Christian Canon: Authorship [Archive]

technomage

January 31st 2005, 04:34 PM

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?
Well, how about we go through my conclusions on the entire Canon list?

Now, on some of these, my conclusions agree with the "mainstream" secular scholarship: on some they don't.

Matthew: Anonymous Egyptian or Middle Eastern author, possibly a Gentile or a Jew who was more versed with Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic. I tend to date this as post-Markan, and I tend to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew was written to demonstrate Jesus's fulfillment of Messianic prophecies. It has been argued that the author of Matthew may have used Matthew's "oracles" as a source, though since Matthew's writings have not survived, this is difficult to determine.

Mark: Earliest written Gospel of the Canonical books, probably by an anonymous Gentile Christian, and primarily intended for Greek-speaking, culturally Hellenistic peoples. The author of Mark was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. Mark appears to be a transcription of the oral transmisions, and while tradition (starting with Papias in the early 2nd century) has ascribed this book to Peter's emanuensis, this conclusion is a bit dubious.

Luke: Written for Gentile Christians, this book and Acts are most probably by the same author ... yet while it is largely assumed (due to Papyrus Bodmer XIV, written c. 200 CE) that this author is Luke, nowhere does the text make this statement. I tend to place it before Acts, but after Mark, and feel that Luke was written c 80-100 CE--I've seen arguments for dates as late as 130 CE, but find those arguments rather unconvincing.

John: The most problematic of the Gospels, John differs enough from the "Synoptic" Gospels that I tend to view this as a book from the Jewish Christian community, probably after the break between Pauline Christianity and the Jewish Christians. I tend to date the "final edition" sometime between 95 and 110 CE, but recognize that the earliest edition this Gospel may have been written about 50-60 CE.

Acts: The only Canon document that presents a Christian view of early Church history, Acts is a complex document. The three over-riding themes of Acts are: 1: the Gospel is unversal, extending to both Greek and Jew; 2: National Judaism has persecuted the Christians; 3: God's plan is that all Christians give up a "national" view, in pursuit of a "universal" Christianity. I therefore tend to place this after the split between Jewish Christian community and Pauline Christianity, but tend to feel that the author was one who wished to heal that divide. Dated after Luke, but probably before 100 CE.

Romans: Unmistakeably Paul's: written to address specific doctrinal and practical matters in the Roman church, probably in early 58 CE.

1 Corinthians: Written by Paul and Sosthenes to the church in Corinth, around AD 57.

2 Corinthians: Written by Paul to the church at Corinth, probably about 58 AD. I tend to think that this was not a single letter, but a compilation of correspondence.

Galatians: not just indisputably Pauline, but classically so. This was probably written about 57-58 AD, and may be one of the earliest signs of the "Pauline vs. Jewish Chrisytianity" schism that developed later.

Ephesians: This one is problematic, as it is unlike many of the other Pauline letter in character, and perhaps in grammar and vocabulary (except perhaps Colossians, which is also of disputed authorship). More of an encyclical than a letter to a specific church, this letter was preserved in the Marcion canon as being written to the Laodiceans.

Phillipians: Probably Pauline, and almost universally accepted as such. The kenosis passage (Phil 2:5-11) is probably an early Christian hymn. (I used to feel that the reference to Bishops and Deacons made this letter a post-Pauline pseudepigraph, but I'm no longer sure--the argument is an argument from silence, as there's no specific proof of the date that these offices developed.)

Colossians: Somewhat problematic, for the same reasons as Ephesians. For my part, if either Ephesians or Colossians can be clearly attributed to Paul, I'm likely to accept the other as also being Pauline, because they are so similar.

I Thessalonians: Pauline--indeed, probably the earliest of the surviving Pauline epistles.

II Thessalonians: Pseudepigraphic. This letter deals almost exclusively with the parousia, and with the increasing nervousness of the Christian community that Jesus hadn't come yet. (Note: many Christians, including our own JP Holding, regard this letter as genuine, and in truth the issue has not been settled.) For my part, the pains the author took to warn the reader against forgery make the letter even more suspect. There is an incredible verbal similarity, but some very real theological differences between I and II Thess, and I tend to view II Thess as possibly intended to supplant I Thess.

I and II Timothy, and Titus: Pseudepigraphic. I tend to place these as mid-2nd century, since there is no clear citation of them before Irenaeus (circa 170 CE). By this point, the Church relies on "traditional teachings," which indicate a later date than Colossians, for instance.

Philemon: more a brief note than an epistle, Philemon presents no difficulty, and is widely accepted as Pauline.

Hebrews: Completely anonymous (however, I rather fancy JP Holding's theory that it may have been written by Timothy).

James: Pseudepigraphic. This book is an early example of the conflicts and debates between the "Grace alone for Salvation" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and other soteriological understandings. The ethical (as opposed to ritual) understanding of the Law is one of the primary reasons that I reject James as the author--also, the lack of comprehension of Pauline theology in 2:14ff.

I Peter: I will gladly ascribe this to a Peter, but not to Simon Peter: the lack of personal detail regarding Jesus, the cultured and erudite Greek, and the knowledge of Hellenistic rhetoric techniques, make me feel that this was written by a Greek author, probably of the Pauline school.

II Peter: Definitely pseudepigraphic. Jude is dependant on the book of James, and II Peter is dependant on Jude, so I tend to place these together as originating in a non-Pauline (but not quite anti-Pauline) community.

I John: pseudepigraphic, possibly from a student of the Johanine community. I John lacks the textual and doctrinal richness of the Gospel, but the shifting view of the parousia and the emphasis on sacraments makes this a later letter, perhaps as late as 90-140 CE.

II & III John: Who knows?!?! These brief letters are almost exactly in the form of Hellenistic-style private letters, come from the same author (based on general style), and are probably related to the Johanine community.

Jude: Pseudepigraphic. Jude contains references to Jewish apocalyptic writings: however, it always refers to the Greek versions of these writings, rather than referring to the Aramaic versions and translating them for the (Greek-speajing) audience. Jude is, in some respects, one of the clearer evidences for the emergence of those later primitive Christian elements that evolved into the "catholic" church.

Revelations: Related to the Johanine community, and written during the Domitian persecution of Christians. For my money, it may very well have been written by John of Patmos, but I highly doubt that John of Patmos was also the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.

Now, later on if you like we can talk about some of the apocryphal texts, but for my money the most interesting are the Didache, the Thomas Gospel, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Sheperd of Hermas. As far as I remember, these were the "also rans" that came the closest to being accepted into Christian canon, and that had the highest amount of impact on the primitive Christian community.

Justin

Xavier

January 31st 2005, 07:12 PM

Hebrews: Completely anonymous (however, I rather fancy JP Holding's theory that it may have been written by Timothy).

Don't really have enough scholarly knowledge to comment on most of these...

BUT...

I've heard an interesting theory that the author of Hebrews is Apollos. It would seem that the Book was written by a Helenistic Jew for other Helenistic Jews. Prime amoung the suspects fitting such a description is Apollos.

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

technomage

January 31st 2005, 07:25 PM

Don't really have enough scholarly knowledge to comment on most of these...

BUT...

I've heard an interesting theory that the author of Hebrews is Apollos. It would seem that the Book was written by a Helenistic Jew for other Helenistic Jews. Prime amoung the suspects fitting such a description is Apollos.

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. Hmmm. Interesting. JP, any input on that?

Edited to add:
:doh: I forgot: JP already included Apollos as a possible author in our previous discussions.

Justin

One Bad Pig

January 31st 2005, 07:48 PM

Well, how about we go through my conclusions on the entire Canon list?Sure. Justin, thanks for pointing me here. I'll probably be more of an interested spectator than active participant, though. I can boast of neither knowledge of Aramaic or Greek nor easy access to scholarly studies. I do have some questions for you, given below.

Now, on some of these, my conclusions agree with the "mainstream" secular scholarship: on some they don't.

Matthew: Anonymous Egyptian or Middle Eastern author, possibly a Gentile or a Jew who was more versed with Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic. I tend to date this as post-Markan, and I tend to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Why after Jerusalem's destruction? I'd also like to know why you think the writer was more versed in Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic, given that there are those who argue for an initial Aramaic composition.

Mark: The author of Mark was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. Why?

John: The most problematic of the Gospels, John differs enough from the "Synoptic" Gospels that I tend to view this as a book from the Jewish Christian community, probably after the break between Pauline Christianity and the Jewish Christians. I tend to date the "final edition" sometime between 95 and 110 CE, but recognize that the earliest edition this Gospel may have been written about 50-60 CE. What do you think of the idea that John pre-supposes knowledge of Mark? I've seen arguments in favor of a difference between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity (mostly from Muslims), but I remain singularly unconvinced of its existence. Paul was, as Acts indicates, a "Jew of Jews".

Acts: The only Canon document that presents a Christian view of early Church history, Acts is a complex document. The three over-riding themes of Acts are: 1: the Gospel is unversal, extending to both Greek and Jew; 2: National Judaism has persecuted the Christians; 3: God's plan is that all Christians give up a "national" view, in pursuit of a "universal" Christianity. I therefore tend to place this after the split between Jewish Christian community and Pauline Christianity, but tend to feel that the author was one who wished to heal that divide. Dated after Luke, but probably before 100 CE.

I'm not sure why Acts wouldn't include an account of Paul's (and Peter's) martyrdom if it was written that late, given their prominence in the narrative.

Galatians: not just indisputably Pauline, but classically so. This was probably written about 57-58 AD, and may be one of the earliest signs of the "Pauline vs. Jewish Chrisytianity" schism that developed later.

Ephesians: This one is problematic, as it is unlike many of the other Pauline letter in character, and perhaps in grammar and vocabulary (except perhaps Colossians, which is also of disputed authorship). More of an encyclical than a letter to a specific church, this letter was preserved in the Marcion canon as being written to the Laodiceans.:huh: I find it somewhat odd that these two books are contrasted in this way. Galatians is obviously written to a group of churches. If Eph. 1:15 is compared to Rev. 2:1-7 (cf. Rev. 3:14ff), it looks like Ephesians was written to the church in Ephesus (rather than Laodicea), before the church in Ephesus had "turned from its first love".

Revelations:
nitpick: Revelation.

Now, later on if you like we can talk about some of the apocryphal texts, but for my money the most interesting are the Didache, the Thomas Gospel, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Sheperd of Hermas. As far as I remember, these were the "also rans" that came the closest to being accepted into Christian canon, and that had the highest amount of impact on the primitive Christian community.

Justin
Did you want to discuss any of OT apocrypha (Wisdom of Solomon, I/II Maccabees)?

technomage

January 31st 2005, 11:22 PM

Hi, OBP,

I'm gonna have to make this quick comments because of my hands, however, I want to point one thing out: the conclusions I've reached are not "set in stone"--they're simply the working conclusions I've come up with so far.

Matthew: Anonymous Egyptian or Middle Eastern author, possibly a Gentile or a Jew who was more versed with Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic. I tend to date this as post-Markan, and I tend to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem. Why after Jerusalem's destruction? Well, you've already stated that the "official" reason of mainstream scholarship's rejection of the possibility of prophecy is one you don't dig, so let's go for other reasons.

First and foremost, a post-destruction date fits the history of the text better. One example: do you remember Jesus talking about the death of Zacharias son of Barachias? (Matt 23:35) The parallel passage in Luke talks about Zechariah son of Jehoiada, mentioned in 2 Chr 24:20-22. Well, Zacharias son of Barachias was also murdered on the grounds of the Temple, but he wasn't killed until 67 or 68 CE. (Josephus, Jewish Wars 4.335) Now, it is possible that Matthew mistook the name Zechariah for Zacharias, but exchanging Barachias for Jehoiada makes no sense.

Secondly, if the author of Matthew was there as a witness, then making such an extensive use of Mark makes no sense. Mark was not a contemporary of Jesus--why would an eyewitness depend so highly on the account of a non-eyewitness?

Thirdly, the author did not write from Jerusalem--indeed, he probably wrote from Antioch, as Antioch is the only city where the stater equal 2 didrachmae (see Matt 17.24-7). This does not exclude a pre-destruction date, but does cast doubt on it.

Fourthly, (and this also supports some of the dating assumptions about Acts), Christians were not universally excluded from the Jewish synagogyes in Antioch until the 80s CE. (It should be noted that this exclusion was never universal, nor did it start all at once.) The somewhat anti-Jewish polemics, and the references to "their synagogues," are frequently assumed as a good indicator of a post-80 date for Matthew. However, while I take this last particular bit of fact as a hint, I don't really find it conclusive in and of itself.

I'd also like to know why you think the writer was more versed in Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic, given that there are those who argue for an initial Aramaic composition. Matthew messed up on at least one point of Hebrew/Aramaic grammar--his misunderstanding of the "emphatic duplicate" when he wrote the "Ass and a Colt" prophecy. Additionally, all of his quotes of the OT are from the LXX. This is not the writings of a man who is reading the Targum or the Hebrew OT and translating to Greek: the author of Matthew may or may not have known Hebrew or Aramaic, but Greek was his primary language.

Mark: The author of Mark was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. Why? The most notable is reversing the locations of Bethany and Bethphage (Mark 11:1). There is also the roundabout trip from Tyre to Galilee, (Mark 7:31), but this is not attested in all texts.

John: The most problematic of the Gospels, John differs enough from the "Synoptic" Gospels that I tend to view this as a book from the Jewish Christian community, probably after the break between Pauline Christianity and the Jewish Christians. I tend to date the "final edition" sometime between 95 and 110 CE, but recognize that the earliest edition this Gospel may have been written about 50-60 CE. What do you think of the idea that John pre-supposes knowledge of Mark? I'm really not sure what you mean here.

I've seen arguments in favor of a difference between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity (mostly from Muslims), but I remain singularly unconvinced of its existence. Paul was, as Acts indicates, a "Jew of Jews". You've got evidence of the "Jewish Christian / Pauline Christian" division right in your own scriptures, with Paul talking about the "party of the circumcision," and the divides between the Jews and Gentiles demonstrated in Acts and Galatians.

Acts: The only Canon document that presents a Christian view of early Church history, Acts is a complex document. The three over-riding themes of Acts are: 1: the Gospel is unversal, extending to both Greek and Jew; 2: National Judaism has persecuted the Christians; 3: God's plan is that all Christians give up a "national" view, in pursuit of a "universal" Christianity. I therefore tend to place this after the split between Jewish Christian community and Pauline Christianity, but tend to feel that the author was one who wished to heal that divide. Dated after Luke, but probably before 100 CE. I'm not sure why Acts wouldn't include an account of Paul's (and Peter's) martyrdom if it was written that late, given their prominence in the narrative. Acts ends on the note of "the Gospel triumphant, and Paul teaching in Rome." Continuing to include Paul's martyrdom would have detracted from that theme.

Galatians: not just indisputably Pauline, but classically so. This was probably written about 57-58 AD, and may be one of the earliest signs of the "Pauline vs. Jewish Chrisytianity" schism that developed later.

Ephesians: This one is problematic, as it is unlike many of the other Pauline letter in character, and perhaps in grammar and vocabulary (except perhaps Colossians, which is also of disputed authorship). More of an encyclical than a letter to a specific church, this letter was preserved in the Marcion canon as being written to the Laodiceans. I find it somewhat odd that these two books are contrasted in this way. Galatians is obviously written to a group of churches. If Eph. 1:15 is compared to Rev. 2:1-7 (cf. Rev. 3:14ff), it looks like Ephesians was written to the church in Ephesus (rather than Laodicea), before the church in Ephesus had "turned from its first love". OBP, you might need to re-read verses 15-16. Paul founded the church in Ephesus: I highly doubt that he would have written "since I heard about your faith," because he'd had a chance to see that faith first-hand. Now, that doesn't automatically exclude it from the Pauline corpus (though it does raise doubts), but it does establish that it was either written as an encyclical, or it was written to Laodicea, and the canonical copy is misattributed.

On the other hand, JP Holding gives some powerful arguments for Ephesians being an authentically Pauline encyclical epistle--not completely conclusive, but they definitely made me sit up and take notice.

Revelations: nitpick: Revelation. :rasberry:

Now, later on if you like we can talk about some of the apocryphal texts, but for my money the most interesting are the Didache, the Thomas Gospel, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Sheperd of Hermas. As far as I remember, these were the "also rans" that came the closest to being accepted into Christian canon, and that had the highest amount of impact on the primitive Christian community. Did you want to discuss any of OT apocrypha (Wisdom of Solomon, I/II Maccabees)? Maybe ... but that would be more of a general history, rather than in Church history specifically. :wink:

More later ... my hands are giving me some grief.

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 1st 2005, 12:38 AM

Hi, OBP,

I'm gonna have to make this quick comments because of my hands, however, I want to point one thing out: the conclusions I've reached are not "set in stone"--they're simply the working conclusions I've come up with so far.
That's reasonable. My beliefs are also not set in stone; however, some of them would require pretty strong evidence to change.

First and foremost, a post-destruction date fits the history of the text better. One example: do you remember Jesus talking about the death of Zacharias son of Barachias? (Matt 23:35) The parallel passage in Luke talks about Zechariah son of Jehoiada, mentioned in 2 Chr 24:20-22. Well, Zacharias son of Barachias was also murdered on the grounds of the Temple, but he wasn't killed until 67 or 68 CE. (Josephus, Jewish Wars 4.335) Now, it is possible that Matthew mistook the name Zechariah for Zacharias, but exchanging Barachias for Jehoiada makes no sense.
I have two study bibles on hand, one solidly conservative (Ryrie NASB) and one solidly liberal (New Oxford NRSV). Both of them refer to Zechariah v. Zacharias in 2 Chr, Mat, and Luke, so I'm not sure there's a difference. The NASB notes posit that Zechariah was the son of Barachiah and the grandson of Jehoiada (a distinction that was not always made in Hebrew). The NRSV (which otherwise pretty much agrees with your assessment of Matthew's authorship) posits that the son of Barachiah was a scribal addition based on its absence from Luke 11:51. Zechariah the prophet was also the son of Barachiah, and could've been killed in a similar fashion, but my sources don't consider that likely. I realize that study bibles are tertiary sources at best, so I don't want to put too much weight on what they say.

Secondly, if the author of Matthew was there as a witness, then making such an extensive use of Mark makes no sense. Mark was not a contemporary of Jesus--why would an eyewitness depend so highly on the account of a non-eyewitness?
It is possible that Mark was an eyewitness (not one of the Twelve, obviously). Assuming that the accounts are true, I don't see a problem with Matthew using a copy of Mark to help guide him in compiling his own account.

What do you think of the idea that John pre-supposes knowledge of Mark?
I'm really not sure what you mean here.
A possible reason that John has so much different material than Mark is that John wrote his gospel after Mark had become fairly widespread. Assuming common knowledge of Mark, John could then add in complementary accounts, duplicating just enough of Mark to tie the two together.

You've got evidence of the "Jewish Christian / Pauline Christian" division right in your own scriptures, with Paul talking about the "party of the circumcision," and the divides between the Jews and Gentiles demonstrated in Acts and Galatians. There's also evidence of healing the divide. In addition, I don't think that "Jewish Christian" and "party of the circumcision" are fully equivalent. It was Jewish Christians, for example, who came up with the recommendations for Gentile converts, and the "Jewish Christian" Peter accepted Paul's rebuke for playing the chameleon.

OBP, you might need to re-read verses 15-16. Paul founded the church in Ephesus: I highly doubt that he would have written "since I heard about your faith," because he'd had a chance to see that faith first-hand. Now, that doesn't automatically exclude it from the Pauline corpus (though it does raise doubts), but it does establish that it was either written as an encyclical, or it was written to Laodicea, and the canonical copy is misattributed.
He founded it, yes. However, once he left he had no direct control over the church's progress. Paul had a habit of finding something about a church to praise them about before he got to rebuking them for their errors. If the church in Ephesus had a stronger-than-average faith after Paul had moved on, I can easily see him saying something like this.

Maybe ... but that would be more of a general history, rather than in Church history specifically. :wink:
Okay. They were also pretty influential in parts of the early church, though.

jason

February 1st 2005, 01:37 AM

Do you mind if I offer some thoughts Justin ? Well I will anyway, ignore if the answer is yes you do mind :teeth:

Matthew: Anonymous Egyptian or Middle Eastern author, possibly a Gentile or a Jew who was more versed with Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic. I tend to date this as post-Markan, and I tend to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew was written to demonstrate Jesus's fulfillment of Messianic prophecies. It has been argued that the author of Matthew may have used Matthew's "oracles" as a source, though since Matthew's writings have not survived, this is difficult to determine.
Don't you think some of this is a tad contradictory ?

Just a side note, there is an argument to be made that Matt was orginally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.

But the part that seems contradictory is .

I tend to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew was written to demonstrate Jesus's fulfillment of Messianic prophecies.

Look at

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,[a]’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel–let the reader understand– 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.

26“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29“Immediately after the distress of those days “ ‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]

30“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Which is a prediction of the Fall of Jerusalem. Yet no mention of this fulfillment is made in a document that is intended to "demonstrate Jesus's fulfillment of Messianic prophecies".

Here you have a prophecy from the Messiah, directly fulfilled and no mention is made of it.

The question is, Why not ? If the event hadn't happened then it makes perfect sense that the fulfillment would not be mentioned but that would mean the document is pre 70AD. If the document is not about fulfilled propechy then it could also make sense. But as it stands you have a prophecy that was spectacularly fulfilled and no mention being made of this.

Luke: Written for Gentile Christians, this book and Acts are most probably by the same author ... yet while it is largely assumed (due to Papyrus Bodmer XIV, written c. 200 CE) that this author is Luke, nowhere does the text make this statement. I tend to place it before Acts, but after Mark, and feel that Luke was written c 80-100 CE--I've seen arguments for dates as late as 130 CE, but find those arguments rather unconvincing.
You run into the "Why not mention of Paul's death ?" problem with a late dating if it is written after Luke.

John: The most problematic of the Gospels, John differs enough from the "Synoptic" Gospels that I tend to view this as a book from the Jewish Christian community, probably after the break between Pauline Christianity and the Jewish Christians. I tend to date the "final edition" sometime between 95 and 110 CE, but recognize that the earliest edition this Gospel may have been written about 50-60 CE.
The problem is that there is no real evidence of the break you are suggesting.

Galatians: not just indisputably Pauline, but classically so. This was probably written about 57-58 AD, and may be one of the earliest signs of the "Pauline vs. Jewish Chrisytianity" schism that developed later.
I'd be interested to see how you get from Galatians this schism.

It says in Galatians 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me..

Doesn't sound like a church in Schism to me.

There is an incredible verbal similarity, but some very real theological differences between I and II Thess, and I tend to view II Thess as possibly intended to supplant I Thess.
Would you care to elaborate on these ?

James: Pseudepigraphic. This book is an early example of the conflicts and debates between the "Grace alone for Salvation" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and other soteriological understandings.
There was no difference in understanding, just difference in intent of the letter. What is missing is the Semetic Totality Concept. Which unifies the two perfectly.

Jason

technomage

February 1st 2005, 03:37 PM

Do you mind if I offer some thoughts Justin ?
Sure! I'm running short on thoughts today ... I mean, I had one in my head earlier today, but it died of loneliness. :wink:

Matthew: Anonymous Egyptian or Middle Eastern author, possibly a Gentile or a Jew who was more versed with Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic. I tend to date this as post-Markan, and I tend to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew was written to demonstrate Jesus's fulfillment of Messianic prophecies. It has been argued that the author of Matthew may have used Matthew's "oracles" as a source, though since Matthew's writings have not survived, this is difficult to determine.
Don't you think some of this is a tad contradictory ?
Not at all. Matthew spoke of Jesus as a fulfillment of the OT prophecies--hence the multitude of references to the OT. Matthew also spoke of Jesus as a prophet. The two are separate topics, to be treated separately by believers and skeptics alike.

Just a side note, there is an argument to be made that Matt was orginally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.
I've responded to that in Post 5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=899885&postcount=5). And I'll not definitavely state that the author of Matthew did not know Aramaic at all ... but from the evidence at hand, Greek was his primary language.

See the problem here is that any attempt to defend the Gospel of Matthew as the writings of the Apostle Matthew is that it depends not on the text, but on the tradition. Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) said that Matthew wrote a book of "logia" in Aramaic ... OK, that's all well and good. But the Gospel of Matthew is not a book of "logia": the word means "sayings," and the closest surviving example to a "Sayings gospel" that we have is the book of Thomas. I'm not saying Matthew didn't write a book, Jason: I'm simply saying this book isn't the one he wrote.

Here you have a prophecy from the Messiah, directly fulfilled and no mention is made of it.

The question is, Why not ? If the event hadn't happened then it makes perfect sense that the fulfillment would not be mentioned but that would mean the document is pre 70AD. If the document is not about fulfilled propechy then it could also make sense. But as it stands you have a prophecy that was spectacularly fulfilled and no mention being made of this.

Jason, this will not be an easy part of the response to read ... it is not easy to write. I apologize in advance for the rection that this next paragraph will cause.

If I were cornered somewhere, and were forced to evaluate Jesus's status as the Messiah based on the prophecy in this passage, I would be required to call Jesus a false prophet. The "abomination that causes desolation" has stood in the holy place at least twice since Jesus's death: in 70 CE (when John of Gischala, a false Messiah, was master of the Temple), and in 135 CE (when a Roman temple to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount)--four times if you include the El Aksa mosque (the original, twice as large as the Mosque that stands today, was built between 705-715, but was destroyed in the 8th century by an earthquake).

The problem was, the prophecy was not fulfilled. Oh, to be sure, the temple was destroyed ... but where was Jesus? Where was His appearance, that was to be "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west"? Futurists would have me believe that this is not the "abomination of desolation," and that such an event lies in the future, yet this is belied by verse 34. Partial preterists would have me believe that he did appear ... but no one wrote about it, which belies verses 27 and 30. Full Preterists state that it all happened ... but then, where is the promised parousia?

The prophecy has failed, Jason. Just like the prophecy in Luke 19:44, where Jesus said "They will not leave one stone on another," yet there are standing walls of Herodian Jerusalem.

And you wonder why I do not take the Gospels as an accurate, literal account? If this was the requirement, I would be forced to reject Christiantiy forevermore, and to denounce Christians as the followers of a false prophet.

I'm sorry for the harshness in the above paragraphs. Jason, reflecting on these things does not sit well with me, for I do not wish to reject your Bible. Do you wonder that I take these books to be from the hand of man, rather than from God?

Luke: Written for Gentile Christians, this book and Acts are most probably by the same author ... yet while it is largely assumed (due to Papyrus Bodmer XIV, written c. 200 CE) that this author is Luke, nowhere does the text make this statement. I tend to place it before Acts, but after Mark, and feel that Luke was written c 80-100 CE--I've seen arguments for dates as late as 130 CE, but find those arguments rather unconvincing.
You run into the "Why not mention of Paul's death ?" problem with a late dating if it is written after Luke.
Also covered in Post 5. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=899885&postcount=5)

John: The most problematic of the Gospels, John differs enough from the "Synoptic" Gospels that I tend to view this as a book from the Jewish Christian community, probably after the break between Pauline Christianity and the Jewish Christians. I tend to date the "final edition" sometime between 95 and 110 CE, but recognize that the earliest edition this Gospel may have been written about 50-60 CE. The problem is that there is no real evidence of the break you are suggesting.
Galatians 2:11-14.

Galatians: not just indisputably Pauline, but classically so. This was probably written about 57-58 AD, and may be one of the earliest signs of the "Pauline vs. Jewish Chrisytianity" schism that developed later. I'd be interested to see how you get from Galatians this schism.
You have to take Galatians 2 and Acts 15 together.

In Gal 2: 1-10 (also discussed in Acts 15), Paul tells us of a council in Jerusalem regarding the new Gentile converts in Antioch--there, the issue is (putatively) settled. Yet when Peter comes to Antioch (Gal 2:11ff), he is "afraid of those who belong to the circumcision group," ceases to eat with the Gentiles, after the men come from James. Now, in Acts, the only men sent from James are Judas and Silas.

Jason, the truth of the matter is that Paul and James were not resolved: indeed, I am persuaded that Paul's last trip to Jerusalem was an attempt at reconciliation ... and I am at least partially persuaded that this reconciliation also failed. James was a Christian, but he was also a Jew, and zealous for the Mosaic Law, as the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church Fathers tell us. His non-reaction to Paul's rejection of the Law as depicted in Acts 15 does not reconcile with the testimony of his character.

There is an incredible verbal similarity, but some very real theological differences between I and II Thess, and I tend to view II Thess as possibly intended to supplant I Thess. Would you care to elaborate on these ?
I will, but such a post will require an extensive amount of text and support, so for now I'll leave it to a later post.

James: Pseudepigraphic. This book is an early example of the conflicts and debates between the "Grace alone for Salvation" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and other soteriological understandings. There was no difference in understanding, just difference in intent of the letter. What is missing is the Semetic Totality Concept. Which unifies the two perfectly.
The "Semitic Totality Concept"--which term, I believe, is credited to TWeb's own JP Holding--is a historical anacronism: an apologetic device to reconcile two different teachings from two different schools. Now, to be sure, this Concept certainly increases the ethical worth of modern Christianity: therefore as a doctrine, it is not only worthy of respect, but (IMO) of emulation. However, the contrast between Pauline soteriology and James clearly demonstrates that it is not historical. (Now, I expect that JP will have a few things to say about that, if he has time.)

In short, Jason, you are not defending the Bible, else you are defending what the text actually says. You are defending the derived doctrines of Christianity. But just like any derivative, it is not identical with the source.

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 1st 2005, 08:29 PM

You have to take Galatians 2 and Acts 15 together.

In Gal 2: 1-10 (also discussed in Acts 15), Paul tells us of a council in Jerusalem regarding the new Gentile converts in Antioch--there, the issue is (putatively) settled. Yet when Peter comes to Antioch (Gal 2:11ff), he is "afraid of those who belong to the circumcision group," ceases to eat with the Gentiles, after the men come from James. Now, in Acts, the only men sent from James are Judas and Silas.

Jason, the truth of the matter is that Paul and James were not resolved: indeed, I am persuaded that Paul's last trip to Jerusalem was an attempt at reconciliation ... and I am at least partially persuaded that this reconciliation also failed. James was a Christian, but he was also a Jew, and zealous for the Mosaic Law, as the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church Fathers tell us. His non-reaction to Paul's rejection of the Law as depicted in Acts 15 does not reconcile with the testimony of his character.

First, it's Peter that's rejecting the Law (15:10). James is the one who formulated the council's decision. Second, JPH argues here (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/actspaul.html#151) that these are not the same event; the episode in Gal. 2 is paralleled in Acts 11, not 15. Third, I ran out of points....

On another point you raised (your struggle with Matthew 24), I recommend you take a look at Dee Dee Warren's new commentary here (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html). She argues from the perspective of OT prophecy that the apocalyptic language here was never meant to be taken literally (including the "no stone left on top of another" phrase that gives you doubt), and that Jesus' coming was upward to reign in heaven, not down to visit earth.

Teallaura

February 1st 2005, 10:39 PM

One Bad Pig

February 1st 2005, 11:07 PM

Hi!
Just lurking through - not my field of expertise at all. Question, OBP, if you don't mind, it's the retaining wall for land fill - other than supporting the Temple when it existed, what does the Western Wall have to do with the Temple itself?
According to a booklet I have by archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer on the location of the temple, the Western Wall's seven lowest visible courses of stone are Herodian, and form part of a 15-foot wide retaining wall (construction started in 19 BC). This looks to be ~50 meters from the temple itself.

technomage

February 1st 2005, 11:15 PM

Hi, Teallaura,

Yes, it's basically a retaining wall: it increased the side of the plateau, making more land space available for the Temple courtyard.

There are actually wall sections that stand on the south and east side as well as the famous Western Wall. And the Wall is not the only stone structure that still stands from Herod's Jerusalem ... I can, if you like do some research and find out what other structures remain.

Justin

technomage

February 2nd 2005, 12:05 AM

First, it's Peter that's rejecting the Law (15:10). James is the one who formulated the council's decision.
OBP, the point is that ... well, somebody is doing some spinning. Either pseudo-Luke is white-washing the confrontation, or Paul is inflating the scene between Peter and himself. One way or another, the accounts match in circumstances, but the stories are different.

Second, JPH argues here (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/actspaul.html#151) that these are not the same event; the episode in Gal. 2 is paralleled in Acts 11, not 15.
:no: Doesn't match in any element, except the issue. Heck, Paul's not even present, nor is Barnabas or Titas.

Third, I ran out of points.... Ouch! Did it hurt...? :wink:

On another point you raised (your struggle with Matthew 24), I recommend you take a look at Dee Dee Warren's new commentary here (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html). She argues from the perspective of OT prophecy that the apocalyptic language here was never meant to be taken literally (including the "no stone left on top of another" phrase that gives you doubt), So, let me get this straight. Every other word of the Bible is to be taken literally, but this passage is to be taken metaphorically? Is this the only metaphoric passage ... or are there more? Which ones? Is it only prophecies that are metaphoric? Of course, we've already lost the poetry, but what about the histories ... or the apocalyptic literature ...? What happens if historical research challenges the chronology of Acts, as it has the tales of Genesis?

Do you not see? Christendom has drawn a line in the sand by requiring that the Bible be interpreted literally. Taking one passage--one passage--as metaphoric turns your scriptures into a logical domino. Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line ... worse yet, what happens if research or history then crosses that new line?

and that Jesus' coming was upward to reign in heaven, not down to visit earth. Again: it doesn't match the text. The prophecy was as follows:

30“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Where is the sign of the Son of Man? Where is the mourning of the nations? More fundamentally, where is the gathering of the elect? The grammar is very clear here: the nations will mourn, and they (the nations) will see the Son of Man.

OBP, interpreting the scripture literally is how I wound up with so many questions in the first place. I don't know if I told you this, but I was on my way to a ministry degree. The first "chink in the armor," as it were, was discovering that the TR wasn't all it was cracked up to be ... and to put it bluntly, the more I dug, the more it fell apart.

Most of the atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians that I discuss these issues with go "Well, DUH!" And yet I'm so afraid to discuss this issue with Christians. I do not want to take the chance on someone else falling down the slippery slope that I fell down ... but by the same token--no offense to you, or to anyone else here--if I have to listen to one more bit of apologetic bovine droppings, instead of an honest and critical look at the evidence, I may just scream in frustration.

Justin

RumTumTugger

February 2nd 2005, 12:54 AM

Don't really have enough scholarly knowledge to comment on most of these...

BUT...

I've heard an interesting theory that the author of Hebrews is Apollos. It would seem that the Book was written by a Helenistic Jew for other Helenistic Jews. Prime amoung the suspects fitting such a description is Apollos.

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

I heard another interesting theory once about the authorship of Hebrews. Earl Palmer who used to Pastor my Mom and Dad's old Church mentioned that it might have been Pricislla of Aquinas and Pricilla fame whom Paul stayed with on occasion.

Just thought I'd wheigh in on this topic with a short post.

Teallaura

February 2nd 2005, 01:32 AM

Hi guys,

This is on my heart, so I'm going to say it and get out of your way. Justin, I don't know the answers to your questions - which doesn't prove there aren't literal answers, just that I don't know them. I don't know if you saw my testimony elsewhere or not, but I'm a former atheist. I know exactly what you mean about not talking to Christians - when I left I knew it was a zero-sum equation. I wasn't going to be a hypocrite in His church and I didn't want anyone else going with me if I were wrong.

I took a Philosophy class, hit one snag and left the church assuming there really wasn't a God - and I was wrong.

I've been real hesitant to address you. I know from what OPB said that you are seeking and I don't want to interfere if I can't help - see, I like you. My reasons are selfless and selfish - selfless in that I don't want you to miss out on Jesus and selfish in that Heaven's gonna be a blast - and I want all my friends there.

I'm not as schooled in the Scriptures as you obviously are, but please forgive me for saying so, I think you're making that same stupid mistake I did. You can't find Him if you won't trust Him.

I'm not saying forget all the stuff and follow blindly - you know better than that. I think there's a reason the Bible isn't written so straightforward that there couldn't be any misunderstandings or misinterpretations - because He wants us to really trust Him even when we don't fully understand. If He just gave us all the answers, we'd trust the answers - not Him. Maybe that was part of the whole testing of Abraham's faith - that plan was just nuts from a human perspective and Abraham knew it. I don't think Abraham walked up that hill thinking God would just resurrect Isaac to fulfill His word. I think Abraham was probably clueless and scared out of his mind - but in a lifetime of goof ups and blunders, he had learned to trust God. It made no sense - it was absolutely stupid - it was wrong - this can't be right - but he follows because at the end of all that, Abraham knows he's only a man and God is to be trusted.

Glad I never faced a test that tough - flunked one as it is. Maybe that's the advantage Abraham had - he'd flunked enough tests to know how not to do it - I flunked once. I'm not gonna again.

Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him - never understood that as a child. I get it now. When I've needed Him, He's always come through - although not always where and when expected. he gave me a miracle - not the kind you can prove to others - it was just for me. My faith rests in Him, not that miracle, but it was the seed that grew and shattered my hardened heart. I get it now - I can't see well enough to handle everything - but He can. He loves me. He showed me once - it's enough. I choose to trust Him and I'm not gonna let a few rocks on top of one another stop me.

I'm a little 'concrete-rational' myself - I like the world to make sense, thank you - and get really put out when it doesn't cooperate. I don't ascribe to a 'blind faith' nor do I recommend one. That's not what He asks.

What if the answer exists, but doesn't come out in your lifetime? Human knowledge is imperfect at best - biased and irritatingly stupid on it's not so good days - and plain ignorant on the worst days - Who is He? Jerusalem lay in ruins, just as predicted, but a few walls still stand, so you won't trust Him? What if there's a perfectly good explanation - one I obviously don't know - and you just don't find it? Who is He?

Sounds kinda out there to me - don't know, maybe this isn't coherent enough. It's not about rocks - it's about God, it's about Jesus. He died on a cross for your sins - and you doubt Him over rocks? Not doing the guilt trip thing if that's what it sounds like - but where do you place you faith? In the what, or the Who? I think the Bible makes it clear He wants us to trust the Who, not the what.

I'm not saying don't ask tough questions - or not to try to find answers - but can you trust Him even if those answers don't materialize? That's where your faith is being tested - and like me, where you have failed.

Never got an answer to my snag - I'll remember to ask when I see Him face to face, don't worry. I didn't have issues with prophesy - simplistic though it is, I figure what hasn't been fulfilled will be - or He'll explain (probably with a grin) how I missed it - doesn't matter. He's God. He loves me. He doesn't owe me an explanation. I know Him - and I know He can be trusted - so I trust Him. Childish and simple, perhaps, but the wisest thing I am capable of (well, He fixed me so it's really Him - but you get the idea). It's my very best.

I don't know that I've helped, or even given you anything to think about. I just know as long as you won't trust Him, you won't find Him - and I want you to. He still loves you, Justin - He never stopped. Trust Him - and yes, bring your brain along for the ride - He gave it to you for a reason - and He gave you a heart that can trust Him for a reason too.

I know, simple. So I'm simple. I'm also loved. He loves you too.

technomage

February 2nd 2005, 03:02 AM

jason

February 2nd 2005, 04:02 AM

Not at all. Matthew spoke of Jesus as a fulfillment of the OT prophecies--hence the multitude of references to the OT. Matthew also spoke of Jesus as a prophet. The two are separate topics, to be treated separately by believers and skeptics alike.
Convenient.

Jason: I'm simply saying this book isn't the one he wrote.
This assumes a fair degree of incompetence on the part of the early church. Any reason to think it is warranted ? Apart from something like "All ancient people are stupid" that is.

I would be required to call Jesus a false prophet.
At least that would be an honest response.

The "abomination that causes desolation" has stood in the holy place at least twice since Jesus's death: in 70 CE (when John of Gischala, a false Messiah, was master of the Temple), and in 135 CE (when a Roman temple to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount)--four times if you include the El Aksa mosque (the original, twice as large as the Mosque that stands today, was built between 705-715, but was destroyed in the 8th century by an earthquake).
This assumes it was a holy place after 70AD. Not something I think it is reasonable to assume in the slightest.

The problem was, the prophecy was not fulfilled. Oh, to be sure, the temple was destroyed ... but where was Jesus? Where was His appearance, that was to be "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west"? Futurists would have me believe that this is not the "abomination of desolation," and that such an event lies in the future, yet this is belied by verse 34. Partial preterists would have me believe that he did appear ... but no one wrote about it, which belies verses 27 and 30. Full Preterists state that it all happened ... but then, where is the promised parousia?
The futurists and the full preterists are wrong. It is as simple as that.

As for Christs coming, as I understand it he did make an appearance that is recorded. Although I will leave a more experienced eschatologist to answer the question.

The prophecy has failed, Jason. Just like the prophecy in Luke 19:44, where Jesus said "They will not leave one stone on another," yet there are standing walls of Herodian Jerusalem.
I have a question for you.

If I said, "The world trade centre was completely destroyed in the 9-11 attack" would you call me a liar because of a picture like this (http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html). You will note that you can see parts of walls that are intact. Obviously the building was not completely destroyed.

Are you sure you are not being just as ridiculously pedantic ?

And you wonder why I do not take the Gospels as an accurate, literal account?
Be sure you are not being overly pedantic and intending to understand "accurate literal" account in a way the original authors would not have intended.

Do you wonder that I take these books to be from the hand of man, rather than from God?
No I can understand why you might erroneously draw that conclusion :wink:

Jason, the truth of the matter is that Paul and James were not resolved: indeed, I am persuaded that Paul's last trip to Jerusalem was an attempt at reconciliation ... and I am at least partially persuaded that this reconciliation also failed. James was a Christian, but he was also a Jew, and zealous for the Mosaic Law, as the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church Fathers tell us. His non-reaction to Paul's rejection of the Law as depicted in Acts 15 does not reconcile with the testimony of his character.
I'm just wondering why we find no real evidence of such a split in the annals of church history. The church had its disagreements and problems but this schism that is hypothesised is entirely unevidenced beyond this questionable quote and fertile imagination.

The "Semitic Totality Concept"--which term, I believe, is credited to TWeb's own JP Holding--is a historical anacronism: an apologetic device to reconcile two different teachings from two different schools.
Not really. Malina describes faith as close to the idea of reliability and loyalty. When understood like this the "conflict" dissolves.

I hope your not going to call Bruce Malina a mere "apologist" using a "device".

He is after all a very well respected and credentialed scholar. And yes I have the book "Handbook of Biblcal Social Values" that I am taking the information from in front of me.

So in context James and Paul are looking at different sides of the same coin, not different "schools" of thought that exist only in the minds of certian modern "scholars" that (and lets be honest now) distort the scriptures to their own destruction.

Jason

SixLiteralDays

February 2nd 2005, 09:31 AM

Hello all,
I tried to add this yesterday but when I clicked "post quick reply" I lost my internet connection until this morning. I hope it's not too late. There are several things that have been added since yesterday that I hope to comment on later. Here are my thoughts from yesterday....

Justin,

Thanks for the invitation! I’m looking forward to the discussion. Also, I wanted to thank you for being so cordial and civil in your posts. Most people that I’ve run into who are critical of the Bible are vehemently opposed to an honest discussion (just as many Christians are). I appreciate your candor and willingness to look at the other side’s point(s).

With that being said, I would like to jump right in and address some of the issues that you mentioned here. I don’t have time to go through point by point on each of the books of the NT but I want to talk about some underlying assumptions that you obviously hold to. I’m also guilty of holding a set of presuppositions when I approach the Bible. I noticed that you date nearly every single NT book along the lines of liberal scholarship. Obviously, you are well acquainted with this side of the topic. I wonder if you have ever read any conservative NT introductions. I would recommend An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. It presents answers to many of the objections/questions that you raised and also provides pros and cons for both early and late dates of each book.

Let’s take a brief look at two major presuppositions held by liberal theologians and critics. We should expand the discussion of each of these points because they are so vital to the dating of nearly every NT book.

First, The Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is not a dispute about the historical destruction of Jerusalem; however, it has serious repercussions for NT scholarship. If the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written prior to AD 70 (which conservatives claim and I agree with) then Jesus accurately predicted this destruction some 35 – 40 years prior to the event. Of course, liberals and critics do not believe that it is possible to foretell the future so they are forced to date it after AD 70.

Another huge presupposition held by liberals and critics centers around hapax legomena (“once said” words). It is believed that if one book uses vastly different vocabulary than another book believed to be from the same author then we must be looking at two different authors. For example, the Pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) contain vastly different words than Paul’s undisputed works. The liberals and critics reason that this proves a different author; however, the argument is often very silly. The Pastorals were written to close, personal associates of the Apostle Paul while many of the other letters were written to an entire church body. The letters were also written for different reasons (exhortation, instruction, rebuke, correction, etc.) Obviously, there will be many differences in vocabulary. The same argument is often lodged against Johannine authorship of The Gospel of John and Revelation (also his epistles). Again, they are different types of writings so the wording should be different.

Justin, your wording in this thread is vastly different than the vocabulary in some of your other posts. Does this prove that you could not possibly have written all of the posts ascribed to you? Obviously not. I can write a letter to my wife that would be completely different than a letter to my church.

There is much more that needs to be said about both of these subjects. However, I believe that the liberal and critic are on shaky ground on these two points.

Finally, you mentioned that there were theological differences between 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Did you mean that there are contradictions or just different issues discussed? Please clarify when you get a chance.

Thanks!

SixLiteralDays

February 2nd 2005, 11:01 AM

"If I were cornered somewhere, and were forced to evaluate Jesus's status as the Messiah based on the prophecy in this passage, I would be required to call Jesus a false prophet. The "abomination that causes desolation" has stood in the holy place at least twice since Jesus's death: in 70 CE (when John of Gischala, a false Messiah, was master of the Temple), and in 135 CE (when a Roman temple to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount)--four times if you include the El Aksa mosque (the original, twice as large as the Mosque that stands today, was built between 705-715, but was destroyed in the 8th century by an earthquake)."

The problem was, the prophecy was not fulfilled. Oh, to be sure, the temple was destroyed ... but where was Jesus? Where was His appearance, that was to be "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west"? Futurists would have me believe that this is not the "abomination of desolation," and that such an event lies in the future, yet this is belied by verse 34. Partial preterists would have me believe that he did appear ... but no one wrote about it, which belies verses 27 and 30. Full Preterists state that it all happened ... but then, where is the promised parousia?

The prophecy has failed, Jason. Just like the prophecy in Luke 19:44, where Jesus said "They will not leave one stone on another," yet there are standing walls of Herodian Jerusalem.

Justin,

You are correct that Preterists believe it all happened around AD 70. If this were the correct interpretation then there are obvious difficulties as you point out. However, there is a solution to this. Many prophecies given in the Bible have dual referents or fulfillments. When Jesus read from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue at Nazareth, he didn't finish the quote because it referred to the time of judgment, which was not the purpose of His first advent. So Isaiah 61 is a prophecy about Christ's first and second comings. Daniel 9: 24 - 27 is similar. I believe Matthew 24 contains elements of the destruction of Jerusalem and elements of the Second Coming. I don't believe that there is a distinct line of demarcation although many interpreters believe the Second Coming material begins at verse 36.
Also, the "abomination that causes desolation" was not the destruction of Jerusalem or of the temple. This phrase occurs in Dan. 11: 31 in reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes' slaughtering a pig on the altar. Dan. 9: 27 predicts that a similar event will occur in the future. I believe that Jesus was referring to this future event which is described in 2 Thess. 2: 4 when the "son of perdition" [aka, Antichrist] sits in the temple of God and declares that he is God. This is one specific event, not the destruction of the temple but the desecrating of the temple.
Of course, this would require a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, which many naysayers are quick to point out is not there. However, if one is rebuilt on the temple mount (possibly next to the Dome of the Rock), then I think you might have to consider that the Bible knew what it was talking about.
Also, there is a difference between literalism and "letterism." I take the Bible literally. This does not mean that every single word is to be taken in its strict, literal sense. For example, God does not hold us in His hands, because He does not have hands. Just like any other writing, the Bible contains figures of speech. "Letterism" is extreme literalism. Does this mean that I am trying to explain away difficult passages of Scripture? Not at all. I think too many Christians run from these by claiming a "spiritual," "symbolic," or "figurative" interpretation. I believe that understanding the difference between "literalism" and "letterism" can solve many problems such as the "not one stone upon another" prophecy.
Hope the hands are feeling better. We should all chip in and get you one of those voice recognition programs - then you would keep all of us even busier than we already are. :lol:

technomage

February 2nd 2005, 04:07 PM

This assumes a fair degree of incompetence on the part of the early church. Any reason to think it is warranted ? Apart from something like "All ancient people are stupid" that is.
Well, Jason, what else am I supposed to think? The Gospel of Matthew does not match Papias' description.

This assumes it was a holy place after 70AD. Not something I think it is reasonable to assume in the slightest.
Why in the world not? It was definitely a "holy place" (at least in name) when John of Gishala was there. It's the same place today ... though now it's also considered sacred to Islam, and at least important to Christians. To the Jews, the place is the same, even if the buildings on it have changed.

I have a question for you.

If I said, "The world trade centre was completely destroyed in the 9-11 attack" would you call me a liar because of a picture like this (http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html). You will note that you can see parts of walls that are intact. Obviously the building was not completely destroyed.

Are you sure you are not being just as ridiculously pedantic ?
Jason, that's the level of "literal" interpretation that I grew up with. I kid you not: I was twenty-one years of age, and had known about the Western Wall since I was seven, before it clicked in my mind that the interpretation I was taught did not match fact. Today--yes, I can easily see that "not one stone left on another" does not have to literally mean the Romans picked through the city to make sure the stones were not stacked ... but that's what I grew up with.

As you can well understand, I have a great deal of resentment towards people who over-literalize the scriptures to the point of dishonesty ... unfortunately, that resentment has crept into my reaction to any Christian who holds to a literal interpretation. That's what I'm trying to break, Jason: I don't want to argue scripture or interpretation--I want to break through the resentment.

I'm just wondering why we find no real evidence of such a split in the annals of church history. The church had its disagreements and problems but this schism that is hypothesised is entirely unevidenced beyond this questionable quote and fertile imagination.
Probably for the same reason we don't have the original manuscripts: documents do not survive for a number of reasons. However, there is continued evidence of the schism between Judaizers and (small "o") orthodox Christians in the Epistle of Barnabas (almost certainly not by Barnabas, and not canon, but certanly a genuine early church document), and the writings of Ignatius (written between 105-115). There are more,

Not really. Malina describes faith as close to the idea of reliability and loyalty.
Which has absolutely no connection to Holding's STC.

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 3rd 2005, 12:53 AM

OBP, the point is that ... well, somebody is doing some spinning. Either pseudo-Luke is white-washing the confrontation, or Paul is inflating the scene between Peter and himself. One way or another, the accounts match in circumstances, but the stories are different. IMO the two accounts are different occasions. It just doesn't make sense that Peter would be rebuked for not following rules laid down by James when followers of James were present if the rules had just been given. Why do you think that the two accounts must be referring to the same event? There are huge chunks of early church history we don't know. I'm not sure I agree with JPH's conflation of Gal. 2/Acts 11; I'm not sure it's necessary.

So, let me get this straight. Every other word of the Bible is to be taken literally, but this passage is to be taken metaphorically? Is this the only metaphoric passage ... or are there more? Which ones? Is it only prophecies that are metaphoric? Of course, we've already lost the poetry, but what about the histories ... or the apocalyptic literature ...? What happens if historical research challenges the chronology of Acts, as it has the tales of Genesis?

Do you not see? Christendom has drawn a line in the sand by requiring that the Bible be interpreted literally. Taking one passage--one passage--as metaphoric turns your scriptures into a logical domino. Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line ... worse yet, what happens if research or history then crosses that new line?
To be honest, Justin, this is something that has been in mind of late. We obviously can't take the Bible as wholly literal; we also obviously can't take the entire Bible as metaphorical. The key to understanding it lies in figuring out what is what. The Bible itself helps with this, as does other ANE literature. Tentatively, I read the Bible as literal except where a literal reading yields an apparent contradiction with something else in the Bible. There are numerous prophecies and fulfillments of prophecies in the OT. Since the NT is written with the OT in mind, patterns observed in the OT should be able to help us understand the NT. This is one of the things that preterism does well, IMO, which is why I'm considering it.

Again: it doesn't match the text. The prophecy was as follows:

30“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Where is the sign of the Son of Man? Where is the mourning of the nations? More fundamentally, where is the gathering of the elect? The grammar is very clear here: the nations will mourn, and they (the nations) will see the Son of Man. I think Dee Dee has explained this well. I'd very much like to see a more detailed critique of Dee Dee's Matthew 24 commentary from you, because this has been one of my big hangups with preterism. I know, this would likely require yet another thread, and more abuse of your poor fingers.

OBP, interpreting the scripture literally is how I wound up with so many questions in the first place. I don't know if I told you this, but I was on my way to a ministry degree. The first "chink in the armor," as it were, was discovering that the TR wasn't all it was cracked up to be ... and to put it bluntly, the more I dug, the more it fell apart.
No, I didn't know that about you. Fundamentalism seems to be rather brittle armor. FormerFundy and Farrell Till are former fundamentalists (who had ministry degrees, IIRC). I'm not sure that you've managed to shed the fundamentalist POV completely (though you're not nearly as bound to the view as, say, FF). I grew up imbibing a literal interpretation of Revelation. Preterism is quite a departure from that, but it's not the first time I've had a paradigm shift in my POV on a topic.

Most of the atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians that I discuss these issues with go "Well, DUH!" And yet I'm so afraid to discuss this issue with Christians. I do not want to take the chance on someone else falling down the slippery slope that I fell down ... but by the same token--no offense to you, or to anyone else here--if I have to listen to one more bit of apologetic bovine droppings, instead of an honest and critical look at the evidence, I may just scream in frustration.

JustinI'll do my best not to make you scream. :smile: Everybody who studies the Bible is biased in one way or another. While Christians have a vested interest in proving the Bible true, non-believers have a vested interest in proving it untrue.

jason

February 3rd 2005, 02:45 AM

I'll have to get back to you about papias and matthew. Not sure how to answer yet (Making me do research, who do you think you are !!! :wink: ) I'll come back to it (if you care enough) when I have found out more.

Why in the world not? It was definitely a "holy place" (at least in name) when John of Gishala was there. It's the same place today ... though now it's also considered sacred to Islam, and at least important to Christians. To the Jews, the place is the same, even if the buildings on it have changed.
There is only three peoples whose opinion on the subject counts though, and you did not mention one of them :wink:

Jason, that's the level of "literal" interpretation that I grew up with. I kid you not: I was twenty-one years of age, and had known about the Western Wall since I was seven, before it clicked in my mind that the interpretation I was taught did not match fact. Today--yes, I can easily see that "not one stone left on another" does not have to literally mean the Romans picked through the city to make sure the stones were not stacked ... but that's what I grew up with.
Ok so you were fed baloney. Christianity is not false because someone taught you something erroneous about it. Don't judge a religion by its heretics.

Probably for the same reason we don't have the original manuscripts: documents do not survive for a number of reasons. However, there is continued evidence of the schism between Judaizers and (small "o") orthodox Christians in the Epistle of Barnabas (almost certainly not by Barnabas, and not canon, but certanly a genuine early church document), and the writings of Ignatius (written between 105-115). There are more,
Any chance of a quote ? I'll go look them up (you can probably find online version at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com ) but if you could just point me to the relevant passages that would sure simplify things.

Which has absolutely no connection to Holding's STC.
Thats not true.

If faith is loyalty (rather than simple belief) then the works assocaited with faith are just the natural outworking of that loyalty. You demonstrate your loyalty by your actions, but the actions are not the loyalty, yet one is evidence of the other and you don't have a faith/works split.

That is the semetic totality concept, even if the term was coined by JPH (But I don't think he did).

Jason

technomage

February 3rd 2005, 03:10 PM

IMO the two accounts are different occasions. It just doesn't make sense that Peter would be rebuked for not following rules laid down by James when followers of James were present if the rules had just been given. Why do you think that the two accounts must be referring to the same event? There are huge chunks of early church history we don't know. I'm not sure I agree with JPH's conflation of Gal. 2/Acts 11; I'm not sure it's necessary. I've answered this in a separate thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46948). However, I will note this: while the association with Acts 11 is impossible, a separate incident means that this issue came up yet again--Acts 11, Acts 15, and the third time that you suggest. We know it was a recurring problem in the writings of the ECF. This supports the split that I have suggested between "Pauline Christianity" and "Judaic Christianity"--after all, there had to have been a continuing community who held to this belief for it to keep coming up again and again.

To be honest, Justin, this is something that has been in mind of late. We obviously can't take the Bible as wholly literal; we also obviously can't take the entire Bible as metaphorical. The key to understanding it lies in figuring out what is what. The Bible itself helps with this, as does other ANE literature. OK, so let me ask you this--let's say that the Bible asserted that Tiberius was succeeded by Augustus. (It doesn't, but I'm illustrating a point.) Does that impede the spiritual authority of the Bible? More importantly, does it impede the efficacy of Christianity?

To my view, it does not.

Tentatively, I read the Bible as literal except where a literal reading yields an apparent contradiction with something else in the Bible. I used to ... but Pig, I realized that I was building a dike of justification against the tide of historical research. Moreso in the OT, but to some extent in the NT as well.

There are numerous prophecies and fulfillments of prophecies in the OT. Since the NT is written with the OT in mind, patterns observed in the OT should be able to help us understand the NT. This is one of the things that preterism does well, IMO, which is why I'm considering it. I can see that ... but again, there are problems. Take for instance Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive" prophecy in Isa 7. Isaiah was talking about something that happened in Ahaz's lifetime: now, you know the argument about "almah" vs. "betulah" as well as I do, so we won't get into it here.

But let's look at things from a historical/critical view for a moment: the Gospel of Matthew (IIRC--if I've missed something, corrections are welcome) is the earliest writing that mentions the Virgin Birth. None of Paul's epistles (genuine or pseudonymous, IIRC), nor Mark (the earlier of the two Gospels) mention it. From a historical-critical view, Matthew was written between 80-100 CE: what's to keep a reasonable person such as myself to conclude that the VB was a later mythologization?

That's 80 years to develop a mythic aspect of the tale: and it's not the only mythic tale that developed in a relatively short time. For instance, there's the various Infancy Gospels: admittedly, TTBOMK all of them post-date the Matthew account, but I doubt anyone here would argue that they're not mythologized accounts.

I think Dee Dee has explained this well. I'd very much like to see a more detailed critique of Dee Dee's Matthew 24 commentary from you, because this has been one of my big hangups with preterism. I know, this would likely require yet another thread, and more abuse of your poor fingers. It will, but I'll try to get to it later this week or next week. I've got to go to class later today, so I'll be typing C++ code instead of exegesis.

I'm not sure that you've managed to shed the fundamentalist POV completely (though you're not nearly as bound to the view as, say, FF). You're quite correct I haven't--but I keep trying. :argh: That's part of what I'm trying to do here ... but it's terribly hard.

PS: Jason and SixLiteralDays: Guys, I'm sorry, I really haven't forgotten the two of you. I'm still trying to get caught up on a few things, but I'll respond as soon as I can. Bear with me, my friends. :smile: And thanks.

Jaltus

February 4th 2005, 02:34 PM

A quick response to Justin's take on Matthew 23:35.

THe person listed in Matthew 23:35 is clearly not the person listed in Josephus, for the names are completely wrong.

There is a Z. son of Jeberechiah who is renamed Barachiah in the Old Greek of Isaiah 8.

There is a Z. son of Berechiah who is renamed Barachiah in the OG of Zechariah 1:1 and 1:7.

The one so named in Josephus is Z. son of Baruch or Bareis, or Bariscaeus, but none of thse are really close enough to fit.

Thus, it is likely (IMO) referring to the Zechariah who is the prophet with a book named after him. Your inference about Josephus is, IMO, the LEAST likely interpretation.

technomage

February 4th 2005, 03:26 PM

Thus, it is likely (IMO) referring to the Zechariah who is the prophet with a book named after him. Your inference about Josephus is, IMO, the LEAST likely interpretation.
:yes: I came to that conclusion last night ... oddly enough, not from the sources you mention, but from the Talmudic discussion of Z son of J. IIRC, this is the last murder discussed in the OT: it's only sensible that Jesus would have used the first and last murders discussed in the OT as examples. At this point, I'd have to conclude that the Matthew text probably suffered from an early scribal error.

Thanks, Jaltus.

Justin

Jaltus

February 4th 2005, 06:03 PM

:yes: I came to that conclusion last night ... oddly enough, not from the sources you mention, but from the Talmudic discussion of Z son of J. IIRC, this is the last murder discussed in the OT: it's only sensible that Jesus would have used the first and last murders discussed in the OT as examples. At this point, I'd have to conclude that the Matthew text probably suffered from an early scribal error.

Thanks, Jaltus.

Justin

I wonder if the scribes changed it to fit the LXX canonical ordering rather than the MT ordering. In the LXX ordering (I use LXX here for the real LXX and the OG combined), Zechariah would have been the second to last book, IIRC. In the MT, II Chronicles is the last book.

I have noticed the tendency in scripture for some references to be changed according to the LXX/OG version of things.

technomage

February 4th 2005, 06:25 PM

I wonder if the scribes changed it to fit the LXX canonical ordering rather than the MT ordering. In the LXX ordering (I use LXX here for the real LXX and the OG combined), Zechariah would have been the second to last book, IIRC. In the MT, II Chronicles is the last book.

I have noticed the tendency in scripture for some references to be changed according to the LXX/OG version of things. Hmmm...It's a good possibility. The cite I'm referring to is 2 Chr 24:20-22, so that would indicate it as coming from a MT source. Luke uses the spelling like in Chronicles: if Matthew used the spelling like in Zechariah, that could be one more indicator that the author of Matthew was a native Greek speaker, rather than Hebrew or Aramaic.

Justin

technomage

February 6th 2005, 07:14 PM

I'll have to get back to you about papias and matthew. Not sure how to answer yet Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html) has a page on the pieces of Papias's writings that have survived (they were quoted in Eusebius's writings).

And JP Holding cites the Papias comment in his page on Matthew (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html): while I admire the apologetics of his argument, I do have to point out that apologetics is not a neutral form of scholarship.

(Making me do research, who do you think you are !!! :wink: ) Aigh! He's onto me ... I'm the "Evil Instigator of Research!" For shame, for shame.... :wink:

Referring to the Temple Mount as being "the Holy Place" referred to in Amtthew 24.
There is only three peoples whose opinion on the subject counts though, and you did not mention one of them :wink: Jason, it would be really difficult for me to do that as a non-Christian, now wouldn't it?

But we must remember that, according to the text of Matthew, Jesus was speaking to his disciples. At that point, the speaker and the audience are all Jewish ... and would have had an immediate understanding of the phrase "The holy place" as "the place where the Temple now stands." The author of Matthew was not arguing for the sacred anture of the place: he was solely and simply speaking of a location.

Now, the point that is disputable is whether or not any of the "abominations" that occurred were THE "abomination that causes desolation." Most (non-Futurist) interpretations of the abomination that causes desolation refers to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Even Futurists accept this view, though they posit that this is a "double prophecy," and refers both to Titus in 70 CE, and to the Antichrist in the "End Times."

Ok so you were fed baloney. Christianity is not false because someone taught you something erroneous about it. Don't judge a religion by its heretics. That's what I'm trying to do. But Jason, I've been bitten once: I will not, again, accept a lying interpretation. I hate to say it, but of the interpretations I have seen, Spong's is the least objectionable ... but part of that is because Spong's writing is so content-free as to be pablum.

The problem is, at this point, I'd make a lousy Christian. How can I develop a relationship with a God-Man based on the knowledge of the Bible, when I do not see the Bible as historically accurate? That's why I'm tackling the problem from the angle of the Bible Canon.

Probably for the same reason we don't have the original manuscripts: documents do not survive for a number of reasons. However, there is continued evidence of the schism between Judaizers and (small "o") orthodox Christians in the Epistle of Barnabas (almost certainly not by Barnabas, and not canon, but certanly a genuine early church document), and the writings of Ignatius (written between 105-115). Any chance of a quote ? I'll go look them up (you can probably find online version at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com ) but if you could just point me to the relevant passages that would sure simplify things. Research, laddie, RESEARCH! Mua-ha-ha-ha-haaa.

Seriously, here are some relevant quotes:
* Ignatius: Epistle to the Philadelphians, paragraph VII:

VI. If any man in his interpretation set forth Judaism unto you, hear him not. For it is better to hear Christianity from one who is circumcised than to hear Judaism from an uncircumcised man. * Epistle of Barnabas 4:6-8

Barnabas 4:6
Ye ought therefore to understand. Moreover I ask you this one thing
besides, as being one of yourselves and loving you all in particular
more than my own soul, to give heed to yourselves now, and not to
liken yourselves to certain persons who pile up sin upon sin, saying
that our covenant remains to them also.

Barnabas 4:7
Ours it is; but they lost it in this way for ever, when Moses had
just received it. For the scripture saith; And Moses was in the
mountain fasting forty days and forty nights, and he received the
covenant from the Lord, even tablets of stone written with the
finger of the hand of the Lord.

Barnabas 4:8
But they lost it by turning unto idols. For thus saith the Lord;
Moses, Moses, come down quickly; for thy people whom thou
broughtest out of the land of Egypt hath done unlawfully. And
Moses understood, and threw the two tables from his hands; and their
covenant was broken in pieces, that the covenant of the beloved Jesus
might be sealed unto our hearts in the hope which springeth from faith in Him.
If faith is loyalty (rather than simple belief) then the works assocaited with faith are just the natural outworking of that loyalty. You demonstrate your loyalty by your actions, but the actions are not the loyalty, yet one is evidence of the other and you don't have a faith/works split. Jason, I'm not arguing that a person of faith does not follow up their beliefs with works. That's nothing more than "walking the walk," as opposed to someone who simply talks the talk. There are two things that I am arguing, one minor, and one major:

* Minor: The "Semitic Totality Concept" is a modern apologetic device: I don't feel it's an accurate model of Semitic thinking.
* Major: There was a difference in soteriologic opinions between Paul and the unknown author of James.

Now, I'm not saying that this difference has not been reconciled by the modern church--indeed, it was reconciled as far back as the 4th century. But the "primitive Church" was not the seamless and coherent organization that some Christian apologists would have the world believe.

Justin

jason

February 6th 2005, 08:04 PM

Jason, it would be really difficult for me to do that as a non-Christian, now wouldn't it?
But keep in mind that it is an important point. If God no longer regards it as a Holy place then people who regard it as such are simply mistaken about it being such.

And I think it makes sense to think that the temple is not a holy place any longer now that its purpose is fulfilled.

But we must remember that, according to the text of Matthew, Jesus was speaking to his disciples. At that point, the speaker and the audience are all Jewish ... and would have had an immediate understanding of the phrase "The holy place" as "the place where the Temple now stands." The author of Matthew was not arguing for the sacred anture of the place: he was solely and simply speaking of a location.
What does anture mean ?

A side note, if the text is written before 70AD as I contend, then "The holy place" and "the place where the Temple now stands" are the same thing.

Even Futurists accept this view, though they posit that this is a "double prophecy," and refers both to Titus in 70 CE, and to the Antichrist in the "End Times."
The futurists are wrong. I don't think there will be a double fulfillment. But perhaps there will be, the temple is not their at the moment though. I'm not trying to be difficult, but even if a double fullfillment is in the wings (something I contend is unlikely anyway) that does not mean it is currently a holy site.

That's what I'm trying to do. But Jason, I've been bitten once: I will not, again, accept a lying interpretation. I hate to say it, but of the interpretations I have seen, Spong's is the least objectionable ... but part of that is because Spong's writing is so content-free as to be pablum.
You really think so ? I've found Spong to be the most forked tounge devil I have ever heard speak.

The problem is, at this point, I'd make a lousy Christian. How can I develop a relationship with a God-Man based on the knowledge of the Bible, when I do not see the Bible as historically accurate?
Well first point. What is "historically accurate". If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true. Even if the text does contain errors, if it is right about that then your doubts are inconsequential (or erroneous, either way).

You may need to accept that not all questions can be answered, and that because some questions are up in the air is not a reason to reject the whole thing.

Jason, I'm not arguing that a person of faith does not follow up their beliefs with works. That's nothing more than "walking the walk," as opposed to someone who simply talks the talk. There are two things that I am arguing, one minor, and one major:

* Minor: The "Semitic Totality Concept" is a modern apologetic device: I don't feel it's an accurate model of Semitic thinking.

The point is that the STC is a phrase coined for this "walking the walk" in the first century as far as I can tell.

* Major: There was a difference in soteriologic opinions between Paul and the unknown author of James.
But that does not appear to be so, unless you leave out the "walk the walk" requirements, which Paul makes abundantly clear. And in case it is not. Think about Paul's letters for a second. If he was teaching an easy believism, then why does he give so many darn rules ? Sreiously. If some wedge is going to be driven between Paul's "Faith is all you need" and James "Faith without works is dead", then you are going to need to show that Paul did not believe that works where a part of the package. But if Paul didn't think that, then he has an awful lot of rules that he expects you to keep as part of being a christian and explictly speaks out against mistaking grace for license.

But if you concede that then the difference you are trying to make evaporates because Paul clearly understands the same "walk the walk" idea as James.

Now, I'm not saying that this difference has not been reconciled by the modern church--indeed, it was reconciled as far back as the 4th century. But the "primitive Church" was not the seamless and coherent organization that some Christian apologists would have the world believe.
No I know it was not, but it was not the seething mass of confusion and contradiction skeptics would like it to be either.

I'll have to get back to you on the rest of this.

Jason

technomage

February 6th 2005, 08:39 PM

Greetings, SixLiteralDays,

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I've had other projects running, and then had to take a break ... none of which is an excuse for being dilatory. I apologize for being so tardy in my response, and I thank you for your patience.

I noticed that you date nearly every single NT book along the lines of liberal scholarship.
Well, sort of. "Liberal" scholarship would posit even later dates--for instance, Luke is dated as late as 130 in liberal scholarship (I date it to 80-100), and John as late as 170.

I tend, by and large, to agree with mainstream secular scholarship ... on those areas where there is a difference, I actually tend to be a bit conservative. If there's a benefit of a doubt, I tend to give more leeway.

I wonder if you have ever read any conservative NT introductions.
I have. SLD, I am a former Christian ...

If the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written prior to AD 70 (which conservatives claim and I agree with) then Jesus accurately predicted this destruction some 35 – 40 years prior to the event. Of course, liberals and critics do not believe that it is possible to foretell the future so they are forced to date it after AD 70.
SLD, this is not the only reason to date the Bible after the destruction of Jerusalem. One of the primary reasons (for instance) for dating the "pseudo-Pauline" books as late are as follows:
* Certain of the books demonstrate a more developed doctrinal teaching--sometimes one that contradicts, sometimes simply more complex. I'll try to include examples of that with the comparison between 1 and 2 Thess--however, for that, please see the end of this post.
* if they had been written while Paul was alive, and he had heard of it, I have little doubt that the echoes of the explosion would still be ringing in Christendom's ears. :teeth:

However, it is something that we do need to cover as part of this discussion. No, I do not accept the New Testament as an accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus. If I were to do so, (as I said earlier in the thread), I would be forced to conclude that Jesus is a false prophet, based on the text of the Olivet Discourse in Matt 24. Now, the site owner, Dee Dee Warren, has written a commentary that I'm working through (the commentary is here (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html), if you are interested) that promises to resolve those issues ... but I've not made it all the way through yet, and I am still quite unconvinced.

Regarding linguistic differences between different books--I take that as indicitive of the possibility of different authors, but not as conclusive proof.

Finally, you mentioned that there were theological differences between 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Did you mean that there are contradictions or just different issues discussed? Please clarify when you get a chance.
I will. Unfortunately, that's going to be quite an intensive project, and may take three to six months to complete. Briefly stated, however, I mean changes in theological and eschatological views ... somewhat more complex than "contradictions," and quite a bit more fundamental than "different issues."

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut things off here--gain, I've over-done, and my hands are threatening to go on strike. But I will get more on these topics.

Justin

technomage

February 7th 2005, 01:08 PM

But keep in mind that it is an important point. If God no longer regards it as a Holy place then people who regard it as such are simply mistaken about it being such.

And I think it makes sense to think that the temple is not a holy place any longer now that its purpose is fulfilled.
The assertion that the Temple Mount is no longer a holy place is a relatively recent one in the Christian Community. As far back as Clement, the Temple Mount has been referred to by Christians as "The holy place."

And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." (The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book 1.)

This view was also held by branches of Christianity that you would not consider orthodox: examples include the Judaic Christian "Odes of Solomon," written about 100 CE.

"No man can pervert your holy place, 0 God, nor can he change it, and put it in another place, because [he has] no power over it. Your sanctuary you designed before you made special places."

Now, you and Dee Dee can make distinctions on what is actually holy and what is not, but that's not going to help anyone understand the text one whit. The author of Matthew was referring to the Temple Mount.

What does anture mean ? :doh: It means "typo." I meant to type "nature."

A side note, if the text is written before 70AD as I contend, then "The holy place" and "the place where the Temple now stands" are the same thing.
And as the quotes above demonstrate, the use of the phrase "the holy place" in Christian literature to describe the Temple did not stop with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Even Futurists accept this view, though they posit that this is a "double prophecy," and refers both to Titus in 70 CE, and to the Antichrist in the "End Times."The futurists are wrong.
Well, I happen to agree--I wasn't citing the futurist position to try to "prove" it, but to show that this view is widespread. Now, like I said before, you and Dee Dee can argue all day that the Temple Mount is nolonger a holy place: Jason, I'm not making a theological distinction. I'm making a literary analysis.

You really think so ? I've found Spong to be the most forked tounge devil I have ever heard speak. Well, that may very well be because of the PoV you approach him from. You're starting out with a fairly orthodox view, and some of the ideas he states are pretty far out there in heterodox territory. I'm coming from a fairly complex synthesis of Wiccan theology, philosophy, and ethics, and Spong strikes me as watered down.

Well first point. What is "historically accurate". If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true. Even if the text does contain errors, if it is right about that then your doubts are inconsequential (or erroneous, either way). Yet the same text that holds the narrative of Jesus rising from the dead is erroneous in other areas. If I cannot trust the accuraccy in other areas, how can I trust the stories of the resurection?

And I'm not speaking of the Creation Accounts, or the Flood Myth: those are cultural myths--important to the culture, relevant to the ethics, but the historicity is immaterial.

"If some wedge is going to be driven between Paul's "Faith is all you need" and James "Faith without works is dead", then you are going to need to show that Paul did not believe that works where a part of the package. But if Paul didn't think that, then he has an awful lot of rules that he expects you to keep as part of being a christian and explictly speaks out against mistaking grace for license." Well, we're getting into cometing soteriological claims, so I need to make this disclaimer: I'm discussing these claims in an academic sense, not a dogmatic sense.

I'm not too worried about Paul's rules--they're not "do this and be saved," they're "If you're saved, you need to do these things." I can go through with some examples later if you like, but if we get to discussing the history of soteriology, we need to do so in a separate thread.

What we're discussing is the difference in Paul's and "James's" views on what is required for salvation. Paul very simply states that faith is the only thing required for salvation--that's not "easy believism," because you're right that Paul makes the distinction that if you have faith, you'll act on it in obedience. James makes the distinction that faith without works is dead.

Now, I am not the first person to have questions about the relation between the two teachings--indeed, many Christians have doubted the authenticity of James. (See the Wikipedia sub-entry concerning the Canonicity of James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James#Canonicity).) Apologists have been working to reconcile Paul and "James" for centuries, but it was not the work of apologists, but of the rank-and-file Christians that truly reunited the two.

No I know it was not, but it was not the seething mass of confusion and contradiction skeptics would like it to be either. Jason, history says it was. The only way that anyone can deny the historicity of the dissention and schism in the primitive Church is to select one group as "orthodox," and explain away the remainder as "Oh, they weren't really Christian--they were heretics." But that's a doctrinal distinction, not a historical one.

Questions of Christians following the Jewish Law, the Deity of Christ, what books to accept into the Canon, Gnostics, Nicolaitans (which the author of Revelation said God hates, but which we really don't know what they believed ... and as they were in Christian churches, they evidently thought they were Christians), and the list goes on. There is a signifigant chunk of the New Testament that is polemic against heresy, and the later you go in the writings of the ECF, the higher the percentage gets.

The Primitive Church made the frequent splits of the Protestant sects look like a reunion of long-lost friends.

Now, you may deny that these heretics were "True Christians ™--as I said, that's a doctrinal decision. But you cannot deny the history without turning your back on truth.

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 7th 2005, 06:38 PM

I'm not too worried about Paul's rules--they're not "do this and be saved," they're "If you're saved, you need to do these things." I can go through with some examples later if you like, but if we get to discussing the history of soteriology, we need to do so in a separate thread.

What we're discussing is the difference in Paul's and "James's" views on what is required for salvation. Paul very simply states that faith is the only thing required for salvation--that's not "easy believism," because you're right that Paul makes the distinction that if you have faith, you'll act on it in obedience. James makes the distinction that faith without works is dead.
:huh: Maybe I'm missing something, but the two views you're presenting here strike me as two different ways of saying the same thing.

technomage

February 7th 2005, 07:02 PM

:blush: Yeah, it probably did the way I paraphrased. Sorry about that.

(Heavy paraphrasing here.)

Paul's said "Believe, and be saved." James said "You believe? So what? The demons also believe ... and tremble." James's soteriology was dependant on faith, but not on faith alone.

Now, since the compilation of the canon (as I said before), the two points of view have been wonderfully married by Christendom. We have a Church that holds to one creed: "Believe and be saved, and your beliefs will enable you to do works that prove your faith is not dead." (Well, OK, you probaly couldn't get everyone who professes the name "Jesus" to all agree on what direction the sun rises from, but you get my point. :lol: ) But back then, in the Primitive Church, it was not one ekklesia, but several competing Gospels. Hence all the warnings about false teachers, false Gospels, and wolves in the fold.

Justin

jason

February 7th 2005, 07:12 PM

The assertion that the Temple Mount is no longer a holy place is a relatively recent one in the Christian Community. As far back as Clement, the Temple Mount has been referred to by Christians as "The holy place."

And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." (The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book 1.)

That is a bit rich isn't it. Clement is agreeing with me here. The holy place has been desolated.

This view was also held by branches of Christianity that you would not consider orthodox: examples include the Judaic Christian "Odes of Solomon," written about 100 CE.

"No man can pervert your holy place, 0 God, nor can he change it, and put it in another place, because [he has] no power over it. Your sanctuary you designed before you made special places."

Hang on. Again this is not at odds with what I said. I agree man cannot make God's place unholy. I am not arguing that man did. I am saying that God did.

And as the quotes above demonstrate, the use of the phrase "the holy place" in Christian literature to describe the Temple did not stop with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Why would you expect it too ?

Yet the same text that holds the narrative of Jesus rising from the dead is erroneous in other areas. If I cannot trust the accuraccy in other areas, how can I trust the stories of the resurection?
I disagree, and we can do a case by case analysis if you like, but leaving that aside for a second.

Are you really arguing that any historical manuscript that contains even one error is entirely untrustworthy ?

What we're discussing is the difference in Paul's and "James's" views on what is required for salvation. Paul very simply states that faith is the only thing required for salvation--that's not "easy believism," because you're right that Paul makes the distinction that if you have faith, you'll act on it in obedience. James makes the distinction that faith without works is dead.
There is no disctinction here. That is my point. It would only be a distinction if easybelievism was in view. I can see why the text causes problems, but the reality is that no such problem exists.

Jason, history says it was. The only way that anyone can deny the historicity of the dissention and schism in the primitive Church is to select one group as "orthodox," and explain away the remainder as "Oh, they weren't really Christian--they were heretics." But that's a doctrinal distinction, not a historical one.
Umm some quite obviously where heretics. There was a core message preached in the church and groups that entirely abandoned that message did step outside of the community.

The Primitive Church made the frequent splits of the Protestant sects look like a reunion of long-lost friends.
What would you expect when hard truth is involved ?

Jason

technomage

February 7th 2005, 09:46 PM

So let me get this straight ....

I argue that the Abonination that causes desolation has already stood in the holy place ... and you say it doesn't count, because it wasnt a holy place anymore. I establish that it was still considered as a holy place by the early Christians and the ECF ... and you say it doesn't matter, because it's not man's decision that it wasn't holy, but God's. I then point out to you that what I am trying to accomplish is not a theological definition of whether or not the Temple Mount is holy, but a text-based definition of what the Early Christians considered to be the holy place ... and you snip it entirely, unacknowledged and unresponded to?

I argue that there were various differing communities in the early Church ... and you say there weren't. I go through the texts to demonstrate the differences ... and you again deny that there was differences. Then I allow that some of these would be considered heretical groups, and all of a sudden you pop up with "Well, sure, there were differences--those guys over there are heretics. What did you expect?"

Jason, is this how you always operate in discussion ... deny an assertion, let the person prove the assertion, and then in your turn assert that it doesn't matter? Shift the basis of the discussion? Ignore the points that you can't refute?

OK, I'm tired, I'm more than a little irritated at a different situation (has nothing to do with you), and my patience is not what it should be. I may be back in a day or so ... or I may not. Right now, I don't know, and I'm on too short a fuze to decide right now.

Justin

jason

February 7th 2005, 09:58 PM

I argue that the Abonination that causes desolation has already stood in the holy place ... and you say it doesn't count, because it wasnt a holy place anymore.
Huh ?

No I said that once the holy place had been desolated that it was not Holy anymore. Just to clarify, I mean that if the place has been desecrated (a sure sign that God has abandoned it) then it can't really be re-defiled.

I establish that it was still considered as a holy place by the early Christians and the ECF ... and you say it doesn't matter, because it's not man's decision that it wasn't holy, but God's.
Hang on a sec. Certianly clement agreed that the place had been defiled. That was all I was trying to say. He agrees with me on that point.

I then point out to you that what I am trying to accomplish is not a theological definition of whether or not the Temple Mount is holy, but a text-based definition of what the Early Christians considered to be the holy place
Is a Holy place, was a Holy place ? Big difference. Clement seems to think was.

I argue that there were various differing communities in the early Church ... and you say there weren't. I go through the texts to demonstrate the differences ... and you again deny that there was differences. Then I allow that some of these would be considered heretical groups, and all of a sudden you pop up with "Well, sure, there were differences--those guys over there are heretics. What did you expect?"
Sorry I was unclear. I would not deny that the Christian church had some divisions from very early on. No question of that. But as to your specific charge that their existed a refit between James and Paul, I think such an unhealed rift is at best tenuously demonstrated by evidence that survives.

It is not surprising that there where differences in the early christian church and falling out between groups because of differences in understanding or emphasis. But I think that you are over selling how much difference really existed.

OK, I'm tired, I'm more than a little irritated at a different situation (has nothing to do with you), and my patience is not what it should be. I may be back in a day or so ... or I may not. Right now, I don't know, and I'm on too short a fuze to decide right now.
Thats ok. I think the problem is mostly miscommunication and a difference of opinion about the nature of the text.

Jason

One Bad Pig

February 7th 2005, 10:30 PM

But back then, in the Primitive Church, it was not one ekklesia, but several competing Gospels. Hence all the warnings about false teachers, false Gospels, and wolves in the fold.
While there were heretical groups in early Christianity, I don't think the situation was as chaotic as you imply above. Only the four gospels that are in the canon seem to have enjoyed widespread support (as evidenced by the Diatessaron (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html)) by the mid-2nd century. I haven't come across any early attempted harmonisation of one or more of the four canonical gospels with any other writing.

technomage

February 7th 2005, 11:05 PM

Thats ok. I think the problem is mostly miscommunication and a difference of opinion about the nature of the text.
Don't worry about it. I'm beginning to feel that this is a conversation that is doomed to failure--not through lack of honorable intent for any of the participants, but because the contexts are so divergent that I do not feel we have a "common ground" for communication.

However, I do want to thank you, OBP, SixLiteralDays, Jaltus, Xavier, and Teallaura for participating, and for helping me sort out a few things.

Justin

Jaltus

February 10th 2005, 09:46 AM

I think there were indeed competing gospels with the sense of competing messages, not competing books.

That said, Christianity was a lot less fractured than say Ehrman wants people to believe. I also do not think there was a divide between Paul and James to the extent that Justin wants to point, it comes off as way too Baur for my taste. More likely is a contrasting emphasis.

Justin,

Why don't you read the ethical sections in Paul (say I Corinthians 1-13) and then tell us how much difference there was in terms of practice? I think Paul and James used different language to say the same thing: faith saves, but saving faith must be a living faith, and James would call that evidence of a living faith "works."

technomage

February 11th 2005, 12:51 PM

I think there were indeed competing gospels with the sense of competing messages, not competing books.
Well, while there were also competing books (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, etc), you're right--what I was getting at was competing messages.

That said, Christianity was a lot less fractured than say Ehrman wants people to believe. I also do not think there was a divide between Paul and James to the extent that Justin wants to point, it comes off as way too Baur for my taste. More likely is a contrasting emphasis.
Hmmm. I tend to think of it as being similar to the differences between Arminism and Calvinism: they're both actually talking about the same Gospel, and as long as one concentrates on the similarities, one can see that they're of the same faith. But just as Arminism and Calvinism have been used as excuses to split, so have the Jamesian and Pauline views.

And yeah, I do have to say that there were deep divisions in the Church ... hence, the anger and vitriol directed at variant sects ("Synagogues of Satan" being one example I can think of right off the top of my head). All of these people called themselves Christians, or "Followers of the Way," or what have you--and today, many of the movements are simply called "heresies"--yet it points to not only deep division, but bitter anger at those who interpreted Jesus in a different way.

Why don't you read the ethical sections in Paul (say I Corinthians 1-13) and then tell us how much difference there was in terms of practice? I think Paul and James used different language to say the same thing: faith saves, but saving faith must be a living faith, and James would call that evidence of a living faith "works."
Well, reading 1 Cor 1 kind of reinforces my views on schism and division ... but we're talking faith vs. works. Look at the following passages:

[verse][14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.[/quote]
Of course, this is not speaking of "works" in the Jamesian sense, but of the foundation on which a person's faith is based. Yet the entirety of the ethical passage is constructed logically as "You are already saved: do this, so that you glorify God." Now, I've just taken a quick scan of it, and a thorough analysis will take more time than I've had available yet, but on the surface the two passages are not in agreement--but they're not contradictory, either. From what I am seeing, Paul is speaking of how a Christian community should conduct itself as a group: "James" is speaking of how individuals are saved.

But I'm going to have to come back to it later ... gotta go run some errands.

Justin

jason

February 11th 2005, 05:31 PM

Well, while there were also competing books (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, etc), you're right--what I was getting at was competing messages.
Hang on again. AFAIK GThomas and GPeter never enjoyed wide spread support and the Shepherd of Hermas was always a big iffy.

And yeah, I do have to say that there were deep divisions in the Church ... hence, the anger and vitriol directed at variant sects ("Synagogues of Satan" being one example I can think of right off the top of my head). All of these people called themselves Christians, or "Followers of the Way," or what have you--and today, many of the movements are simply called "heresies"--yet it points to not only deep division, but bitter anger at those who interpreted Jesus in a different way.
I don't think anybody is disagreeing that there where some divergent wacko's in the early church.

I think the main problem with your argument is that you are assuming that such extreme divergences that engender some of the comments by Paul and others where the rule rather than the exception.

For comparison think about Marxism (Yeah I know, now I need a bath too). There is a wide number of strains of marxist thought, all basically similar with some different emphasis, but if you came along as a far right capitalist and called yourself a marxist you would probably engender language about as strong as Synagouge of Satan. It would not point to deep differences in marxist thought, just that you are a fringe lunatic that doesn't understand what a marxist is.

Jason :jason:

technomage

February 11th 2005, 11:10 PM

Hang on again. AFAIK GThomas and GPeter never enjoyed wide spread support and the Shepherd of Hermas was always a big iffy.
Oh ... sorry, I didn't explain that clearly. Yeah, GPeter was pretty spotty at best: I'm of the opinion that it was mainly read around Alexandria, and I'm not too sure it was widely accepted even in Egypt.

GThomas ... that one's more problematic. It's early in my estimate (70-90 CE, and I've seen arguments for it being as early as 50 CE), and probably did have a substantial following in the early Christian communities in Syria ... but that "branch" of Christianity didn't survive as an independant tradition, probably becoming assimilated into Pauline Christianity.

Hermas was exceedingly popular in the early Church: indeed, it was accepted into the Canon by Eusebius (IIRC), and has been included as canonical at several points in Church history.

I don't think anybody is disagreeing that there where some divergent wacko's in the early church.

I think the main problem with your argument is that you are assuming that such extreme divergences that engender some of the comments by Paul and others where the rule rather than the exception.
Hmmm. Then I'm not expressing myself clearly.

I do believe that there was not one, but maybe as many as six or eight different, self-identified "Christian" traditions in the Primitive Church. I know of six such groups--well, five and a catch-all:
1: Pauline Christianity (Asia Minor, parts of Greece, Rome)
2: Syriac
3: Alexandrine (Coptic)
4: Judaic (ranging from Pauline Christians who happened to be Jewish to full-fledged "Party of the Circumcision").
5: Gnostic (Various groups and teachers, considered heretical)
6: Var. splinter groups and teachers--some considered heretical.

Now, when I say "Traditions," I'm not talking the "armed camps of opposition" such as has been seen between the Orthodox and the Roman churches, or the Catholics and the Protestants, at certain points of history: for the most part, this is more like the relationship between the Baptists and the Presbyterians today--each calls the other "Christian," and they may have some points of difference, but they'll frequently swap teachers back and forth, and if (say) a Christian from Alexandria was traipsing through Asia Minor, he could go to the church at Ephasus and feel at home. Even the proto-Gnostics weren't looked down on for a while, until Gnosticism started developiong and the teachings became too divergent.

As you know, it's a very human trait to try to explain the fundamentally unexplainable: so each of these churches is working with the OT (a few in Hebrew or Aramaic, most in Greek); some letters by various apostles, bishops, and teachers; and the local pastors--each of whom is influenced by their local culture, their background (including education), and their own personal worldview. For a very large part, these folks manage to work together, and what would eventually become "small o" orthodox Christianity results as a synthesis of these views ... but not without a lot of argument, more than a little division, and not a few nasty names. In many respects, the persecution against Christians was one of the most helpful things in Christian history, because it enforced a cohesion born of persecution.

I mean, come on, Jason ... even here on the forum, we've seen some really nasty name-calling and divisive behavior between (for example) the Partial Preterists and the Futurists, or the Arminians and the Calvinists, or the Protestants and Catholics. Think about Jude's opinion of Catholicism for a moment, and contrast that to the fights betwen the Orthodox and Roman churches.

But I've got to cut this short ... more later.

For comparison think about Marxism (Yeah I know, now I need a bath too).
:eww: I mean, point taken, but did you really have to go there?

Justin

Jaltus

February 12th 2005, 02:21 PM

Why would you date GThom so early? We have nothing from it before 150 AD, with the possibility of one mention. The canonical documents have much more early attestation, but you reject them as early! This is the kind of liberal scholarship double-speak that drives me nuts.

technomage

February 12th 2005, 02:46 PM

Why would you date GThom so early? We have nothing from it before 150 AD, with the possibility of one mention.
I date it as fairly early because of several factors:
1: The "Sayings" structure: Christian literature changed over to descriptive accounts with the advent of the (now-)Canonical Gospels. GThom, as a "sayings" account, did not fit into this structure--indeed, I am rather of the opinion that Matthew's original writings were after this style.
2: Variant, but not specifically polemic: GThom is a variant of the Jesus account ... but it's not arguing "against" any of the other positions. John was specifically arguing against certain interpretations that had come into the Christian community by that time (namely proto-Gnosticism). Matthew was arguing against the identification of Jesus as a heretic, by demonstrating that Jesus fulfilled several prophetic passages.
3: Placement: The Syrian Church was independant for a while, but was fairly quickly assimilated into the "orthodox" Christian community.

However, I do not suggest that GThom was a "stable" text by the date I gave: I highly doubt that it's ever been a stable text, and I am rather of the opinion that the copies we have available are heavily corrupted ... especially the Coptic text.

The canonical documents have much more early attestation, but you reject them as early!
Jaltus, I'm not comparing GThom to the other texts to come up with that conclusion ... except for the stylistic character of "sayings Gospel" vs. "narrative Gospel."

This is the kind of liberal scholarship double-speak that drives me nuts.
I'm honestly not trying to drive you nuts, Jaltus.

The date estimates stand or fall on their own merits, but Jaltus ... while they are only estimates, they're the best estimates I can come up with considering the information I have at hand. I'm not making these dates up in some attempt to "refute" the texts: I'm coming up with these dates because, based on the texts and the culture, this is the best, most accurate conclusion I can draw.

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 12th 2005, 03:51 PM

I date it as fairly early because of several factors:
1: The "Sayings" structure: Christian literature changed over to descriptive accounts with the advent of the (now-)Canonical Gospels. GThom, as a "sayings" account, did not fit into this structure--indeed, I am rather of the opinion that Matthew's original writings were after this style.
Why do you think that "sayings" accounts are earlier than "narrative" accounts?

2: Variant, but not specifically polemic: GThom is a variant of the Jesus account ... but it's not arguing "against" any of the other positions. John was specifically arguing against certain interpretations that had come into the Christian community by that time (namely proto-Gnosticism). Matthew was arguing against the identification of Jesus as a heretic, by demonstrating that Jesus fulfilled several prophetic passages.
Why do you describe them as arguing against something rather than for something?

However, I do not suggest that GThom was a "stable" text by the date I gave: I highly doubt that it's ever been a stable text, and I am rather of the opinion that the copies we have available are heavily corrupted ... especially the Coptic text.
Then how do you know GThom wasn't originally polemic in nature? IIRC it was popular in Gnostic circles.

spiritmech

February 12th 2005, 04:02 PM

Why do you think that "sayings" accounts are earlier than "narrative" accounts?

Why do you describe them as arguing against something rather than for something?

Then how do you know GThom wasn't originally polemic in nature? IIRC it was popular in Gnostic circles.

NT Wright rips apart Justin's argument in New Testament and the People of God. Sayings tend to come after, especially given the story-based culture of Judaism.

SM

One Bad Pig

February 12th 2005, 04:24 PM

NT Wright rips apart Justin's argument in New Testament and the People of God. Sayings tend to come after, especially given the story-based culture of Judaism.

SM
That book's on my Wish List at Amazon.

technomage

February 12th 2005, 07:36 PM

Why do you think that "sayings" accounts are earlier than "narrative" accounts? I think the sayings tradition is earlier: of the five or six "sayings gospels" that I know of, I don't think any one of them can be considered "stable" documents.

Why do you describe them as arguing against something rather than for something? My own personal convenience. Besides which, it supports my argument better. :lol:

Seriously, OBP, yes that's a subjective categorization on my part, and it's one that I use carefully. When a polemic is arguing against something, they have to pretty explicitly state what they're arguing for, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Matthew is arguing for Jesus's fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies--it makes more sense to me that these arguments are contra assertions that Jesus "couldn't possibly be the messiah."

However, I'll gladly admit that's a value judgement on my part, and I may be wrong.

Then how do you know GThom wasn't originally polemic in nature? IIRC it was popular in Gnostic circles. Lack of Gnostic "fingerprints." :wink:

Books that I call "Gnostic" have several broad characteristics:
1: A flat denial of Second Coming eschatology.
2: Denying a physical crucifixion or resurrection.
3: Ignoring or replacing the doctrine of the atonement
4: "Heaven" is either something within us, or is something we can only attain spiritually (i.e. the Valentinian Spirit/Body dualism). This dualism can also be expressed in a "Male Good, Female Evil" dichotomy.

Some portions of the later Coptic GThom have these factors, but they're not present in the earlier Greek. Now, that could mean that the Greek version never had it, or that the Greek version of those portions didn't survive. But let's look specifically at GThom 28 and 29--both known from P. Oxy 1 as one of the earliest fragments of GThom:

Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk;

In later Gnostic teachings, Jesus was never in the flesh--only in an illusion of flesh. But also look at GThom 29:

Jesus said: If the flesh came into existence because of the spirit, it is a marvel. But if the spirit (came into existence) because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. But as for me, I wonder at this, how this great wealth made its home in this poverty.

This is what makes me thing that GThom started out relatively early, and may have been one of the first expressions of "proto-Gnosticism." Flesh is not considered "evil", and though there is a noted difference between flesh and spirit (and flesh is seen as the poorer of the two), the flesh is not condemned, and the author of GThom notes that Spirit is at home in flesh, even though it is a marvel to him.

However, I don't think that GThom was complete at that time. Look at GThom 114:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That's straight Gnosticism ... and I'm guessing mid- to late-second century. The biggest problem with Gnostic documents is that the "Gnosticism" is not subtle--indeed, as we saw in GThom 114, the Gnostic aspects usually jump out from the shadows with a chainsaw. :lol:

Seriously, the Gnostics were good at revamping documents, and they were pretty famous for coming up with "Genuine Apostolic Letters" with the ink still wet. But the Gnostics weren't really a factor in the First Century--it's with the advent of Valentinus and Marcion that Gnosticism really takes off. That's not to say all Gnostic-style books post-date Valentinus: for instance, I personally date SecJames to 100-120, which predates Valentinus, but post-dates GThom.

Justin

technomage

February 12th 2005, 07:38 PM

Hi, Spiritmech,

NT Wright rips apart Justin's argument in New Testament and the People of God. Sayings tend to come after, especially given the story-based culture of Judaism.
If you've got a copy, can you post a couple of paragraphs as a synopsis? Especially if he says anything about Matthew's Logia? Thanks.

Justin

spiritmech

February 12th 2005, 08:24 PM

Hi, Spiritmech,

If you've got a copy, can you post a couple of paragraphs as a synopsis? Especially if he says anything about Matthew's Logia? Thanks.

Justin

Let me look through it again and see if I can find a decent summary. It's near the end of the book. Give me a few days.
SM

jason

February 12th 2005, 10:46 PM

Oh ... sorry, I didn't explain that clearly. Yeah, GPeter was pretty spotty at best: I'm of the opinion that it was mainly read around Alexandria, and I'm not too sure it was widely accepted even in Egypt
I'm willing to go as far as to say it was not ever accepted anywhere as on par with the Gospels.
.

GThomas ... that one's more problematic. It's early in my estimate (70-90 CE, and I've seen arguments for it being as early as 50 CE), and probably did have a substantial following in the early Christian communities in Syria ... but that "branch" of Christianity didn't survive as an independant tradition, probably becoming assimilated into Pauline Christianity.
I don't know why you think that. It is dated late as far as I can tell except for fringe loonies like the Jesus Seminar and their ilk.

Hermas was exceedingly popular in the early Church: indeed, it was accepted into the Canon by Eusebius (IIRC), and has been included as canonical at several points in Church history.
True, but it was never considered to have been written by an Apostle AFAIK, which was was it was dropped from the Canon. It was a popular book no arguments there.

I do believe that there was not one, but maybe as many as six or eight different, self-identified "Christian" traditions in the Primitive Church. I know of six such groups--well, five and a catch-all:
1: Pauline Christianity (Asia Minor, parts of Greece, Rome)
2: Syriac
3: Alexandrine (Coptic)
4: Judaic (ranging from Pauline Christians who happened to be Jewish to full-fledged "Party of the Circumcision").
5: Gnostic (Various groups and teachers, considered heretical)
6: Var. splinter groups and teachers--some considered heretical.
Leaving aside the obvious heretical groups, how different where they ?

I know your next part answers that. So in essence, the early church was united if your analogy is correct.

but not without a lot of argument, more than a little division, and not a few nasty names.
I think less "Argument" than you seem to think. There where differences of understanding, and truth will always be divisive.

I mean, come on, Jason ... even here on the forum, we've seen some really nasty name-calling and divisive behavior between (for example) the Partial Preterists and the Futurists, or the Arminians and the Calvinists, or the Protestants and Catholics. Think about Jude's opinion of Catholicism for a moment, and contrast that to the fights betwen the Orthodox and Roman churches.
Yet in most instances everyone of those groups would agree on what are the fundamentals of the faith as it where.

It isn't like you have a group saying Christ is the only way to heaven and anther group saying that he was just a good teacher.

:eww: I mean, point taken, but did you really have to go there?
Well it did seem like a good example that was political rather than religious in nature.

Jason

technomage

February 12th 2005, 11:47 PM

I'm willing to go as far as to say it was not ever accepted anywhere as on par with the Gospels.
Well, it depends on whether you're talking numeric support, or the fervency of its adherents. Numeric support--I absolutely agree with you. Fevency of its adherents ... impossible to tell one way or another, as we'd both be arguing from ignorance--unless you've got more info on GPeter and the community that originated it.

I don't know why you think that. It is dated late as far as I can tell except for fringe loonies like the Jesus Seminar and their ilk.
I went over that with OBP. Check out this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=918519&postcount=48), and see what you think.

Leaving aside the obvious heretical groups, how different where they ?
Well, I can give a point-by-point, but that would take up a lot of space. Let me split that into a different thread ... I'll put it here in Church History tonight or tomorrow.

I know your next part answers that. So in essence, the early church was united if your analogy is correct.
United in that they all taught Christ "and him crucified?" More or less. United in that all of their teachings were identical (or even very close), or that their interpretations were similar, or that they didn't have disagreements and fights? Probably not ... though there was a lot less fighting and a lot more agreeing while the persecutions were going on.

I think less "Argument" than you seem to think. There where differences of understanding, and truth will always be divisive.
Well, Jason, that's a subjective statement on your part. I respect it, and I value it, but I fear that the evidence adisagrees with it.

Look over the ECF literature ... how much of it deals with outside issues, and how much of it deals with corrections of bad doctrine--ranging from slight misunderstandings to outright heresy--within the Church? No, I'm not expecting an immediate answer: that kind of a survey would be the work of months, if not years (believe me, it's taken me years, and I'm not finished yet).

Yet in most instances everyone of those groups would agree on what are the fundamentals of the faith as it where.
Would they? Jason, the "Judaic Christians" would include groups as radical as the Ebionites and the Nasoreans. Syriac Christianity developed a divergent Christology that eventually led to both Nestorianism and the Monophysites. The Coptics experienced the wonders of Arianism.

None of these movements that you call "heresies" grew in a vacuum, and while it is truly unfair to evaluate the Primitive Church based on heresies of the 3rd through 5th centuries ... well, frankly Jason, when I try to introduce what little evidence we have from earlier eras, you either object to the evidence, or to my dating of the evidence.

It isn't like you have a group saying Christ is the only way to heaven and anther group saying that he was just a good teacher.
How do you know that? You don't! I don't! We don't have much in the way of evidence ... but what we do have indictes that there were divisions: perhaps not specifically the schism you name, but perhaps other divisions just as fundamental.

But to discover whether or not the divisions were there, and what they were about, and how severe they were, we have to be willing to examine all of the evidence. And frankly, Jason ... well, if you do not want to examine that evidence, that's no problem: I respect your decision. But if you're going to actually examine the evidence, then be ready: the process will challenge your beliefs, your expectations, and your preconceptions, just as it has mine.

That's not going to be an easy road, but it's the road I've chosen for myself. You're more than welcome to come along, and I truly value your input ... but I don't want .. aw, heck Jason. I don't want you to go trough the years of doubt that I have. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Well it did seem like a good example that was political rather than religious in nature.
Oh, I quite agree! But ... eww, nonetheless! :eww:

Justin

jason

February 13th 2005, 06:52 AM

Well, it depends on whether you're talking numeric support, or the fervency of its adherents. Numeric support--I absolutely agree with you. Fevency of its adherents ... impossible to tell one way or another, as we'd both be arguing from ignorance--unless you've got more info on GPeter and the community that originated it.
Actually if I understand correctly the main problem with GPeter is that it gives you ring side seats to the resurrection. It was never going to be canon scripture because it recorcs events that could not have been known.

United in that they all taught Christ "and him crucified?" More or less. United in that all of their teachings were identical (or even very close), or that their interpretations were similar, or that they didn't have disagreements and fights? Probably not ... though there was a lot less fighting and a lot more agreeing while the persecutions were going on.
I would say the church has never been free of some division. The thing is, I don't think it is a divided as you try to make out.

Well, Jason, that's a subjective statement on your part. I respect it, and I value it, but I fear that the evidence adisagrees with it.
Not really subjective. The church from early on had a core set of beliefs, take a look at the Didcahe and the Apostles Creed for example, and there does not seem to be a lot of disagreement over those sorts of things.

Look over the ECF literature ... how much of it deals with outside issues, and how much of it deals with corrections of bad doctrine--ranging from slight misunderstandings to outright heresy--within the Church? No, I'm not expecting an immediate answer: that kind of a survey would be the work of months, if not years (believe me, it's taken me years, and I'm not finished yet).
Recommendations on where to start ? Given the size of it.

Would they? Jason, the "Judaic Christians" would include groups as radical as the Ebionites and the Nasoreans. Syriac Christianity developed a divergent Christology that eventually led to both Nestorianism and the Monophysites. The Coptics experienced the wonders of Arianism.
Having read a great book on heretics (Which is apparently in storage or on loan !) down through church history. To be honest, although I think Nestor and the Monophysities where wrong, and I understand why they were denounced, just like Arius, there teaching is not so wildly divergent as to be seen under the rubric of christian. Arius I think it iis fair to say is outside what is christian, but perhaps not damnably so. The problem with many heresies AFAICT is not the teaching itself but the sorts of things that logically follow from such teachings.

well, frankly Jason, when I try to introduce what little evidence we have from earlier eras, you either object to the evidence, or to my dating of the evidence.
Well the evidence is at best slender and based on a lot of extrapolation.

The Gospel of Peter has obvious problems for being any sort of a genuine document (Ring side seat to the Rez), Thomas was never widely accepted and looks to be copied IIRC, and the rift between Paul and James is at best dubious in terms of teaching because Paul did not sell any sort of an "Easy Believeism" vs James "works righteousness". I'm ony objecting because I think the evidence is weak.

How do you know that?
It was just an example.

what we do have indictes that there were divisions: perhaps not specifically the schism you name, but perhaps other divisions just as fundamental.
I disagree. Based on Pauls letters, seriously divergent views (Say Hymanaeus for example) where tossed from the Church and others like the Corinthians where censured.

if you do not want to examine that evidence, that's no problem: I respect your decision.
Your welcome to present it, but I think you'll find I have a fairly "liberal" view on the nature of heresy and the effect it had on the church. (Not liberal as in theological liberal, but well, you'll probably see).

But if you're going to actually examine the evidence, then be ready: the process will challenge your beliefs, your expectations, and your preconceptions, just as it has mine.
Maybe, but I have looked at these sorts of things in the past.

That's not going to be an easy road, but it's the road I've chosen for myself. You're more than welcome to come along, and I truly value your input ... but I don't want .. aw, heck Jason. I don't want you to go trough the years of doubt that I have. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
In for a penny in for a pound. I'm not trying to be stubborn or reject your evidence. If what I believe is false then I don't want to believe it. I am interested in pursuing the truth.

Can I offer a suggestion to you though.

Christianity and its forrunner Judaism are going to be true or false on two differenet levels. Now it is worth keeping this in mind as you look at the evidence and it is certianly the approach I try to take and keep in mind when examining it.

If you want to be skeptical and invent reasons for unbelief then there will always be something, no matter how silly, to appeal to as an alternative. Remind me to tell you my alternative to the Rez some time (my wife want a cuddle now so I must be brief).

But back to the two levels.

1. The experiences of the people recording the history are true. Jesus rose, the wall at Jericho fell etc. People had the experience more or less as they reported them

2. The theological truth behind it is true.

Obviously these are not the same. 1 could be true without 2 being true.

But the question to ask is this.

What would it look like if 1 & 2 are true ?

Anyway got to go.

Jason

technomage

February 13th 2005, 11:44 PM

Actually if I understand correctly the main problem with GPeter is that it gives you ring side seats to the resurrection. It was never going to be canon scripture because it recorcs events that could not have been known.
According to Eusebius (H. E., iii., 3, 2 (http://ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1521_707445)), the biggest reason it was rejected was lack of attestation in the ANF. Now, before him, Serapion, bishop of Antioch knew of, and rejected, a GPeter, but since he didn't quote from it, we have no idea if it was the same (partial) book that we have (Eusebius, H. E., vi., 12, 2, but I have no link). Origen cited GPeter as one source for Mary being a perpetual virgin (" there are certain brothers of Jesus, the sons of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary" Origen, Comm GMatt X:17 (http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-46.htm#P7424_1523553)), but then, I always thought Origen was a credulous soul.

I would say the church has never been free of some division. The thing is, I don't think it is a divided as you try to make out.
Well, Jason, there's a problem--how do we quantify "division," and how do we measure it?

Obviously, I'm making subjective statements when I speak of division in the early church ... but I've presented the evidence, and my reasons for interpreting the evidence in the manner that I do. The problem is, when you try to rebut my statements, so far your rebuttal has consisted of little more than a blank assertion. Well, heck, let me admit that at this point in the conversation, you could have said a lot more than the base assertion, and I'd have lost it in this thread! :lol:

Why don't we split off the topic of "Division in the Primitive Church" to a separate thread. However, I'm more than a little leery of making it a "debate" thread ... I don't want to argue the position as if I already knew the facts. What I'm wanting is a place where you, and I, and anyone else who is interested can bring evidence: we can get the evidence all together and sort through it. I guess I'm basically looking for a "Basketball Court" thread, but one's that's open so anyone who'se interested can participate.

Not really subjective. The church from early on had a core set of beliefs, take a look at the Didcahe and the Apostles Creed for example, and there does not seem to be a lot of disagreement over those sorts of things.
Jason, the rason I'm saying it's subjective is that I quite agree that the Early Church had these things ... but these documents are not all that they had, and if you don't look at the other documents, you miss part of the evidence.

Recommendations on where to start ? Given the size of it.
Web-accessable? Probably the best place is CCEL's Early Church Fathers (http://ccel.org/fathers2/)library.

Having read a great book on heretics (Which is apparently in storage or on loan !) down through church history. To be honest, although I think Nestor and the Monophysities where wrong, and I understand why they were denounced, just like Arius, there teaching is not so wildly divergent as to be seen under the rubric of christian. Arius I think it iis fair to say is outside what is christian, but perhaps not damnably so. The problem with many heresies AFAICT is not the teaching itself but the sorts of things that logically follow from such teachings.
OK, I can see that view--that's the problem in a theological context. But the time you're talking about (Arius: circa 325; Nestor: circa 431; Monophysites: circa 450), the Church was no longer solely a theological institution: it was also a political institution. And that's a lot later than I was looking at.

Well the evidence is at best slender and based on a lot of extrapolation.
Jason, a critical look at the books of the New Testament also shows that the evidence for them is slender. That doesn't confront me--frankly, it's part of why I'm so dispariaging of those skeptics who harp and prate about "how much the Bible changed" or some such nonsense. The importance is not in the text, it's in the history.

The Gospel of Peter has obvious problems for being any sort of a genuine document (Ring side seat to the Rez), Thomas was never widely accepted and looks to be copied IIRC, and the rift between Paul and James is at best dubious in terms of teaching because Paul did not sell any sort of an "Easy Believeism" vs James "works righteousness". I'm ony objecting because I think the evidence is weak.
GPeter--I agree that it's way dubious, but for different reasons. GThomas ... it seems to have had fairly wide acceptance, just not with the "right crowd"--I'll agree to disagree on that. But IMO, a rift between James and Paul in terms of doctrine is only "dubious" because you're looking at it from a post-apologetics point of view. However, if you decide the separate thread on early church schism is a good idea, we'll explore that subject later.

I disagree. Based on Pauls letters, seriously divergent views (Say Hymanaeus for example) where tossed from the Church and others like the Corinthians where censured.
I'm not denying that--the early Church was self-regulating. But you know as well as I do that (by way of example) if there's a doctrinal schism at the First Baptist Church, the dissenting members do not stop claiming to be Christian, even if they have actually gone into full-fledged apostacy: they rent a building down the street and become the First Reformed Baptist Church, or something of the sort.

Jason, I think the communications rift between you and I can be analogized thus: let's say you're a member of the First Baptist Church twenty or so years after this schism. The guys First Reformed Baptist guys down the streetaren't there anymore--your church got a zoning injunction on them, they lost the building, and eventually the membership parted company. You're reading the history of this and saying it was a relatively minor event ... but at the time it occurred, it was a huge split.

In for a penny in for a pound. I'm not trying to be stubborn or reject your evidence. If what I believe is false then I don't want to believe it. I am interested in pursuing the truth.
Cool.

Christianity and its forrunner Judaism are going to be true or false on two differenet levels. Now it is worth keeping this in mind as you look at the evidence and it is certianly the approach I try to take and keep in mind when examining it.

If you want to be skeptical and invent reasons for unbelief then there will always be something, no matter how silly, to appeal to as an alternative. Remind me to tell you my alternative to the Rez some time (my wife want a cuddle now so I must be brief).

But back to the two levels.

1. The experiences of the people recording the history are true. Jesus rose, the wall at Jericho fell etc. People had the experience more or less as they reported them

2. The theological truth behind it is true.

Obviously these are not the same. 1 could be true without 2 being true.

But the question to ask is this.

What would it look like if 1 & 2 are true ?
That's a fair question--however, you're a little late in the game. Jason, that's why I've started the threads I have: I'm trying to examine the assertions of 1. And I'm doing my best to not do so skeptically: I want to start at the beginning and trace it all the way through.

However, let me also pose a question: what happens if 1 is false? Jason, I can certainly see a possibility for 2 to still be true, even if 1 is false (in whole or in part).Can you? (That's not a rhetorical or sarcastic question.)

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 14th 2005, 12:07 AM

Jason, I think the communications rift between you and I can be analogized thus: let's say you're a member of the First Baptist Church twenty or so years after this schism. The guys First Reformed Baptist guys down the streetaren't there anymore--your church got a zoning injunction on them, they lost the building, and eventually the membership parted company. You're reading the history of this and saying it was a relatively minor event ... but at the time it occurred, it was a huge split.

Actually, a better analogy would be Lutherans that hang out with Catholics and as a result start going to confession again. It's a matter of people going back to what they had agreed was no longer necessary.

jason

February 14th 2005, 03:05 AM

Well, Jason, there's a problem--how do we quantify "division," and how do we measure it?
Doctrinal division is the only measure that makes sense.

Why don't we split off the topic of "Division in the Primitive Church" to a separate thread. However, I'm more than a little leery of making it a "debate" thread ... I don't want to argue the position as if I already knew the facts. What I'm wanting is a place where you, and I, and anyone else who is interested can bring evidence: we can get the evidence all together and sort through it. I guess I'm basically looking for a "Basketball Court" thread, but one's that's open so anyone who'se interested can participate.
If you like. Start it where ever you think is appropriate and set out the rules you want in the thread. Then just report any offenders that violate the ground rules you set and the mods will remove the offending posts.

Web-accessable? Probably the best place is CCEL's Early Church Fathers (http://ccel.org/fathers2/)library.
I know about that. I meant which bit of literature. A specific starting point that you felt was illustative of your point.

OK, I can see that view--that's the problem in a theological context. But the time you're talking about (Arius: circa 325; Nestor: circa 431; Monophysites: circa 450), the Church was no longer solely a theological institution: it was also a political institution. And that's a lot later than I was looking at.
Thats ok. I was just noting that I think heresy is a misunderstood concept and that the reasons for denouncing something are often not because the idea itself is directly a problem but that the logical implications of the idea will cause grief.

But IMO, a rift between James and Paul in terms of doctrine is only "dubious" because you're looking at it from a post-apologetics point of view.
I just don't see how you can read Paul and take such a position seriously. There is no way to reconcile everything Paul writes with some sort of "works lite" Gospel vs James' "Work's Heavy" Gospel. Paul just does not read like that.

However, if you decide the separate thread on early church schism is a good idea, we'll explore that subject later.
If you like, but I am just not convinced any such schism existed. Paul does not preach any sort of easy believism that did not have extremely tough ethical requirements.

I'm not denying that--the early Church was self-regulating. But you know as well as I do that (by way of example) if there's a doctrinal schism at the First Baptist Church, the dissenting members do not stop claiming to be Christian, even if they have actually gone into full-fledged apostacy: they rent a building down the street and become the First Reformed Baptist Church, or something of the sort.
True enough, but groups that go into full apostasy don't usually last either. Have you ever noticed that liberal christian denominations go down the toilet ?

Jason, I think the communications rift between you and I can be analogized thus: let's say you're a member of the First Baptist Church twenty or so years after this schism. The guys First Reformed Baptist guys down the streetaren't there anymore--your church got a zoning injunction on them, they lost the building, and eventually the membership parted company. You're reading the history of this and saying it was a relatively minor event ... but at the time it occurred, it was a huge split.
Maybe, but the time you are looking at, the church did not have these sorts of options.

But this brings me back to the point at the end. If Christianity is true, then you would expect the group with the truth to prevail.

However, let me also pose a question: what happens if 1 is false? Jason, I can certainly see a possibility for 2 to still be true, even if 1 is false (in whole or in part).Can you? (That's not a rhetorical or sarcastic question.)
It depends what you mean by 1 is false. Although I would subscribe to the concept of inerrancy I am not invested in it to the point that 1 proven error would wreck my faith.

If you mean something along the lines of, Jesus did not actually rise then I agree with Paul. If Christ is not raised then you are still dead in your sins.

Jason

technomage

February 21st 2005, 11:26 PM

Doctrinal division is the only measure that makes sense.
Doctrinal division is a qualified distinction--what doctrine was differed on. What would have to be measured would be how many broke off to the new church ... and we simply do not have those records, if they ever existed.

But one possible way is to tell how long a particular sect was preached against by the mainstream church. For instance, the Donatists (a 4th century schism) did not actually start out as a "heresy"--they originally broke with the Church over the issue of re-admitting those priests and bishops who lapsed during the Diocletian persecution. We have no idea how many Christians went over to the Donatists: but we do know that it was a large enough number to survive into the Islamic takeover of North Africa. Indeed, the hostility between the Catholic and the Donatist churches was one important factor in how easy it was for Islam to gain converts in the area. (See the Wikipedia article on Donatists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatist)--you may have to wait, because Wikipedia is not working for me today, or check the Google Cache (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wIULkIothjsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism+donatist+site:wikipedia.org&hl=en&client=firefox-a).)

I know about that. I meant which bit of literature. A specific starting point that you felt was illustative of your point.
Well, Jason, that's a bit sticky--the problem of heresy was endemic. Part of the reason that heresy was endemic is because the Church, very early on, defined all schisms as heresy. As far back as Ignatius' Letter to the Philadelphians (http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.html), schismatics and heretics were equally condemned as unsaved:

Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3-4:1[/font]]If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine, he has no part in the Passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.

If you want a brief survey without plowing through a mountain of reading, there's a Catholic Apologetics website that has some relevant quotes: The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church (http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_salvation_outside_the_church.htm).

Thats ok. I was just noting that I think heresy is a misunderstood concept and that the reasons for denouncing something are often not because the idea itself is directly a problem but that the logical implications of the idea will cause grief.
We can see that the ECF condemned heresy equally with schism: however, by Jerome's definition, heresy is "perverse doctrine," while schism "separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop." However, as far back as Ignatius, any schism was a heresy by definition.

I just don't see how you can read Paul and take such a position seriously. There is no way to reconcile everything Paul writes with some sort of "works lite" Gospel vs James' "Work's Heavy" Gospel. Paul just does not read like that.
First and foremost, Jason, I never said that Paul was "works lite." Paul's soteriology was what would eventually be called sola fidei, in that Paul clearly states that works cannot save, and that it was faith and grace. (Romans, the whole book, but especially ch 4, 9:32 and 11:6.) Now, this was not "easy believism": Paul worked his tail off after his salvation, and expected other Christians to do so as well--you remember his break with mark in Acts 13:13 was because Mark lost his nerve and left Paul.

Pseudo-James, on the other hand, had a different take: in the epistle of James, faith without works was dead, and was not viewed to be effective for salvation. Now, I do not believe that EpJames as we have it now was written by James the Just, brother of Jesus: therefore, the doctrinal differences listed above do not indicate a disturbance between Paul and James (I have different material to support that). It has been suggested that James the Just wrote the original which was later edited to "fall in line" with Pauline doctrine, but in my view not only was the text of EpJames too stable for such purported redaction, but James the brother of Jesus was too respected an individual for such editing to be tolerated.

Nor am I trying to say that there was a full-blown schism between James and Paul--or at least, there was not one that lasted. I am firmly convinced that James at first strenuously questioned Paul's message of salvation for the Gentiles without the Law, and I feel that it is possible that the Jerusalem Council ended not with the amity suggested in Acts, but with continued contention and unanswered questions.

Regardless of the settlement (or lack thereof) between James and Paul, we can see that there were already schisms as early as the 50s, during Paul's life. Witness the arguments against heretical teachers in Acts 15:24; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:7 and 2:4; and 2 Pet 2.

True enough, but groups that go into full apostasy don't usually last either. Have you ever noticed that liberal christian denominations go down the toilet ?
Jason, that's only true of some heresies, not all. And of those heresies that lasted or fell, you must also account for the violent retribution that the Church--as a political organization--could visit on heretical groups. Witness the Albigensian Crusade, the frequent fights and even violence against the Donatists,

Maybe, but the time you are looking at, the church did not have these sorts of options.
They did have the options of polemic, apology, and condemnation. And if you're at all familiar with the ECF, you're quite familiar with the language of condemnation: heck, one only needs to read Revelation to see the treatment of the Nicolaitans.

But this brings me back to the point at the end. If Christianity is true, then you would expect the group with the truth to prevail.
This argument is inconclusive: if Christianity were false, then it would not matter which particular faction "won." Remember, Jason, I'm working with a "blank slate" assumption here. Christianity makes a set number of assertions: I'm doing my best to work through them one by one.

But even at that, I could illustrate decidedly grave differences between your practices and doctrine and, say, those of Clement, or Ignatius. So who is to say which version prevailed? If I were to make such an argument, the conclusion could only be phrased as a question: so what, then, of Christianity? For either the ECF were heretics, or you are: there is far too much difference between their teachings and yours.

But I am not making such an argument: that's for you to research and decide.

It depends what you mean by 1 is false. Although I would subscribe to the concept of inerrancy I am not invested in it to the point that 1 proven error would wreck my faith.

If you mean something along the lines of, Jesus did not actually rise then I agree with Paul. If Christ is not raised then you are still dead in your sins.
Well, Jason, that's the crux of the problem. We can easily establish that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant, then who is to say that the Resurrection account is accurate? Better yet: it was Paul's opinion that if there was not a physical resurrection then Christians remained in their sins--what if Paul's opinion was wrong?

:shrug: Jason, the more I dig, the less tenable your arguments. But I am trying to not only be reasonable, I am trying--sincerely and honestly trying--to give Christianity a chance. More specifically, I'm doing everything I can to break through my own unbelief ... but the more I dig, the less tenable the doctrines and assertions.

I have the history of the NT books. I have the history of the Early Church, and the Hellenistic culture that the EC developed in. The more I look at it, the more it looks like the early history of any religion: a conflation of myth around a historical person; a development of doctrine and ritual; solidification and political access; power struggles and political power; the whole nine yards.

On the other hand, I have Christians who are more than willing to tell me of their experiences, and the power of God in their lives ... but I also have had similar or identical experiences, and I have seen the power of the Gods in my life. I have learned Christian doctrine ... and I have learned Wiccan doctrine. I have read your holy books, and I have read my own.

The only difference I see between Christianity and Wicca is the different cultures that they started in, and the different histories that they have experienced. Now, tell me--as a reasonable person--why I should choose your religion over and above my own?

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 21st 2005, 11:39 PM

On the other hand, I have Christians who are more than willing to tell me of their experiences, and the power of God in their lives ... but I also have had similar or identical experiences, and I have seen the power of the Gods in my life. I have learned Christian doctrine ... and I have learned Wiccan doctrine. I have read your holy books, and I have read my own.

The only difference I see between Christianity and Wicca is the different cultures that they started in, and the different histories that they have experienced. Now, tell me--as a reasonable person--why I should choose your religion over and above my own?

Justin
Justin,

Do you examine Wicca with the same critical eye you do Christianity? Do you generally reject any works on Wicca by Wiccans? Why or why not?

technomage

February 22nd 2005, 12:02 AM

Do you examine Wicca with the same critical eye you do Christianity?
Absolutely.

Do you generally reject any works on Wicca by Wiccans? Why or why not?
Oh, goodness, OBP! The list of Wiccan books by Wiccans that I reject is quite a bit longer than the ones I accept! :lol: Indeed, I think the only book I completely and wholeheartedly accept as accurate is my own BoS--and only because I specifically acknowledge that I may be wrong, and because I explicitly make a distinction between history and myth. Same for websites, teachers I've had, people I've spoken to, pamphlets, magazine articles ... the whole nine yards.

OBP, I examine everything critically. I am firmly persuaded that faith cannot contradict fact: what I believe cannot contradict what I know. To my mind, belief and science (and I include history as a sort-of science) are two complementary methods of inquiry. They can only overlap in those areas in which they agree. If I come across a scientific fact that refutes an element of my faith, then either the scientific fact is incorrect (and further science will establish it), or my belief is in error, and must be corrected.

It must be admitted that while neither science or belief is "superior" to the other, science is the easier to investigate objectively, so I frequently give precedence to science as far as establishing objective facts. And when I publish my belifs, I try to be sure that I explicitly proclaim that these are my beliefs, and I could be wrong.

Justin

PS: This thread probably needs to be split: posts 57, 58, and this post probably need to be put in Wicca | Neopagan Religions. Heck, I've hijacked my own thread. :hehe:

jason

February 23rd 2005, 03:03 AM

Well, Jason, that's a bit sticky--the problem of heresy was endemic. Part of the reason that heresy was endemic is because the Church, very early on, defined all schisms as heresy. As far back as Ignatius' Letter to the Philadelphians (http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.html), schismatics and heretics were equally condemned as unsaved:
Wait a second. Schisms and heresies are defined as different things not the same thing. I read the whole of Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelpians today (Here after I2P). He quite clearly makes a distinction between the two. Both are condemmed but they are not regarded as equivalent.

It is also worth noting that we don't know how Iggy would have reacted to the East/West split in 1054. We don't know which side he would have took. We also have no idea which side he would have took with Luther and the Reformers in the 16th Century.

Irenaeus make reference (in the page you linked to) said "They bring about no reformation of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from the schism", but he did not have to contend with an indulgence selling pope in Rome who was utterly corrupt.

They may well have sided with the reformers over the issues they where tossed from the Roman church over. Don't forget the reformers didn't leave the church, they were thrown out.

If you want a brief survey without plowing through a mountain of reading, there's a Catholic Apologetics website that has some relevant quotes: The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church (http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_salvation_outside_the_church.htm).
I'd be wary of using a pro-catholic site like that as a definitive reference, especially in light of Ignatius's strong commitment to doctrinal purity. Iggy was not faced with a church that had left its first love, when he wrote against splitting from them.

However, as far back as Ignatius, any schism was a heresy by definition.
No I disagree. They make a distinction between the two, although they condem both. But again, we don't know how they would have reacted to the widespread evil and corruption of the 16th Century Papal church.

Jason, that's only true of some heresies, not all. And of those heresies that lasted or fell, you must also account for the violent retribution that the Church--as a political organization--could visit on heretical groups. Witness the Albigensian Crusade, the frequent fights and even violence against the Donatists,
Just a point of order. No such options existed for the 2nd and 3rd century church.

This argument is inconclusive: if Christianity were false, then it would not matter which particular faction "won."
Of course it wouldn't the entire belief system would be a complete waste of time if Christ is not raised. But think it through the other way. If Christ was raised then God would protect his word. And you would expect schism and corruption of the word given the exitence and activity of the devil.

For either the ECF were heretics, or you are: there is far too much difference between their teachings and yours.
No I don't think that follows at all. We are all orthodox with just different icing on the cake. I would caution you with the ECF's to give heed to what they are talking about in their writings directly, but put less stock in things that where peripheral issues for them.

Well, Jason, that's the crux of the problem. We can easily establish that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant.
Actually I disagree as I have not seen a hard contradiction ever demonstrated.

If the Bible is not inerrant, then who is to say that the Resurrection account is accurate?
Even if you assume it is just a report, there is no reason at all to think the account is not as it says, unless you have an anti-supernatural bias as you start to look at it.

More specifically, I'm doing everything I can to break through my own unbelief
That might be your first problem :wink:

Now, tell me--as a reasonable person--why I should choose your religion over and above my own?
Because yours is false. Why else would you choose it ?

If you don't think it is true, then don't choose it. I would not expect you to do otherwise. (Incidentally this is not intended as a threat just a statement of fact). Make a decision and be as sure as you can that you are making the right one because if you choose wrongly it will have eternal consquences. You make your bed and you lie in it.

Incidentally what do you recommend I read next from the ECF's that is suggestive of your take on early heresy and schism ?

Jason

technomage

February 26th 2005, 02:03 PM

Hi, Jason,

Sorry for the delay ... I've got a Theistic Satanist on another forum that I'm in the process of disassembling as well as the discussions here, and I wanted to wait until I had a clear moment to give your points the attention they deserve.

Wait a second. Schisms and heresies are defined as different things not the same thing. I read the whole of Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelpians today (Here after I2P). He quite clearly makes a distinction between the two. Both are condemmed but they are not regarded as equivalent.

Jason, that's not so much a distinction as lumping them together. According to Ignatius, schismatics and heretics are unsaved. He gives no option--if you leave the Church as an organization, whether your reason is doctrinal or political, you leave the Body of Christ.

But this is a view that developed over time, and the only documentation that we have for first-century views on this issue comes from the Bible. Simply stated, yes, I feel that Paul and James may have had differences in their views--the evidence is not conclusive, but it is certainly suggestive. I feel that Acts, as a later book from the Pauline branch, presented a pro-Pauline account of the events, and may have downplayed the division between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity, whereas the epistles make no bones about Paul's feelings for the "Party of the Circumcision."

We know that James (according to Josephus, Antiquities 20:9:1) was one who was held with some measure of respect by those Jews who were "regarded as the most reasonable and precise with respect to the laws"--in other words, he was still seen as within the bounds of Judaism. We know from Eusebius (EcclHist 2:23:4-7) that James prayed regularly in the Temple--and though the account may be somewhat mythologized, this would not have been tolerated behavior by someone who was not seen to be within the Law.

Frankly, what it looks like is that Paul played the radical to James' conservative views. We know that there was contention between Paul and the "Party of the Circumcision." What troubles me is that this contention is clearly seen in the Epistles ... but absent from Acts, where Paul's only problem with the Jews has long been interpreted as being problems with those Jews who were not Christian.

In short, Jason ... the Acts account was spun.

It is also worth noting that we don't know how Iggy would have reacted to the East/West split in 1054. We don't know which side he would have took. We also have no idea which side he would have took with Luther and the Reformers in the 16th Century.

Jason ... I don't have a dog in that fight. That's a later historical process that has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Of course it wouldn't the entire belief system would be a complete waste of time if Christ is not raised. But think it through the other way. If Christ was raised then God would protect his word. And you would expect schism and corruption of the word given the exitence and activity of the devil.

One has to already believe for such a process of events to be reasonable.

No I don't think that follows at all. We are all orthodox with just different icing on the cake. I would caution you with the ECF's to give heed to what they are talking about in their writings directly, but put less stock in things that where peripheral issues for them.

Well, Jason, that's the crux of the problem. We can easily establish that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant.
Actually I disagree as I have not seen a hard contradiction ever demonstrated.

Are "hard contradictions" the only form of error? What about history? Though I will say this--if you take a view towards history like AIG takes toward science, then you and I are wasting oxygen in even having this discussion.

And ... well, Jason, there is also the fact that you do not examined putative claims of contradictions critically, but apologetically. You have already made up your mind that these claimed contradictions are not contradictions. You do not examine them to see if the arguments could be accurate--you examine the arguments to see where they can be refuted.

That's tremendous apologetics, Jason, but it's lousy history.

Even if you assume it is just a report, there is no reason at all to think the account is not as it says, unless you have an anti-supernatural bias as you start to look at it.

Jason, all students of history have an "anti-supernatural bias." You certainly do of every book out there except yours.

You've heard the canard about "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"--well, frankly, it's a crock, but there is an element of truth there. Here is a book making an extraordinary claim--that God incarnated in human form, said and did various things, died and rose again. That's an extraordinary claim, and it's not one that history can verify.

But there are also several other claims made by the Bible ... for instance, the claims in the passages we looked at in Gal 2 and Acts 11 and 15. You or JPHolding may look at these contradictory claim and say "Well, they don't match, so obviously they're different events," because for you, the sanctity of Scripture (and the doctrine of infallability) take precedence over any evidence.

OK, that's where you're at, and I don't condemn such beliefs ... on a religious basis. But if you're going to discuss the history with me, then you're going to have to drop the apologetics and look at what the Bible actually says, rather than what you've been taught it says.

Justin

One Bad Pig

February 26th 2005, 02:19 PM

We know that James (according to Josephus, Antiquities 20:9:1) was one who was held with some measure of respect by those Jews who were "regarded as the most reasonable and precise with respect to the laws"--in other words, he was still seen as within the bounds of Judaism. We know from Eusebius (EcclHist 2:23:4-7) that James prayed regularly in the Temple--and though the account may be somewhat mythologized, this would not have been tolerated behavior by someone who was not seen to be within the Law.

Wasn't he also killed by order of the Sanhedrin? They wouldn't kill someone seen as within the bounds of Judaism. OTOH, Paul was allowed to pray in the Temple as well. He was siezed by a mob not because of his views, but because he had allegedly brought a Gentile into the Temple.

technomage

February 26th 2005, 02:42 PM

Wasn't he also killed by order of the Sanhedrin?

Not exactly.

James the Just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just):
A debated passage, often characterized as a Christian interpolation, in Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus)'s Jewish Antiquities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Antiquities) records his death in Jerusalem as having occurred after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porcius_Festus&action=edit), yet before Clodius Albinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clodius_Albinus) took office (Antiquities 20,9)— which has thus been dated to AD 62. The high priest Ananus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ananus&action=edit) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a council of judges who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning). Josephus reports that Ananus' act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder, and offended a number of "those who were conisdered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law," who went as far as meeting Albinus as he entered the province to petition him about the matter. Their agitations led to Ananus being deposed as high priest.

Hegesippius has a different view, but then Hegesippius (via Eusebius) was relatively ignorant of Jewish Temple procedure, in that he had James going into the Holy Place.

OTOH, Paul was allowed to pray in the Temple as well. He was siezed by a mob not because of his views, but because he had allegedly brought a Gentile into the Temple.

That was a secondary reason: the first reason mentioned was because Paul was teaching "against our people and our law."

The passage reads as follows:
27When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28shouting, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” 29(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)

Justin

jason

February 26th 2005, 05:04 PM

Jason, that's not so much a distinction as lumping them together. According to Ignatius, schismatics and heretics are unsaved. He gives no option--if you leave the Church as an organization, whether your reason is doctrinal or political, you leave the Body of Christ.
No I know. But you want to claim that he would have a problem with something like the reformation. I'm not convinced that he would have given the high priority Iggy gives to doctrinal purity and the fact that the schismists seem to be heretics anyway.

I feel that Acts, as a later book from the Pauline branch, presented a pro-Pauline account of the events, and may have downplayed the division between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity, whereas the epistles make no bones about Paul's feelings for the "Party of the Circumcision."
The problem is that Act's looks to have been written by an eyewitness with good knowledge of the sea. And it fails to mention the heroic martyrdom of its central figure. To make it late looks like special pleading.

We know that James (according to Josephus, Antiquities 20:9:1) was one who was held with some measure of respect by those Jews who were "regarded as the most reasonable and precise with respect to the laws"--in other words, he was still seen as within the bounds of Judaism.
He was still within the bounds of Israelite religion.

We know from Eusebius (EcclHist 2:23:4-7) that James prayed regularly in the Temple--and though the account may be somewhat mythologized, this would not have been tolerated behavior by someone who was not seen to be within the Law.
I'm not so sure actually. Given the willingness of the Jewish ruling bodies to avoid riots and the like, perhaps they where simply leaving well enough alone. They did eventally move against him.

Jason ... I don't have a dog in that fight. That's a later historical process that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
It does have great bearing if you are going to claim that Schism was always regarded as bad and use that as a club to say that Iggy or I are wrong as we clearly believe differently on a point. There is just no way to know how Iggy would have reacted to the splits in question, so you are in murky territory to spin it as you did.

One has to already believe for such a process of events to be reasonable.
No that is not true. Are you really arguing that it would be unreasonable to claim that if God's word is proclaimed in the Bible that it would be unreasonable to claim that he would protect and insure its transmission ?

I don't see how you can object to that reasoning based on that premise.

You might reject the premise, but that is not the same thing as saying that the reasoning from the that premise is not valid.

I ask you to consider it because your objection is that the division and the like is evidence that it is not true. Yet if it was true such division and the like is precisly what we should expect to see if there is an adversay (and if it is true then there is) bent on perverting and stopping the spread of the Gospel by what ever means are necessary.

I'm not saying you have to accept the idea, just that your argument is not as effective as you think it is because the challenge you offer is not a challenge if it is true.

Are "hard contradictions" the only form of error? What about history?
Anywhere you can demonstrate the text is unquestionably in error.

To say the Bible contains an error, in light of the history of such claims, is fine. But the text has earned the right to the benifit of the doubt.

At one time the entire book of Acts was considered mythical, yet Sir William Ramsey, while setting out to confirm that it is mythical, became convinced of the reverse. Once the Bible was faulted for the non-existence of the Hittites, until an obelisk turned up with their name on it and so on and so on.

So if you are going to claim that the history is in error, as it has been claimed so many times in the past, then your evidence for this has to be stronger than "Well this seems a bit fuzzy so clearly it is wrong".

there is also the fact that you do not examined putative claims of contradictions critically, but apologetically.
There is also the fact that you have not examined the putative claims of errors critically but anti-apologetically. :ahem:

Come on, what sort of crap is that ?

You have already made up your mind that these claimed contradictions are not contradictions. You do not examine them to see if the arguments could be accurate--you examine the arguments to see where they can be refuted.
That is a pure ad hom Justin and entirely uncalled for.

Jason, all students of history have an "anti-supernatural bias." You certainly do of every book out there except yours.
Actually that is false. I have no problem with other miracle claims depending on reliability and evidence. They are hardly a problem.

Here is a book making an extraordinary claim--that God incarnated in human form, said and did various things, died and rose again. That's an extraordinary claim, and it's not one that history can verify.
That isn't true. Unless you are saying at the outset that it is not possible for history to ever provide evidence for such a claim.

But there are also several other claims made by the Bible ... for instance, the claims in the passages we looked at in Gal 2 and Acts 11 and 15. You or JPHolding may look at these contradictory claim and say "Well, they don't match, so obviously they're different events," because for you, the sanctity of Scripture (and the doctrine of infallability) take precedence over any evidence.
But there are also several other claims made by the Bible ... for instance, the claims in the passages we looked at in Gal 2 and Acts 11 and 15. You of LGM may look at these non-contradictory claim and say "Well, they don't match, so obviously they must be in error" because for you, the desire to avoid having to take Christ seriously takes precedence over any evidence.

OK, that's where you're at, and I don't condemn such beliefs ... on a religious basis. But if you're going to discuss the history with me, then you're going to have to drop the apologetics and look at what the Bible actually says, rather than what you've been taught it says.
I am looking at what it says and I do not appreciate the insinuation that I would be doing otherwise.

Just becasue I do not buy your idea that ever problem must be a contradiction and that all difficulites are "irrefutbubble evidense" for the wrongness of the text does not mean that I cannot read the text critically.

I do not appreciate such pure ad hom's and I have come to expect better from you.

Jason

One Bad Pig

February 26th 2005, 05:42 PM

I do not appreciate such pure ad hom's and I have come to expect better from you.

Jason
Jason,

To be fair, I don't think that Justin is deliberately engaging in ad homs, but honestly giving his opinion on how he sees things.

:obp:

technomage

February 26th 2005, 05:51 PM

No I know. But you want to claim that he would have a problem with something like the reformation. I'm not convinced that he would have given the high priority Iggy gives to doctrinal purity and the fact that the schismists seem to be heretics anyway.

Yeah, I see your point there, but that's also 1300+/- years in the future to Ignatius. And as you note, it would be really difficult to say one way or another which way he would have jumped, had he lived at that time: Reformation, Counter-Reformation, or the "Reform From Within" movement. (There's part of me that wonders if he wouldn't have become a Jesuit.:eh:)

But at the time of the Scriptures, we have Pauline Christianity, Judaic Christianity, and later on the proto-Gnostics and the Nicolaitans. As you know, the Bible is quite scathing to the proto-Gnostics and the Nicolaitans ... the real problem we have is deciding whether or not Judaic Christianity is the same as the Party of the Circumcision that Paul refers to so scathingly. And if it was, was James part of that?

Like I said, the evidence is not conclusive ... but it is suggestive. I'm not definitively stating that this was the case, and that James and Paul would have gotten into a knock-down-drag-out because of it. But I am saying that this is a possibility--and if true, answers several questions about Paul's rather diffident references to James in Galatians, for instance. (It also makes a closer correspondence with Josephus and the ECF account of James.)

The problem is that Act's looks to have been written by an eyewitness with good knowledge of the sea.

Knowledge of the sea ... no problem. Eyewitness ... possibly, but not definitely. I know the arguments about the "we passages," and those arguments are too strong to definitively pitch Luke as an author, but they're not strong enough to firmly put him in that role. However, even with Luke as the author, a late date of 80+ is not impossible.

And it fails to mention the heroic martyrdom of its central figure. To make it late looks like special pleading.

Jason, you've already asked me about why Paul's martyrdom isn't mentioned in Acts, and I've already pointed you back to Post 5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=899885&postcount=5). C'mon, dude, keep up! (Seriously, no, I'm not actually fussing about this ... it has been a long and complicated discussion, and it's not like you've nothing else to do!)

[/quote]He was still within the bounds of Israelite religion. [/quote]

That's ... iffy, and depends entirely on who's doing the defining.

I'm not so sure actually. Given the willingness of the Jewish ruling bodies to avoid riots and the like, perhaps they where simply leaving well enough alone. They did eventally move against him.

What? C'mon, Jason, all governments want to avoid riots, yet there have already been three listed in Jerusalem in your scriptures (Jesus, Stephen, and Paul), and more in Josephus (the martyrdom of James and the uprising against the census of 6 CE being just the first two off the top of my head). Yeah, any government wants to avoid a riot, but your own scriptures clearly state that they were willing to do so for religious disputes.

It does have great bearing if you are going to claim that Schism was always regarded as bad and use that as a club to say that Iggy or I are wrong as we clearly believe differently on a point. There is just no way to know how Iggy would have reacted to the splits in question, so you are in murky territory to spin it as you did.

Sorry--I wasn't trying to say "You would not be in communion with Ignatius," but to point out just how serious he was about the idea that "One Body of Christ = One Church, hold the schism." I didn't make the point clear.

The fundamental thing I am trying to point out is that the early church was in their worst times a mass of schism. In that, the humanity of the early Christians glares through ... just as it does today for Wiccans.

Of course it wouldn't the entire belief system would be a complete waste of time if Christ is not raised. But think it through the other way. If Christ was raised then God would protect his word. And you would expect schism and corruption of the word given the exitence and activity of the devil.
One has to already believe for such a process of events to be reasonable.
No that is not true. Are you really arguing that it would be unreasonable to claim that if God's word is proclaimed in the Bible that it would be unreasonable to claim that he would protect and insure its transmission ?

Jason, read the sentence again, and let's go through the truth-claims.

* If Christ was raised, then God would protect his word.
* If the Bible contains God's word, then He would protect it.
* If the Bible is the Word of God, then the devil will try to corrupt it.

The necessity of belief is on the if clauses--one has to believe that Christ was raised, and that the Bible does, indeed, contain God's word.

I don't see how you can object to that reasoning based on that premise.

You might reject the premise, but that is not the same thing as saying that the reasoning from the that premise is not valid.

Jason, at no point did I reject the chain of logic--it's quite valid. The reason I reject the conclusion is because the premise is based on a belief that I do not posess.

As for the rest of your post ... Jason, it was not my intention to insult you, and until yet I cannot see how my words can be taken as a personal attack against you: attacking you was the very last thing I wanted to do. Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure if this discussion is benefitting anyone, for we seem to be talking around each other. I do want to thank you for your efforts, but with the breakdown in communications I'm just not sure that anything else said would be productive.

I do want to thank you and OBP (and the others) who contributed to the thread. I would have liked to explore it further, but at this point we're getting nowhere, and I think it's time to pull the plug.

Justin

jason

February 28th 2005, 04:21 AM

Like I said, the evidence is not conclusive ... but it is suggestive.
I think only if you are to read it with a desire to find such a schism. I just don't think it is there, I think it really is the invention of those who want to invent a whole lot of different schools for their own purposes.

What? C'mon, Jason, all governments want to avoid riots, yet there have already been three listed in Jerusalem in your scriptures (Jesus, Stephen, and Paul), and more in Josephus (the martyrdom of James and the uprising against the census of 6 CE being just the first two off the top of my head). Yeah, any government wants to avoid a riot, but your own scriptures clearly state that they were willing to do so for religious disputes.
When the stakes got sufficently high.

After all they did eventually deal with James. The point is that they would put up with quite a bit before going all the way in dealing with it.

Jason, at no point did I reject the chain of logic--it's quite valid. The reason I reject the conclusion is because the premise is based on a belief that I do not posess.
Fine. But I think you are missing my point. You are saying, "Look the Church was a mass of schism and infighting". I'm saying that it is essentially irrelevant as an argument. If Christ rose that settles it, if he did not, then that settles it as well. But looking at the state of the church a century down the track does not answer the only real question in the whole issue.

As for the rest of your post ... Jason, it was not my intention to insult you, and until yet I cannot see how my words can be taken as a personal
You commented several times words to the effect of

"You just say that 'cos your an apologist".

That is simply not appreciated. Imagine how pointless this conversation would be if I responded to any point you made with the comment.

Well thats just 'cos you are one of those evil pagans.

Your comments are taken in much the same way and regardless of what you intended to say, i'm not sure how you expected them to be taken otherwise, because it is exactly what you did.

I'm still interested in studying the writings of the ECF's and was waiting for more reading suggestions from you.

Jason