can accept it metaphoricaly. I can even give intellectual assent that there may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua ha'Nosri. If he existed, I cannot consider the Gospels as an accurate account of his life--not for lack of trying, believe me.

:shrug: I dunno, Pig. I just don't know.

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

I have ... but Pig, it's a lot more apologetic than explanatory. The "predictive model" that he gives is not actually predictive, in that his assumptions stem from the Protestant, Evangelical model, which is in turn based on the Canon as already established.

Now having said that, I'll also say this: it would be a Syssiphian task to try to actually make a "predictive" model, and would require re-creating the entire process all over again. And when you re-create a process like that, you also take the risk on coming up with different conclusions. Indeed, it would be darn near impossible to take a critical look at the Canon (especially in light of modern scholarship) and come up with the exact same list.
It is quite possible that a different list would result, based on society today. However, if we project our list backwards to when it was written, would it have been relevant to them then? I also disagree with any modern scholarship that a priori dismisses the supernatural, and it tends to be those scholars who posit the most changes.

And there are also the cultural differences, specifically how different cultures write, and how they receive and interpret texts. OBP, I'm sure you'll agree that if Jesus was walking the earth today, the books that would be written would be radically different.
I'm sure they would be. We require a much higher level of proof today. Each gospel account (and Acts) would need to be a full-length modern book. However, I don't think that the doctrine in the books would be any different (just explained in more depth); this stems unavoidably from my belief that the Bible is relevant for today as written.

Jewish culture is radically different than it was then
Jewish culture is less distinct than it was then, but I don't think that Judaism has changed much (other than the unavoidable end to sacrifices and an increasing reliance on mishnah/midrash).

--for one thing, the differences in gender relations would give Paul fits.
Probably, but I think he would handle it better than most people from his time.

But the text is the crux of my difficulties: the Gospels and Acts are too close in character and substance to other Greek "miracle texts," many of which were considered for either Christian Canon (or even Jewish Canon) but rejected. The doctrine shows influence by Neo-Platonic thought (especially the books from the Johanine community), many of the books are (by the best info I have) either pseudepigraphic or anonymous, and the doctrine is mostly interpretive, rather than explicitly stated.
This deserves a thread of its own, I think.

Now, in and of itself, these things don't confront me ... where the problem really comes in is where someone comes at me and says "Oh, these things are true." Now, if by "true," they meant "This is what I believe, expressed in metaphors appropriate for the time," I'd have no problem ... but that's not what is usually meant by "true." The "truth-claims" are usually phrased as "This is not only true, it's factual." And the more events the claimant says are "factual," the bigger my problem with the claims.
I'd like to see some examples of what you think is true and what you think isn't, and what criteria you use to determine what falls in which category.

That seems to be the keystone: claims of historic (and sometimes scientific) accuracy. Case in point: my parents are Fundamentalists ... and I mean that in the strict denotative sense. They adhere to the doctrine of Verbal-Plenary Inspiration, Infallability, and historical and scientific accuracy of the entire Bible. Now, they want me to go back to church ... but they don't accept any church that does not accept the doctrines the same way they do as a "real church." And I do not feel I can go to a Fundamentalist church ... for me, it would feel like I was wasting my time and theirs.
I agree that you shouldn't go to a Fundamentalist church - you'll want to avoid Seventh Day Adventist, non-instrumental Church of Christ, and Independent Baptist churches. You need to find a church where people can understand the way you think, and are willing to approach things from your POV as a means of changing it rather than ramming their beliefs down your throat.

There's a lot more ... but it doesn't really fit into the category of "Church History," so I may save it for a different thread. But as for the NT Canon ... OBP, I can accept it metaphoricaly. I can even give intellectual assent that there may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua ha'Nosri. If he existed, I cannot consider the Gospels as an accurate account of his life--not for lack of trying, believe me. I'd like to see some more specifics on this, but as you say we're broaching subjects better suited to other fora. I assume you've read JP Holding's article The Impossible Faith? I'd be interested to see your thoughts on that. I'd also like to see your thoughts on Paul on Trial by John Mauck, which approaches Acts from a legal rather than theological POV. I'll also point you toward Ravi Zacharias (http://www.rzim.org/), whose mission is to make people think about the Christian faith (believers and unbelievers alike).

:shrug: I dunno, Pig. I just don't know.

Justin
Hey, at least you're seeking. I won't pretend that choosing to follow Christ isn't a major decision.

[SixLiteralDays]

I hope it's okay for me to jump in on this chat. I'm relatively new to theology web (1 week) but this conversation piqued my interest. First, to comment on the bands...not a U2 or FIF fan but I love One Bad Pig (the band - don't know the twebber).

Justin, you mentioned that many of the books were pseudipigraphic or anonymous. I'll agree with the anonymous part but can you list those that are allegedly pseudipigraphic? There is solid evidence that we can discuss to show that the early church rejected pseudipigraphic writings from entering the canon. It sounds like you may be relatively familiar with the canonization process but choose to believe the skeptics or critics 'proofs' (or arguments against the canon) rather than critically examining their claims. I believe I could show you that many of their claims are baseless.
For example, 2 Peter is often considered to be pseudipigraphic and in fact has the least support of the early church of any NT book. Critics claim that a later admirer of Peter (or someone from the "school of Peter") wrote this book and tried to pass it off as a genuine Petrine writing. My question for those people is this: How could a serious admirer of Peter (or someone from the Petrine school) ever write 2 Peter 3: 15 - 16, which states that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand? Why would someone make his hero sound ignorant? There is more but I'll try to keep it short for now. Just something to think about. I would be interested to know which books you believe are pseudipigraphic.
Thanks!

[technomage]

Hi, SixLiteralDays, and welcome to TWeb.

As for jumping in ... come on in, the water's fine. :smile:

As for the Canon discussion, I've started a new thread discussing the Canon (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46747), which I invite you to join in with--JP Holding, and OBP, if you guys have time, I'd also appreciate your input.

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

Hey Justin- I'd recommend you check out Bruce Metzger's book The Canon of the New Testament. It'll answer hordes of your questions, and Metzger is universally recognized as one of the top authorities in textual criticism and matters relating to canonicity. :smile:

[Jaltus]

With respect to resurrection (anastasis), I would note that the word itself refers to physical movement every time it is used (AFAICT). Even in Ionic Greek, it referred to the movement of people or groups (it is used to describe the removal of the Greeks from Ionia for safety). It is even used for physical motion (the reference is not clear in LS, as the name they give does not exist in their own list of sources).

The word is NOT used for anything that is not physical, so on those grounds I would rule out spiritual resurrection as being even within the sphere of the word.

[technomage]

With respect to resurrection (anastasis), I would note that the word itself refers to physical movement every time it is used (AFAICT). Even in Ionic Greek, it referred to the movement of people or groups (it is used to describe the removal of the Greeks from Ionia for safety). It is even used for physical motion (the reference is not clear in LS, as the name they give does not exist in their own list of sources).

The word is NOT used for anything that is not physical, so on those grounds I would rule out spiritual resurrection as being even within the sphere of the word.
Hi, Jaltus,

Is this also the case for the Gnostic texts that posit a "spiritual" resurrection?

Justin

[Jaltus]

Hi, Jaltus,

Is this also the case for the Gnostic texts that posit a "spiritual" resurrection?

Justin

I don't have the Greek in front of me, so I do not know what word they use. However, they are not listed as using it according to LS.

[technomage]

OK, I found a good source ... even one that I think we an all agree with. :wink: It doesn't discuss the Gnostics, but it does discuss the Bible literature in the context of extra-canonical literature and the culture of the times.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Study on Resurrection (http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/R/RESURRECTION/).

And this settles my questions: not only was Paul speaking of a physical resurrection, but this doctrine was not unique to, or original with, Paul within the Jewish community. OK, that's the first question down ... there are still many others, but progress is being made.

Sorry, guys ... I really didn't mean to make everybody jump through hoops on this one, but these are questions that have profoundly troubled me. However, I do thank all of you who contributed to my understanding.

Justin