Was there a historical Jesus? (was: Ossuary of "James...")
Jeff Warrender
Thanks for your reply. I'll try to get a response out to you sometime
this week, if possible.
Let's move the discussion over to talk.atheism, where it is perhaps a
bit more appropriate. If you'd also like to cross post to a bible
group as well, that's fine, but I don't know much about any of those
groups, and so am hesistant to open this up to who knows what kind of
participants. But if you've had good success dialoguing about issues
like these in the past with any of those groups, by all means, we can
post it to them as well.
Again, thanks for a thoughtful reply. I look forward to further
discussion.
Best regards,
Jeff
Bob
assert it? Why discount it?
To be an atheist does not require one to disbelieve Jesus ever existed as an
historical figure, rather it is a lack of belief that the said historical
figure was in deed the son of god.
The need to fight against the possibility he actually existed might very
well betray other needs. What if irrefutable proof were to come about that
Jesus truly existed? Why should that make any difference at all to the
question about belief in a god?
"Jeff Warrender" <jwar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cb609cb8.02102...@posting.google.com...
Richard Uhrich
> Why would an atheist care if Jesus ever existed. So what if he did. Why
> assert it? Why discount it?
>
> To be an atheist does not require one to disbelieve Jesus ever existed as an
> historical figure, rather it is a lack of belief that the said historical
> figure was in deed the son of god.
Or even indeed!
>
> The need to fight against the possibility he actually existed might very
> well betray other needs. What if irrefutable proof were to come about that
> Jesus truly existed? Why should that make any difference at all to the
> question about belief in a god?
>
Yup, you are right. Hey, how about replying at the bottom so things
don't get so confused.
>
>
> "Jeff Warrender" <jwar...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:cb609cb8.02102...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Adam,
>>
>>Thanks for your reply. I'll try to get a response out to you sometime
>>this week, if possible.
>>
>>Let's move the discussion over to talk.atheism, where it is perhaps a
>>bit more appropriate. If you'd also like to cross post to a bible
>>group as well, that's fine, but I don't know much about any of those
>>groups, and so am hesistant to open this up to who knows what kind of
>>participants. But if you've had good success dialoguing about issues
>>like these in the past with any of those groups, by all means, we can
>>post it to them as well.
>>
>>Again, thanks for a thoughtful reply. I look forward to further
>>discussion.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Adam Marczyk
news:3db98...@bingnews.binghamton.edu...
> Why would an atheist care if Jesus ever existed. So what if he did. Why
> assert it? Why discount it?
Because I feel the evidence points that way, same as any other position I hold.
(Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice where you were posting from - nice
coincidence, a fellow Binghamton student on Usenet. ;) What year are you?)
> To be an atheist does not require one to disbelieve Jesus ever existed as an
> historical figure,
No, it doesn't.
> rather it is a lack of belief that the said historical
> figure was in deed the son of god.
>
> The need to fight against the possibility he actually existed might very
> well betray other needs. What if irrefutable proof were to come about that
> Jesus truly existed? Why should that make any difference at all to the
> question about belief in a god?
Even if irrefutable proof of Jesus' existence were to come about, that wouldn't
establish that he was God. Still, I think this position is handy in that
respect - it cuts off all the other possibilities and further arguments at the
pass. It's not that I don't think an atheist could believe Jesus existed and be
consistent; I agree that's possible. But you can bet that once you concede that
first point, Christian evangelists like Lee Strobel will do their utmost to send
you down a slippery slope.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Jeff Warrender
> assert it? Why discount it?
>
> To be an atheist does not require one to disbelieve Jesus ever existed as an
> historical figure, rather it is a lack of belief that the said historical
> figure was in deed the son of god.
>
> The need to fight against the possibility he actually existed might very
> well betray other needs. What if irrefutable proof were to come about that
> Jesus truly existed? Why should that make any difference at all to the
> question about belief in a god?
>
The contents of Adam's original remarks that I responded to expressed
that his lack of belief in a historical Jesus is derived in part from
problems he sees in the new Testament Epistles. I replied to his
post, which originally appeared in t.o and t.a. His reply appeared
only in t.o, but I felt that given it's larger a scriptural argument,
it was closer to "on-topic" in t.a, and as I expressed, I'm hesitant
to move into one of the Bible groups, given that I'm not sure what the
environment is like on those. Sorry if we're filling up your disk
with stuff you don't care about. If you can suggest a good Bible
discussion group, we could move it over there if people really care...
-Jeff
Jeff Warrender
defensible, and >I'll
>do my best to justify my views of these verses. You may not agree
with me, >but
>of course, that's your prerogative.
Great, but let's make a deal. I could do all sorts of web searching
for apologetics sites that could help me address all of these points,
but I think it's more productive if we try to do this on our own. In
reciprocity, might I suggest that you continue the dialogue with no
further help from Earl Doherty? Let's see how far we can go with our
own understandings of these matters. The alternative becomes a
discussion where we cut and paste from Doherty/refutations to Doherty,
and that's not all that interesting.
> > Rather, it would
> > be my contention (and Earl Doherty's) that the Jesus of the epistles was a
> > spiritual figure, a descending-ascending redeemer whose sacrificial crucifixion
> > and resurrection took place in a heavenly sphere, and it's only because we've
> > learned to read the epistles with "Gospel-colored glasses" that we've missed
> > this.
>
>> Could this be, though, because the most straightforward
interpretation
>> of the epistles is that they are talking about the same theology as
>> the gospels? For example, the verses you cite, when taken out of
>> context, do raise some questions. But there are far more verses
that
>> you would need to account for based on your interpretation. For
>> example, what did Paul mean in 1 Cor 11:23 when he describes the
Last
>> Supper?
>I'm not sure what you mean by "what did he mean." If you mean, how is
this
>reconcilable with the view that Paul didn't believe in a human Jesus,
then I
>would say the answer is this: Paul's Last Supper scene, along with
his >theology
>in general, came through revelation. This is supported by verses such
as
>Galatians 1:11-12, in which he says his gospel is "from no man", but
derives
>from a relevation of (or from - it makes no difference here) Jesus
Christ - >or more directly relevant to this instance, 1 Corinthians
11:23, in which he >says his information on the Last Supper scene came
"from the Lord".
Ok, but he describes specific details about the physical last supper
scene; "In the same night that Jesus was betrayed" -- reference to
Judas' betrayal that you said was lacking elsewhere.
"the Lord Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks for it, he
brake it, saying 奏ake, eat. This is my body which is broken for you;
this do in rememberence of me.'"
Paul describes exactly the Last Supper as recounted in the Bible. The
fact that he claims his knowledge came through revelation is
irrelevant. He's describing a real event that happened to a Christ
who lived here on earth. Otherwise, what sense does any of this make?
Do spiritual redeemers who die in spiritual planes get betrayed? Do
they give or eat bread? Do they have apostles? Do they appear "in
likeness of sinful flesh"? (Romans 8:3) Paul's letters, interpreted
your way, are so bizarre as to not make any sense. But if you just
assume that he's talking about the same Jesus that the gospels
describe, things make much more sense.
>> What does he mean in 1 Cor 15 when he says
>
>> "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
received,
>>that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that
>> he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance
with
>> the scriptures, that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then
>> he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of
>> whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he
>> appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to
one
>> untimely born, he appeared also to me."
>
>> First, notice that Paul says "what I also received". One
>> interpretation I've read of this is that this is a creed that was
>> given to Paul early after his conversion. ie, Paul isn't "making
this
>> up", but this is actually a teaching that other Christians gave
him.
> That's one interpretation, yes.
>> But more to the point, far from talking about a spiritual redeemer
>> ascending and descending in a purely spiritual realm, Paul is
talking
>> about real events in a real world, and moreover, gives references
that
>> hundreds of people, many of whom are still alive, can attest to the
>> literal truth that he is recounting. So he's not making up a
>> spiritual story, he's making a truth claim that a reader could then
go
>> and verify for him or herself.
> Those verses talk about "real events in a real world," as you put it - I
> agree.
> But the question is, what exactly are they describing? Is this supposed to > be a post-resurrection appearance or series of appearances? But it matches > no gospel story.
What about the part where he says "Christ died according to the
scriptures"? You're saying that Paul is writing as a Platonist, but
here, he appeals to the Jewish Scriptures. Do they teach that the
Messiah will be a "spiritual redeemer" whose sacrifice will take place
in a heavenly sphere? Quite the opposite, in fact. (and you agree
with this below) So if Paul's Christ died according to the
Scriptures, then he's talking about a literal, physical death.
Furthermore, Paul says that he was buried, and rose again from the
dead. Naturally, Paul doesn't say "and this explicitly happened here
on Earth, not in some celestial sphere." To be honest, it seems like
your thesis rests heavily on the fact that Paul and the other Epistle
writers don't clearly distinguish the events of Christ's life as
having taking place on Earth rather than a heavenly sphere, therefore
they must have meant that it took place in the heavenly sphere. Paul
also isn't careful to point out that Christ didn't come to Mars, die
and rise from the dead there. Does that mean that we should consider
that a possibility as well?
>So as not to leave anyone in suspense, here's my interpretation of
this
> right now: what Paul is describing here is a visionary experience, a shared > "feeling" of Jesus' presence. Why do I argue this? Because this passage
> contains one very significant anomaly you've overlooked. Paul says that the > last of these "appearances" (the Greek word is "ophthe", which means "to
> become visible to, to appear to, to be seen by") was to *him*. But Paul
> never met the human Jesus, not even under the orthodox picture. His only
> experience of Jesus was during the Damascus Road conversion, and I'm sure
> you'll agree that that was a purely
> visionary event, nothing more. Yet he makes no distinction between his own
> experience of Jesus and anyone else's. He describes them all in the same
> terms.
> As a postscript, I really must take issue with your statement that
> "hundreds of people... can attest" to what he is recounting. It's not as if > he gives a list of five hundred names and family locations with sworn
> statements attached. He just mentions five hundred anonymous people (and
> another anonymous "Twelve" who may or may not be identifiable with the
> gospel disciples). In this entire passage he only even specifically
names > *two* people - himself and Cephas
> (Peter). This event is not something that someone reading it for himself, > > years later, would be in any position to verify.
Ok, a few issues here. First, it's not certain that he is writing to
people "years later" with the intent that they'd be able to verify his
tale. It seems that he's talking to people in the here and now.
You're right that he doesn't give names and addresses, but neither
does he seem to be pulling this out of the air. He says that some of
the 500 are living to this day, and he refers not to an anonymous
"Twelve", but "The Twelve". This must have meant something to the
readers (and it really isn't that unreasonable to assume which 12 he
was talking about. If this was any other ancient document than the
Bible, you'd give him the benefit of the doubt here.) Presumably,
someone who asks Paul for references could get them. He's saying that
these events happened to real people. You say that they may be
Spiritual experiences, but again, what sense does it make for a
"spiritual redeemer" to have "Twelve" physical, real apostles (where I
admit I'm explicitly assuming the association), but for himself to do
all of his business in a spiritual realm?
>> Who is Paul talking about when he says, in Galatians 1:18
>>
>> "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas,
and
>> remained with him fifteen days; but I saw none of the other
apostles
>> except James the Lord's brother."
>
>> Again, isn't Paul talking about real people here? And in what
other
>> sense than the traditional (namely, that James and Jesus were
>> half-brothers) can he be referring to James as "Jesus' brother"?
>Do you yourself see how smoothly and unconsciously you're letting
gospel
>preconceptions slip into what you write? Somehow "the Lord's brother"
has >become
>"Jesus' brother" in the space of a paragraph. Paul *never* refers to
anyone >as
>"Jesus' brother." That would be an undeniable earthly association -
but "the
>Lord's brother" need not be. The Greek word there is "adelphos",
which can >mean
>"brother" in either a literal or figurative sense - you can check for
>yourself
>to verify that the epistles very frequently use it to speak of
someone who >is
>plainly not a blood relation to the writer. In fact, "adelphos" was
standard
>mystery religion vocabulary, used to refer to fellow initiates.
>Granted, James is spoken of as "the brother", rather than "a
brother", but >this
>could simply be a title of importance in whatever church or religious
body >he belonged to.
Ok, first, let's at least clear up the fact that no one is called Lord
by Paul except Jesus, so it is obvious that when James is referred to
as "the Lord's brother", it is Jesus we are talking about.
So the issue is, then, is this talking about a "literal" or
"figurative" brother? You point out that there are other instances of
"adelphos" being used figuratively, but are there any other instances
where it is used to speak of the "Lord's brother"? A quick look at
the concordance reveals that there are not. And given that tradition,
and other passages, teaches that James was Jesus' natural brother, why
can't we be safe in concluding this to be Paul's meaning as well?
> In much the same vein, today we might call the Pope the
> "Holy Father", even though he isn't literally anyone's father.
[snip ossuary stuff]
> These are just a few examples, but they are not exhaustive, and I can
> find others if you'd like. The point is that the Epistles of Paul are
> not spiritual stories that exist in a different plane than the
> Gospels; both exist in the exact same, real, physical world, and both
> affirm that Christ came into that world in the flesh, died, was
> buried, and rose again.
>>As I have pointed out and surely will do so again, no epistle ever
places
>>Christ's death and resurrection in any earthly setting, in any
earthly time >>or place. You could search the corpus of epistles in
vain for a single
>> mention of
>>"Calvary", "Golgotha", "Jerusalem", or any other place names related
to the
>>gospels' passion story. Indeed, Paul and the other epistle writers,
>>throughout
>>the first century, show not a speck of interest in any of the places
today
>>venerated by Christians as holy sites. Earl Doherty says it better
than I >>could:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/siltop20.htm
(Scroll down to #20.)
Ok, first off, I'm not familiar with Earl Doherty or his work. I'm a
bit cautious of reading stuff on the internet as certain truth. Is
his work widely accepted by other bible scholars? Does it matter
either way? I don't know.
The point is, you seem to be very heavily influenced by this one view
of this one scholar. But do other reasonable views exist? Have you
considered them? It sort of seems to me that you read Doherty,
thought about it a bit, accepted it, and now take it as gospel.
The problem I have with the view that he articulates in the little bit
that I read is that it assumes his conclusion. I see him doing
something like this:
1. Paul was deriving his beliefs from a mystery religion school of
thought, which held that a spiritual redeemer would be sacrificied in
a mystical plane.
2. If Paul was not doing this, he would explicitly make reference to
the names of people and places that Christ actually encountered.
3. If Christ was real, epistle writers would have used Him, and
events from His life, in examples in their letters.
4. The instances where the epistle writers do talk about Christ as if
he were a real, physical person, they actually mean something else.
The problem I have with all of this is that 1 is the belief that he
starts with, and 2 and 3 are HUGE assumptions. Does the fact that
Paul doesn't explicitly say "Jesus died at Calvary" mean that Paul
thinks Jesus died in a spiritual plane? Not necessarily. And Doherty
uses 1 as an interpretive filter, to justify 4. When the writer of
Hebrews refers to Christ suffering "outside the gate", the fact that
Paul doesn't directly say "Jerusalem" is grounds for Doherty to
spiritualize the whole thing.
I don't know. I suppose that you are right that I've been "corrupted"
by the Gospels, but my personal view is that the Epistles ONLY make
sense if they are talking about a real person who came to and died in
the real world. I don't see them being anywhere near as spiritual.
That's not to say they aren't really deep, so much as to say that
become nonsensical very quickly if you start looking at them as being
purely spiritual.
[snip Earl Doherty stuff]
>> > But there are a few very startling epistle verses that most
people
>> > aren't
> >> aware of - verses that either lack knowledge of some very significant gospel
>> > event, or verses that deny the possibility of a historical
founder figure
>> > entirely.
> >
>> > A few examples:
[snip Romans 8:26 -- as I said, I don't have a great answer]
>> > -Romans 11:3 where Paul mournfully says the Jews have "killed the
>>>prophets," but fails to mention their ultimate atrocity of killing
the Son >>>of God himself.
>
>> Paul is quoting Elijah here, from 1 Kings 19:17. Paul's concern
here
>> is not with the killing of the prophets,
>True, but he does *mention* the killing of the prophets in an
incidental >way.Again, I ask: Is it plausible that Paul would chastise
his countrymen >for killing the merely human messengers of God sent to
them, but totally
> omit the culminating atrocity of their killing the Son of God himself?
Again, I think it's unstated, but implicit in the parallel he draws.
He is saying, in effect, " Elijah lamented in his day that Israel was
exceedingly wicked, as demonstrated by the fact that she was killing
the prophets. Nevertheless, God showed to Elijah that even in the
midst of that wickedness, there was a remnant who still served Him.
So too, it is in this day; a remnant is preserved, who will still
serve God." This parallel is only strong IF Israel's wickedness is
also evident in the present (Paul's) day. And how is it evident?
Paul expresses this in chapters 9 and 10, how they have pursued
righteousness by the law, and this lead to their rejection of the
Messiah. The fact that he appeals to Elijah's statement of killing
the prophets, to me, is evidence of a masterful subtlety on Paul's
part, and not a lack of belief in a Christ that was killed by the
Jews.
If the latter was the case, then what did Paul mean in 1 Thess 2:15: "
[the Jews] both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have
persecuted us..." Did the Jews "spiritually" kill Jesus in a
"spiritual" plane? Of course not! Again, the simplest interpretation
makes the most sense here.
>> but rather with the
>> preserving of the remnant, which Paul says similarly exists in his
own
>> day (and incidentally, forms an unstated but compelling parallel
with
>> the Jews who killed the prophets in Elijah's day, and with the Jews
>> who very recently --to Paul -- killed Jesus).
>"Unstated but compelling." You realize you're making my point for me.
The
>parallel was "compelling," you say. Doesn't that mean Paul would have
had a >very
>good reason to mention it, that it would have fit perfectly with the
point >he was trying to make? So why does he leave it "unstated"? Why
does he pass >up this most obvious example?
I don't know. Can you really build a robust understanding of the
Epistles by psychoanalying Paul and the other writers? In the
instances where they do seem to refer to real events that happened to
Christ, you say, "ah, but he didn't really MEAN that those were real
events, but rather, timeless, spiritual events."
At any rate, as I show above, he only leaves it unstated at this
specific location. Elsewhere, in 1 Thess, he does say "the Jews
killed the Lord Jesus." Surely you won't say that he means here that
"it was the 壮piritual' Jews who killed the Spiritual Messiah in a
壮piritual realm'".
>> Moreover, back in Ch
>> 10:9, Paul demonstrates that the method of salvation is to believe
>> that Christ has been raised from the dead, but goes on to show that
>> Israel rejected God's plan of salvation. I will admit that Paul,
in
>> these few chapters, doesn't explictly condemn Israel for killing
>> Jesus. But his point in this section seems to be more about
>> contrasting Faith and Law. Israel's failure was not simply to kill
>> Jesus, it was their failure to recognize Him as King in the first
>> place, and Paul illustrates that the cause of this is their pursuit
of
>> righteousness through the Law rather than through Faith. So, at
best,
>> this is evidence for a harmonious view of the Gospels and Epistles;
at
>> worst, it is neither for nor against.
>I don't agree. Killing the prophets may not have been Paul's main
point >here,
>but he did introduce it, even in only an incidental way, and I say
the
>comparison to Jesus' own death would have been far too compelling,
too >natural,
>to pass up - if he had known about it.
I think this is just your critique of Paul's rhetoric, though. If you
don't think Paul argues compellingly, and that he passes up a good
opportunity for a nice parallel, that's one thing. To say that's
evidence that he's not aware of an external reality, though, is a big
leap of logic.
For instance, I could argue that based on your letter, you are not
aware of any scholarship other than Earl Doherty's. Why? You refer
exclusively to Doherty. You interject his thoughts left and right,
and admit a huge influence on your thinking. If you knew of any other
scholars than Doherty, you'd obviously include their thoughts, right?
So therefore, you must not have read anything other than Doherty.
Obviously, this is a totally bogus conclusion. There may be lots of
reasons why you only refer to Doherty; you find his conclusions the
most compelling, he's really your brother-in-law, you work for a
publisher that prints his book, etc; the fact that you pass up some
other arguments that would challenge the historical interpretation
doesn't mean you're not aware of them.
>Not to try to swamp you, but this is not the only instance in the NT
where >an
>epistle writer ignores what would seem to be an opportunity that
cries out >for
>mention of Jesus, and instead supplies a far more distant and less
relevant
>parable from the Old Testament.
Note: the situation in Romans is not an example of this at all. The
reference to Elijah is not a "distant parable from the OT" -- it's an
analogy, drawn against the current situation in Israel, where Israel
has again rejected their Messiah.
>Two more of the best examples:
>-James 5:6,10-11 - a truly astonishing silence. James is trying to
provide
>examples of men of God remaining patient and steadfast in the face of
>suffering,
>persecution and even death. But the best example of this he can come
up with >is
>the Old Testament figure of Job. Where is Jesus here? Where is the
man >claimed
>to be James' *brother*? What has happened to him in this verse? Has
James >the
>Just so readily forgotten the gospel image of Jesus remaining patient
and
>steadfast as Jewish elders interrogated him, as Roman soldiers mocked
and
>whipped him, as he was forced to carry the instrument of his own
death to >the
>hill on Calvary while beaten bloody? What could possibly be a better
example >of
>exactly the thing he is trying to convey than the behavior of the Son
of God
>himself in that very situation? Why does he not make this most
obvious of >all
>connections in favor of one not nearly as applicable? (Unlike Jesus,
Job
>eventually lost his patience in the face of suffering and challenged
God to
>explain himself. Jesus was obedient unto death.)
Ok, but see below for an example where a writer does use Christ as an
example for patience.
I don't know why James doesn't make this analogy. A quick reading
suggests to me that James is talking about waiting patiently until
Christ's return, which may take some time to arrive. He looks to the
patient endurance of the prophets and of Job, who also had to wait a
long time to see what they were waiting for. In contrast, Christ's
patience wasn't a "waiting expectantly" kind of patience, but rather,
an "endurance through temporal suffering" kind of patience. So maybe
it's just not as perfect an analogy as with Job and the prophets, or
at least, maybe James didn't think it was. Does that mean He didn't
believe in a real Christ? Not necessarily.
>-Hebrews 12:15-16 - a silence that should be beyond belief. The
author of
>Hebrews is trying to provide an example of a "root of bitterness"
growing in >the community, a man falling from the grace of God and
causing suffering for >many. Who could be a more obvious example than
the gospel figure of Judas,
>the archetypal traitor who, jealous and deceitful, sold the Son of
God to an >unjust and torturous death for thirty pieces of silver? But
no - the best he >can do is the OT figure of Esau. It is not the
selling of Jesus' life for >silver that leaps to his mind, but rather
the selling of a birthright for a >meal. Why this unbelievable
omission? How can his behavior be explained - >ignoring the perfect
and obvious example of exactly the point he was trying
>to make in favor of one much more distant and less applicable? Esau
had a
>motive: he wasn't bitter, he was starving. Judas had no such excuse.
Well, again, I don't know why the writer chose this analogy.
(incidentally, I don't know if the writer is saying that Esau was
bitter; I think he's instead considering him a "fornicator or profane
person", and that, combined with the "root of bitterness" fall under
the larger umbrella of people who "failed the grace of God".)
But in the same chapter, the writer says this:
"...let us set aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily
beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the
joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,
and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider
him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, let ye
be wearied and faint in your minds."
So here's an example where the writer does use Christ's sacrifice as
an analogy to make a point. He specifically refers to the Cross, but
true, not to Calvary. Does that mean the sacrifice took place in a
"heavenly realm"? Or Lansing, Michigan? Or Uranus? In verse 3, the
writer talks about Christ enduring the "contradiction of sinners".
Was this part of the heavenly sacrifice? Who were the sinners who
were brought into the "perfect" heavenly realm to belittle Christ?
In other words, I think the perception of this "heavenly" sacrifice
can only be sustained by a superficial reading of the text, but when
you look at the entire body of the Epistles, it's very hard to
conclude that such a concept has really been articulated, without
ignoring quite a few verses.
[snip Romans 13]
>> > -2 Corinthians 5:5-7, in which Paul says Christians "walk by
faith, not by
>> > sight", and who says that God has rewarded his true followers by
sending the
>> > Holy Spirit (not the Son) down to them.
>
>> Can't it be true that God has rewarded his followers with BOTH the
Son
>> and the Holy Spirit?
>Under the orthodox picture, yes. But again you're letting gospel
>preconceptions taint your viewpoint - 2 Corinthians itself makes no
such >link.
Rather, I'm assuming that Paul was at least reasonably internally
consistent with his own theology. The example I appeal to below that
demonstrates this link came from Romans, also written by Paul.
Certainly Paul can talk about two different things in two different
places, with two different audiences in mind, and nevertheless not be
said to be incomplete in his understanding if he fails to spell out
the whole picture to both audiences. Do you accuse a Pastor of having
no knowledge of the Old Testament if he preaches exclusively one
Sunday from a NT text? Of course not.
>Don't you see
>how easily you keep letting supposedly historical gospel details slip
into >what you write? That's a very natural thing for a Christian to
do, I know -
Do you see how easily YOU conclude that I am a Christian based on my
defense of the Bible? Could it be that I'm in fact an atheist, who
nevertheless believes that the Bible is a robust and consistent
document, but one which I don't personally believe in? You certainly
don't know enough from my response to conclude that I am a Christian.
But I agree, it is the most warranted conclusion, and indeed, the only
one that really makes sense.
[snip]
> But the epistle
>itself doesn't do this! 2 Corinthians 5 says God has "wrought us for
the
>selfsame thing" (meaning being clothed in immortality) and "hath
given unto >us
>the earnest of the Spirit." And there Paul's list of gifts abruptly
stops.
>> But ultimately, His primary benefit to us was His
>> sacrificial death, which broke the prison of sin that separates us
>> from God. The primary benefit of the Holy Spirit is the
empowerment
>> to actually live out the life that Christ called us to, despite
being
>> trapped in a "body of death", as Paul puts it, that keeps us from
>> doing the will of God. And that's what He's talking about here.
You
>> make a good point, but He doesn't omit Christ as a "gift" because
of
>> ignorance of Christ; rather, it's because he's making a different
>> point here.
>Christ's sacrifice was a gift, I agree. But what Paul is trying to do
here >is list the gifts that God has directly given to his followers
on earth -
> hence the mention of the shadowing of the Holy Spirit.
This is not at all what Paul is trying to do here. He's contrasting
our "earthly" and "heavenly" tabernacles. See more on this below.
> Yet he completely
> fails to mention that Jesus himself took human form and walked among us,
> doing miracles to heal the sick, feed the hungry, astonish skeptics, and
> strengthen the faith of believers. How could Paul not have conceived of
> this as God's primary "gift" to his earthly followers?
Because those ceased at His death, whereas the benefit of His
sacrifice, namely, our reconciliation to God, continues to all
believers in perpetuity. That's why Christ said (more Gospel details
here) "it's to your advantage for me to go away, for if I go, God will
send the Holy Spirit" (paraphrase). Jesus Himself recognized that His
primary function was not to do miracles, astonish skeptics, etc,
although that was all great, and set a great example for us. His
primary mission was to die, and to rise from the dead.
Paul here is talking about the gifts God gives to believers who are
living in a post-Christ world. And incidentally, later in the
chapter, starting at verse 17, he describes in detail exactly how
Christ reconciles us to God. True, it doesn't explicitly detail the
benefits derived from Christ's life, but verses 19 and 21 do allude to
His life to some extent.
Again, your criticism here is based on an assumption of what Paul
"should have said", and, I think, an erroneous understanding of the
purpose of Christ's life and work.
>>> To prove this, check out Romans 5:15 "But the free gift is not
like
>>> the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much
more
>>> have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one
man
>>> Jesus Christ abounded for many." Note that he refers to Jesus as
a
>>> "man" here. Note that he also demonstrates an awareness of the
fact
>>> that Christ's life and death were a gift for us.
>I would also point out that you neglected to mention verse 5:7, "For
we walk >by faith, not by sight." Weren't Jesus' handpicked disciples
still alive
>when Paul wrote this? Weren't there people who saw him with their own
eyes,
> who heard him preach with their own ears, who felt the hem of his garment,
> who were eyewitness to his miracles? These people *do* "walk by sight,"
>don't they? I would argue that Paul is expressing himself as if
Jesus' very
> existence were a matter of faith.
First, were any of the disciples at Corinth? If not, then Paul is
writing to those who haven't physically seen Christ. More to the
point, though, the verse 7 is talking about a future, heavenly
dwelling. My interpretation is that Paul is saying we necessarily
can't "see" our future dwelling; nevertheless, in this life, despite
tribulation, we are able to become like the kind of people who can put
on that eternal form; and, that it is through the help of the Spirit,
God's gift to us, by which we are able to do this. So again, be
careful about the verse distinctions -- they aren't part of the
Epistle in any meaningful sense, and I think here, they have
facilitated your lifting this one clause from its context in an
imprecise way.
>> > -Ephesians 3:4-5 in which Paul says knowledge of Jesus comes only
through
>> > revelation of the Holy Spirit.
>
>> This is slightly misquoted, but it makes a big difference. Here's
the
>> correct quotation (RSV)
>
>> "how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have
written
>> briefly. When you read this you can perceive my insight into the
>> mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in
>> other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles
and
>> prophets by the Spirit; v6 THAT IS [emphasis mine] how the Gentiles
>> are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the
>> promise of Christ Jesus through the Gospel."
>
>> I'm not a big fan of the verse distinctions in the epistles,
because
>> the epistles are primarily arguments, and one can't appreciate an
>> argument by taking isolated fragments of sentences. Christians and
>> atheists alike do this, and should be very careful about the
practice.
>
>> In your quote, you only go to verse 5, but the clause that modifies
>> "the mystery of Christ" is found in verse 6. It talks about the
>> incorporation of the gentiles as a "mystery", ie, as an occurence
that
>> wasn't really expected by the Jews. See for instance Acts 10,
where
>> Peter and disciples are shocked when gentiles receive the gift of
the
>> Holy Spirit.
>
>> So Paul is not saying that one can't know about Jesus through other
>> means than the Holy Spirit (which may or may not be true); rather,
>> he's talking about a specific "mystery" that perplexed the Jewish
>> Christians.
>My original quote wasn't a misquote, it was the KJV: "Whereby, when
ye read, >ye
>may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other
ages >was
>not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
holy
>apostles and prophets by the Spirit."
No! Your original quote spoke of "knowledge of Christ", but here, you
correctly quote it as "the mystery of Christ". In verse 7, Paul goes
on to explain what that mystery is.
>But even using your translation, my point remains. Read verses 5-6.
What has
>been revealed by the Holy Spirit? That the Gentiles should be
partakers of >the new covenant also. Fine. But you haven't solved the
problem here. Didn't >Jesus himself teach this?
You tell me. Is there a Gospel reference where He did?
> Wasn't he the one who said salvation was now open
> to all? Again, why do these verses only represent that knowledge as having > come through a revelation of the Spirit?
If Christ did say that (He did, but parabolically -- "I have sheep
that are not of this fold"), the disciples clearly didn't apprehend
it, hence their reaction in Acts 10 to the receipt of the Holy Spirit
by Gentiles. (And Acts was written by Luke (probably), who also wrote
a Gospel, thus, if we can assume he was a little bit internally
consistent, we can conclude that the disciples really didn't "get it"
until Christ died. That's ok, because this clearly wasn't the only
saying of His that they didn't understand). In fact, it's through a
revelation from the Spirit by which the stage is even set for Peter to
be present when Gentiles receive the Spirit, and it totally shocks
him. So, I think that this point goes to my case; the "mystery" is
not knowledge of Christ, it's the understanding of the ingrafting of
Gentiles, and it's through the Holy Spirit that this was revealed. No
conflict.
>> > -Hebrews 8:4, the "smoking gun", which says of Jesus: "Now, if he
had been on
>> > earth..." and goes on to explain why a Jesus on earth would have
had nothing to
>> > do - namely, because the role of offering sacrifices here was
already filled by
> >> the priests, and only in a Platonic higher world could Jesus make a better and
>> > more perfect sacrifice for sin.
>
>> The problem here is that you have lifted the verse out of the
context
>> of chapters 7-9, where the writer of Hebrews contrasts the
Priesthoods
>> of Aaron and Moses.
>I know exactly what the context discusses - there's more to it that
you haven't
>touched on. Chapters 7-9 set up a *Platonic* parallel between the
lower, earthly
>world, and the higher, heavenly world. As in Platonism, processes on
earth are
>imperfect reflections of primary processes in heaven, the lower world
mirroring
>the higher. (Example, 8:5: the priests on earth who serve "unto the
example and
>shadow of heavenly things".) The imperfect earthly covenant of Mosaic
sacrifice
>can't save us. Hence, Christ has come. He is "separate from sinners"
(7:26)
>(which the Gospel Jesus certainly was not). His purpose is to make a
>"greater and more perfect" (9:11) sacrifice in the "true tabernacle
which >the Lord pitched and not man" (8:2) - i.e., in heaven. *This*
perfect, >heavenly sacrifice of perfect, heavenly blood, offered once
and for all, >will do what the old
>covenant couldn't: save us forever from sin.
Whoa, hold the phone. Your argument has been formed by lifting verses
from their context and juxtaposing them in a way that is helpful to
your case. Taken in context, they say something different.
7:25-26 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that
come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
who neededth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice,
first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did
once, when he offered up himself.
When it says he is "separate from sinners", it doesn't mean He didn't
associate with sinners; it means that as pertains to righteousness,
there is a distinction between Him and sinners; He is holy, harmless,
and undefiled. This fits well with the conception that Christ, even
while in the flesh, lived a sinless life, which, incidentally, was why
he was eligible to be a sacrifice for our sin in the first place.
The "true tabernacle" in 8:2 is talking about the presence of God,
which Christ, by His sacrifice, and by His status as "a minister of
the sanctuary, and the true tabernacle" is now eligible to enter.
9:12 says "neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood he entered once into the holy place." So nowhere does Hebrews
say that He made His sacrifice IN this holy tabernacle. On the
contrary, it says that by His sacrifice, He has obtained His position
in the tabernacle.
I think that the reason you juxtaposed the verses this way is because
of your preconception that Christ sacrificed himself in a spiritual
realm; no such interpretation is actually contained in the verses.
> But astute readers will see that there's a glaring problem here.
I think the problem Doherty sees is only "glaring" to someone who
already thinks that Christ must have been sacrificed in a heavenly
realm, to someone who is reading Platonism into this from the
outset...
Over to Earl
Doherty:
>"[Jesus] had lived on earth, he had been human in his incarnation,
and human
>blood, the blood of matter, coursed in his veins. It was shed on a
hill on
>earth, material, red and sticky. The sacrifice--or at least an
essential >part of
>it, a part which the tradition he (i.e., the writer of Hebrews)
supposedly
>received would certainly have regarded as essential--took place in
the >earthly
>realm, in the world of the transient, unreal copy of the heavenly.
But such >an earthly dimension would shatter his Platonic comparison.
It would >irreparably contaminate the purity of the earth / heaven,
high priest / High > Priest contrast on which his whole theology is
based.
This contrast is based on the location of the ministry; priests talked
to God from Earth, by way of sacrifices. Christ, the High Priest, by
having offering the perfect sacrifice (Himself), now talks to God in
Heaven.
>The sacrifice had not been confined to the heavenly realm. It had a
foot in >both camps, and thus to some extent the writer
>would be comparing an earthly thing with another earthly thing.
>At the very least, he would have had to address this anomaly. He
would have >had to explain why 'human' blood shed on earth could at
the same time be >spiritual and cleanse the heavenly sanctuary (9:23).
Because Christ was God in the flesh! Because He wasn't corrupted by
Adam's "original sin", and because He lived a sin-free life.
"Heavenly" things aren't perfect simply by virtue of being "heavenly";
rather, something is "heavenly" by the fact of its perfection.
Christ's sacrifice wasn't perfect because of where it was made, but by
virtue of the perfection of the sacrifice.
>He would have had to justify why,
>when every Christian circle around him (presumably) thought of
Christ's
>sacrifice in terms of its occurrence on Calvary, he has ignored such
a venue >and placed it in heaven.
This is a misreading of the text. True, the writer doesn't mention
Calvary, but neither does He place Christ's sacrifice in heaven;
rather, he places Christ in heaven as a high priest, as a result of
(and subsequent to) His sacrifice.
[snip]
>> Verse 4 does not say that Christ never came to
>> earth, of course;
>"Of course"? Be wary of assuming your conclusion.
Yes, assuming the conclusion is bad, but I haven't. It's a simple
fact: the verse doesn't say "Christ never came to earth". It says "if
he were on earth", ie, He is not, now, on earth. Does that mean he
never was? Not necessarily.
>> it simply says that His role as a priest wouldn't be
>> as meaningful on earth, because there were already priests offering
>> sacrifices based on Aaronic practices.
>Exactly! But how on earth could any Christian writer think this way,
how >could
>any Christian writer express himself this way? "Wouldn't be as
meaningful"? >Are
>you saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't as effective as it could have
been? >That
>the priests "crowded him out"?
No, of course not. Rather, I'm saying that His role was not to come
and take over for the priests, by burning offerings; there already was
an order of priests for that. His purpose was to BE the sacrifice,
and not only that, but to begin a new kind of priesthood, one which is
a "more excellent ministry"; He's "the mediator of a better covenant,
which was established on better promises." It's saying that His point
wasn't to remain on earth, but to become a high priest at the right
hand of the throne of majesty -- it's the perfect priesthood, of which
the Aaronic priesthood was the "example and shadow".
[snip]
>> Moreover, in Heb 7:15 "...it is evident that our Lord was descended
>> from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing
about
>> priests", the writer seems again to be talking about a real person.
A
>> "spirit-Christ" couldn't be descendent of a real, physical man, in
any
>> meaningful sense.
>Oh, yes, he could. Surprising, perhaps, but he could.
>In the first place, allow me to point out that gods in the ancient
world >were
>often given an ethnic or racial identity - Osiris, for example, was
>specifically
>identified as Egyptian. Also, keep in mind that the Old Testament
(which
>unquestionably was expecting a human messiah) put forth several
>qualifications
>in the form of prophecies that any would-be savior, human or
heavenly, would
>have to meet. Paul and the other early Christians were trying to
appeal to >their
>Jewish brethren - they couldn't simply ignore these verses, even if
the >Christ
>they envisioned was a drastic break from Jewish expectations of a
messiah. >They
>had to find a way to make their spiritual Jesus fit them.
>And they found one. Remember what I said earlier about Platonism?
Processes >on
>earth are imperfect reflections of primary processes in heaven; "as
above, >so
>below," that was the theme. The epistle writers took advantage of
this and >made
>their Jesus "sprung from Judah," as the OT had predicted, in a
*spiritual*
>sense - he was descended from the "heavenly" tribe of Judah.
Ok, first, is there any evidence FROM THE BIBLE to suggest that there
is such a thing as a "heavenly tribe of Judah", or that any
interpretation of the OT prophecies could lead to such a status?
Furthermore, how could Christ "spiritually" descend from a heavenly
tribe? What does being a spiritual descendent mean?
Paul does >something
>similar in Galatians 4, where he says Jesus is "made of a woman" and
then >goes
>on to explain how this is an allegory (he uses that specific word) -
the >"woman"
>is the heavenly Jerusalem.
I disagree with this. Galatians 4:4 talks about how God sends His
Son, born of a woman. He then changes the subject, and then in verse
23 and 24, he says that Isaac and Ishmael (he doesn't use their names)
are an allegory for two covenants. Moreover, the word "allegory" is
used in the KJV, true. Did "allegory" mean the same thing then that
it means now? For example, the KJV also uses "science" (1 Tim 6:20)
and "replenish" (Gen 1:28) and a bunch of other words that have
changed meanings in English since then. Is "allegory" such a one?
Let's say that it means the same as today. Ok, fine. But I think you
have to do more work to show that Jesus being "made of a woman"
(again, keeping in mind that "made" is perhaps in KJV English) is
included in the allegory. And even if so, I think you have a lot more
work to show that this relates in a meaningful way to Christ being
descended from a "spiritual" tribe.
>Might I also add that the translation you cite has, well,
mistranslated this
>verse? The original Greek for the phrase you translate as "was
descended >from
>Judah" is not in the past tense, as your English is. Instead, it's in
the
>perfect present: "It is evident that our Lord has sprung from Judah."
This >tense
>conveys the sense of an eternal, timeless happening, a "window" onto
the
>changeless heavenly world. It's certainly not appropriate if it
really was
>referring to a mortal birth. The Greek verb, "anatellein", also has
meanings
>other than physical birth; it frequently crops up in Septuagint
versions of
>messianic passages, for example Ezekiel 29:21 ("the horn of the house
of >Israel shall spring forth").
Your correction is noted, thanks. But why does he say "it is
evident"? That to me conveys a sense that his claim is verifiable.
Otherwise, why didn't he say "Now we know that Christ is sprung from"
or simply "Now our Lord sprung from Judah". When he says "it is
evident", it seems to me that he's referring to a fact that is based
not on assertion, but on something more. How could it be "evident"
that a spiritual redeemer, who never set foot on earth, was "sprung"
from a particular tribe? This is maybe debatable.
It seems we are destined for a debate about Greek here. Do you know
Greek? I, personally, do not. I am also not the least bit impressed
by the fact that "Earl Doherty knows Greek". Other scholars do as
well, and yet have reached different conclusions. It seems to me that
you (or E.D., or whoever) are trying to leverage this one unusual word
choice to a huge conclusion -- the writer was simply trying to appeal
to the Jews by virtue of having Christ arise from a "heavenly tribe of
Judah", thus fulfilling the clear word of prophecy that Jesus would be
a descendent of Judah. But I don't think this is well supported by
the document itself.
> I commend you for the careful study you've obviously put into this
> matter. I do see some people on this group who are all too quick to
> cite the "Skeptics Annotated Bible".
*I* cite the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. ;) But there are more detailed
and
sophisticated sources out there.
Fair enough. I guess my point was more that you didn't just cut and
paste a long list of purported "contradictions", but have actually
read the passages for yourself, and have attempted to understand what
the Bible is saying. I obviously disagree with the conclusions you've
drawn, but I respect the thought you've put into the matter.
Best,
Jeff
Jeff Warrender
> coincidence, a fellow Binghamton student on Usenet. ;) What year are you?)
>
graduated from Binghamton in '98! Are you guys both current students,
or former? Go Colonials/Bearcats/whatever!
Talk to you soon,
Jeff
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
some paragraphs) ...
"Bob" <rgre...@binghamton.edu> wrote in message
news:<3db98...@bingnews.binghamton.edu>...
> Why would an atheist care if Jesus ever existed.
The social / cultural background and environment
of most individuals in the western world, atheist or
non-atheist, is leveraged off of a Jesus character
claimed to be an existent human that was a God
son.
The God son claim is often used, by christians, to
promote their God as true and good. The same
argument used for God (that being you can't prove
it *doesn't* exist) is also used to try to support the
existence of a Jesus character that, like God, also
had supernaturalism claims tied to it.
Jesus, not just a mere character in a religious doc-
ument, but used to inspire legions to battle in the
name of faith in claims that he did exist and was,
indeed, the son of God, quite a different matter than
is someone trying to convince us that the likes of
William Tell or King Arthur actually existed, as those
folks are not used as immortality seductions / hell
and damnation threats entailing claims that there is
evidence of a God and a son of God.
It's the angle of son of God, as well as the way that
christianity has married itself to western history, that
makes the existence or non-existence of the Jesus
(of Nazareth) character of such importance (and
interest) in the modern day.
> So what if he did. Why assert it? Why discount it?
The Jesus-believers of christianity (and many non-
christians who see Jesus as an icon of moral virtue
and inspiration) place great importance on belief
that a Jesus character really existed. Therefore, for
them, any inkling (like a mention that a Yeshua was
a brother of a dead James and a son of Joseph, on
an ossuary) that any Yeshua might be *the* Yeshua
excites them.
Of course, any mention (like a Yeshua was a son of
a Joseph on an ossuary containing boxes with the
names of Joseph, Mary, another Mary, Matthew, and
Judah, "the son of Yeshua") that indicates a Yeshua
that died might be *the* Yeshua, discourages them,
for most of them believe Yeshua was dead 3 days,
arose, and 40 days or so later floated into heaven.
Therefore, for religious reasons, any evidence that
a Jesus character might have existed/*died* as a
human is dismissed by most of christianity, and any
evidence a Jesus character might have existed (fate
unknown or fate mating to a christian view) excites
them.
Atheists disbelieve the Jesus son of God attributions
for the same reason that the God attributions are dis-
believed.
There is no compelling evidence that the Jesus of the
bible ever existed or that supernaturalism exists at all.
There is considerable historical evidence that the gos-
pel Jesus stories came from earlier stories about other
people and other religions, and were combined with
fictional (and contradictory) yarns steeped in myth. All
of that was combined with a mix of some claimed events,
and many myth-steeped events involving some real
persons and many mythical persons. Quite a recipe
for mythmaking and deceit, there.
Shanks (founder/editor of the Biblical Archaeology
Review, the document promoting the Ya'akov ossu-
ary as legit/likely the biblical James/Joseph/Jesus)
says, in response to a question asking if there are
any who doubted Jesus existed, says "... there are
some crazies who doubted it, but no, not really."
Are doubters crazy? No. Is Shanks biased? Yes.
Does that lead one to suspect Shanks is pushing
an agenda beyond the boundaries of legitimate and
objective historical inquiry regarding his Ya'akov
ossuary? Yes.
>
> To be an atheist does not require one to disbelieve Jesus
> ever existed as an historical figure, rather it is a lack
> of belief that the said historical figure was in deed the
> son of god.
But for atheists interested in verity, the historical or
mythical nature of the Jesus character is very rele-
vant to the disputation of the christian mythos which
relies, in large part, on a claimed historical Jesus
who is mysteriously missing from historical records
of the day and age in which he is claimed to have
existed.
Muslims claim there was a Jesus, but if you read the
quran (written hundreds of years after the supposed
Jesus charcter would have existed), you'll find that
their version is different from the christian one.
So, when you say "historical Jesus", is it quranic
history or christian history that's being referred to?
Perhaps, it's gnostic history. Perhaps it's pagan his-
tory. Perhaps it's mithraic history. Perhaps it's Bud-
dhist history. Perhaps it's Roman Homeric history.
Likely, and evidentially, it's a combination of mythos
and events from assorted religions and cultures,
combined with Jewish midrash (see Spong for details
on that), regarding a man who is nothing but a compil-
ation mixing all those ingredients into a character who
never even existed.
>
> The need to fight against the possibility he actually existed
> might very well betray other needs. What if irrefutable proof
> were to come about that Jesus truly existed? Why should that
> make any difference at all to the question about belief in
> a god?
Hypotheticals can be fun, sometimes. It would de-
pend on the evidence as to its import.
Lemaire's assessment of the Ya'akov ossuary is
biased and the trail of possession of that ossuary
is unknown for over 1900 years (if the age is to be
believed), having been looted by an unknown, sold
by an unknown dealer some 15 years ago, bought
by an anonymous collector.
If there was a way to forge the ossuary to make it
appear that it was over 1900 years old (and I'm not
saying there is, but in the hypothetical game, what
if), anyone (with knowledge regarding ossuaries and
1st century script on ossuaries and the characters
in the christian bible) could be involved in the forgery
and the only traceable element, per reports, is ...
... well, there are no traceable elements, unless the
collector wishes to reveal his name. Even if he does,
it has been reported he doesn't have the name of the
dealer he bought the ossuary from, so the trail of
possession begins and ends with the anonymous
collector.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~
Adam Marczyk
Hehe, another alumnus? Weird - what are the odds? I'm a current student,
incidentally, and yes, we are the Bearcats now (we've also just moved up to
Division I, if you didn't know - I'm still pondering how a Division I school
could not have a football team...)
--
a.a. #2001
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."
Director, EAC Black Monolith Division - "My God, it's full of stars"
Operative: EAC Electronic Warfare Division
EAC Subversive Fiction Division
Bob
David McCleary
outside of the bible he is only mentioned once (in the works of the Greek
historian Josephus).
"Bob" <rgre...@binghamton.edu> wrote in message
news:3db98...@bingnews.binghamton.edu...
Austin Cline
McCleary" <home...@cox.net> wrote:
> Not that I do not believe in the existence of Jesus historically, but
> outside of the bible he is only mentioned once (in the works of the Greek
> historian Josephus).
Actually Josephus mentions Jesus twice, but one passage is widely
believed to have lots of later additions and isn't considered very
reliable while the other seems more reliable.
Of course, that might be what you meant, but I wanted to clarify just in
case...
Oh, and Josephus was a Jewish historian who, after working for the
rebels against Rome, switched sides when he was caught:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/judaism/bldef_josephus.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/judaism/bldef_greatrevolt.htm
--
Austin Cline, a.a. #32
Agnosticism / Atheism Guide
http://atheism.about.com/
Richard Uhrich
Actually, I think he turned traitor, slew his comrades and then
surrendered. I'll look for references.
Austin Cline
<uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Actually, I think he turned traitor, slew his comrades and then
> surrendered. I'll look for references.
It is my understanding that he turned traitor after being caught (and
was only trusted after he made a prediction which came true), but if you
have other information I'd appreciate learning it...
robert parker
McCleary" <home...@cox.net> wrote:
>Not that I do not believe in the existence of Jesus historically, but
>outside of the bible he is only mentioned once (in the works of the Greek
>historian Josephus).
>
Josephus was a Jew, and he mentions followers of
a Jesus. Only proving that there were nuts
believing in the Jesus myth at that time. However
most historians believe it was inserted much
later.
Richard Uhrich
Well, I'm off topic anyway, but here's one.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/life.htm
"Despite his foreboding that the cause was hopeless, he was
drafted into becoming commander of the revolutionary forces in Galilee,
where he spent more time controlling internal factions than fighting
the Roman army. When the city of Jotapata he was defending fell to the
Roman general Vespasian, Joseph's and his supporters hid in a cave and
entered into a suicide pact, which Josephus oddly survived."
Richard Uhrich
> In article <3DBF2AE1...@san.rr.com>, Richard Uhrich
> <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, I think he turned traitor, slew his comrades and then
>>surrendered. I'll look for references.
>>
>
> It is my understanding that he turned traitor after being caught (and
> was only trusted after he made a prediction which came true), but if you
> have other information I'd appreciate learning it...
>
>
This site raises the question, "Were you there?" How do they know? I
doubt the following was Josephs' version!
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html
"Josephus Flavius was a Jew who grew up in Jerusalem at the beginning of
the Common Era. He was well educated, knowing both Jewish texts and the
Greek language (although his Greek grammar was faulty). During the Great
Revolt from 66-73 CE, Josephus served as a general of the Galilee. When
the Roman army overcame his forces, Josephus and 40 compatriots fled to
a cave. They agreed to commit suicide. Josephus fixed the lots so that
his name would come out last. After the others killed themselves,
Josephus convinced the remaining fighter to surrender with him."
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Despite his foreboding that the cause was hopeless, he was
> drafted into becoming commander of the revolutionary forces in
> Galilee, where he spent more time controlling internal factions
> than fighting the Roman army. When the city of Jotapata he was
> defending fell to the Roman general Vespasian, Joseph's and his
> supporters hid in a cave and entered into a suicide pact, which
> Josephus oddly survived."
I looked at this a bit the last time it came up here. Apparently
Jotapata was supposed to be an impregnable fortress, and the Jews
were shocked to hear that it had fallen so swiftly and all the
garrison had been slaughtered. Their shock turned to outrage when
the heard that there was in fact a single survivor -- the commander
of the garrison, and that he was being treated as a guest by the
Romans. Some modern authors apparently think the whole cave +
suicide pact story was something he made up to improve appearances,
though for my money backing out of a suicide pact after everyone
else is dead doesn't do much to improve appearances. But there
still seems to be an air of treachery hanging about the story.
Be that as it may, it's not obvious that his role in that episode
would motivate him to lie about Jesus; the relevant issues seem to
be orthogonal.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Paul J Gans
I'm coming in late to this discussion and may be either repeating
points already made or missing the point entirely (not for
the first time... ;-)
The references to Jesus in Josephus are considered bogus
by many scholars. We have no original "Josephus" manuscript.
What we have are later copies. It is not unknown for
copyists to make mistakes. It is also not unknown for
copyists to add (or drop) material to aid their point
of view.
----- Paul J. Gans
Bobby D. Bryant
> I'm coming in late to this discussion and may be either repeating
> points already made or missing the point entirely (not for the
> first time... ;-)
You are and you are. But where's the fun of Usenet if we don't all
do that and do that now and then?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Don1
I am beginning to see a pattern here. The guy passing out the Kool-Aid
always seems to survive.
Richard Uhrich
I did not mean to imply anything regarding his alleged writing about
Jesus. My comments were intended as a historical footnote (Austin said
Josephus "switched sides when he was caught") and were indeed orthogonal.
Adam Marczyk
server and from Google - so I'm posting this here instead. Sorry it's taken me
so long.
Jeff Warrender <jwar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cb609cb8.02102...@posting.google.com...
> >Sure thing. I wouldn't hold to a position I didn't feel was
> defensible, and >I'll
> >do my best to justify my views of these verses. You may not agree
> with me, >but
> >of course, that's your prerogative.
>
> Great, but let's make a deal. I could do all sorts of web searching
> for apologetics sites that could help me address all of these points,
> but I think it's more productive if we try to do this on our own. In
> reciprocity, might I suggest that you continue the dialogue with no
> further help from Earl Doherty? Let's see how far we can go with our
> own understandings of these matters. The alternative becomes a
> discussion where we cut and paste from Doherty/refutations to Doherty,
> and that's not all that interesting.
I don't conduct discussions by simply posting links to pages I didn't read or
quoting reams of text; that would hardly be honest or fair. I put all my
arguments in my own words, though I may quote and link to short passages when I
think they make a point particularly well.
Actually, it's not, and this is an excellent example of how translators have
read the epistles with gospel preconceptions fixed in mind. The word translated
as "betrayed" is "paradidomi," which does not necessarily carry any such
connotation. Taken literally it means "hand over, deliver up," and the epistles
use it frequently to describe something that happened to Jesus when it's plain
that no betrayal is indicated. Christ "paradidomi"'s *himself* in Ephesians 5:2
and 5:25. Romans 8:32 says that God "spared not his own Son, but delivered him
up" - "paradidomi" again - "for us all."
> "the Lord Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks for it, he
> brake it, saying 'take, eat. This is my body which is broken for you;
> this do in rememberence of me.'"
>
> Paul describes exactly the Last Supper as recounted in the Bible.
True. But since my position is that the Gospels were deliberately created to
blend Paul's cosmic Son of God (the "Jerusalem Tradition" of NT scholarship)
with the kingdom-of-God wisdom preaching of the Q community (the "Galilee
Tradition") in a syncretistic fashion, it doesn't surprise me that such
similarities exist. The point is *where* Paul got this information from, and he
says flat-out that he got it through revelation.
> The
> fact that he claims his knowledge came through revelation is
> irrelevant. He's describing a real event that happened to a Christ
> who lived here on earth. Otherwise, what sense does any of this make?
> Do spiritual redeemers who die in spiritual planes get betrayed?
See above.
> Do they give or eat bread?
Yes, they do. Such sacramental-meal myths were common in the traditions of the
mystery religions. In Mithraism, for example, after Mithra slew the bull (the
salvific act in that religion) he sealed the covenant by dining on loaves of
bread (some traditions say on the meat of the bull) and drinking from cups which
contained water and wine.
> Do they have apostles?
Well, "apostle" simply means someone sent out on a mission to preach, and Paul
claims to be an apostle despite never having met the human Jesus, so that
doesn't really help you. You may have meant "disciples," but where in the NT
epistles does it say that Jesus selected disciples?
> Do they appear "in
> likeness of sinful flesh"? (Romans 8:3)
Come on - there's an obvious problem for you here and I'm sure you can see it.
Why does this verse say Jesus appeared only in the "likeness" (Greek "homoioma",
meaning resemblance, likeness, similitude) of flesh?
> Paul's letters, interpreted
> your way, are so bizarre as to not make any sense.
I fail to see what you can possibly be basing such a statement on, other than a
Gospel-based preconception so strong you can't even imagine that Paul might not
be talking about what you've always thought he's been talking about.
> But if you just
> assume that he's talking about the same Jesus that the gospels
> describe, things make much more sense.
I beg to differ. I think numerous things about Paul's letters make a lot
*better* sense if you assume his Jesus was spiritual and had never been on
earth. Romans 13:3-4, which I've mentioned before, is one of my favorite
examples. To assume he could express himself in this way with the Gospel story
in the forefront of his mind inevitably leads to contradiction.
> >> What does he mean in 1 Cor 15 when he says
> >
> >> "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
> received,
> >>that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
> that
> >> he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance
> with
> >> the scriptures, that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
> Then
> >> he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of
> >> whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he
> >> appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to
> one
> >> untimely born, he appeared also to me."
> >
<...>
> What about the part where he says "Christ died according to the
> scriptures"? You're saying that Paul is writing as a Platonist, but
> here, he appeals to the Jewish Scriptures. Do they teach that the
> Messiah will be a "spiritual redeemer" whose sacrifice will take place
> in a heavenly sphere? Quite the opposite, in fact. (and you agree
> with this below) So if Paul's Christ died according to the
> Scriptures, then he's talking about a literal, physical death.
I think your chain of logic is missing a link. Yes, the OT unquestionably did
anticipate a human messiah (and I would argue the prophetic verses that speak of
the Messiah in such terms undoubtedly did make it much easier for Paul's
spiritual Jesus to be turned into a human, when that happened) - but that
doesn't mean Paul necessarily believed this. The Messiah he envisioned, I would
argue, was a drastic break from Jewish expectations.
We have precedent for this: Jesus himself, who (even if he was a flesh-and-blood
human) in no way fit Jewish messianic expectations. In fact, he violated almost
all of them. The Jews' messiah was supposed to be a conquering military hero,
like the great kings of the Old Testament, who would subdue their enemies and
usher in the era of God's kingdom on earth. As Philip Yancey writes in "The
Jesus I Never Knew": "Devout Jews, bred on stories of a power Jehovah, saw
little to be admired in this god who died in weakness and in shame. As Justin
Martyr's 'Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon' shows, Jesus' death on a cross made a
decisive case against his Messiahship for the Jews...."
So we already have a Christian messiah who's not at all what the Jews expected
or believed in. It's not that much of a leap for me to argue that Paul violated
their expectations a bit further and made his messiah entirely spiritual. And
since I'm certain it will come up later, I'll point out how this can be turned
to my advantage: Virtually all the verses in the epistles that might seem to
indicate a human Jesus, I will argue, are derived from OT scripture and thus do
not represent any independent data about the life of Jesus the man.
> Furthermore, Paul says that he was buried, and rose again from the
> dead. Naturally, Paul doesn't say "and this explicitly happened here
> on Earth, not in some celestial sphere."
What do you mean by "naturally"? Are you saying it would have been implicit in
Paul's mind that he meant this happened on earth? If so, I would say you've
naively imposed a twenty-first-century worldview on a first-century document. We
*can't* simply assume that Paul's mindset would have been the same as ours, and
in fact, I contend that the idea of a deity symbolically performing some sort of
salvific act in a spiritual realm was a common mode of thought of that time
period.
> To be honest, it seems like
> your thesis rests heavily on the fact that Paul and the other Epistle
> writers don't clearly distinguish the events of Christ's life as
> having taking place on Earth rather than a heavenly sphere, therefore
> they must have meant that it took place in the heavenly sphere. Paul
> also isn't careful to point out that Christ didn't come to Mars, die
> and rise from the dead there. Does that mean that we should consider
> that a possibility as well?
My thesis goes a bit further than that: it is that Paul and the other epistle
writers *never* clearly distinguish *any* events in Jesus' life as having taken
place on an earthly plane, even when a mention of such a thing would be natural
and inviting. I would also supplement my case with what Earl Doherty calls
"positive silences", verses that not only lack mention of a human Jesus, but
positively exclude the possibility that such a human was present in their minds.
The verse from Romans 13 I cited above is one example of this.
If I recall correctly, the Corinthian church was in Greece, whereas any event
such as Paul describes here would have to have occurred in Palestine. It would
have been virtually impossible, an enormous investment of time and effort at the
very least, for anyone in Corinth who doubted Paul's story to go check it out
for themselves.
> You're right that he doesn't give names and addresses, but neither
> does he seem to be pulling this out of the air. He says that some of
> the 500 are living to this day, and he refers not to an anonymous
> "Twelve", but "The Twelve". This must have meant something to the
> readers (and it really isn't that unreasonable to assume which 12 he
> was talking about.
If you feel that way, then please tell us who these "Twelve" were - and if you
were planning to say the disciples, keep in mind that at this point in the
story, there *weren't* twelve; there were eleven. Judas was dead. (According to
Acts, he wasn't replaced until after the ascension, which doesn't come until
after the events you say this 1 Corinthians creed is referring to.)
> If this was any other ancient document than the
> Bible, you'd give him the benefit of the doubt here.) Presumably,
> someone who asks Paul for references could get them. He's saying that
> these events happened to real people. You say that they may be
> Spiritual experiences, but again, what sense does it make for a
> "spiritual redeemer" to have "Twelve" physical, real apostles (where I
> admit I'm explicitly assuming the association), but for himself to do
> all of his business in a spiritual realm?
First, I must point out that you did not in any way address my most important
point: Paul describes *his* experience of Jesus in the exact same terms as
everyone else's, although Paul never claims to have met the human Jesus even
under the orthodox picture. I think it's a bit strained for you to claim
"ophthe" means "see in flesh" the first three times it appears in that sentence
and then suddenly switches meanings the fourth time. (Similar confirmation: 1
Corinthians 9:1. Paul claims to legitimize his apostolic authority by asking,
"Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" Again, according to the orthodox
picture, he *didn't* - or at least, he only did in spirit, not in flesh. But if
this is the standard he appeals to to justify his authority, does this not
suggest that this was the standard everyone else was judged by as well?)
Secondly, I think it makes perfect sense for a god to have earthly disciples who
had spiritual experiences of him, even if he himself resides only in the
heavenly plane. Isn't this the situation with the Christian God today? Why
couldn't it have been the situation back then too?
<...>
> Ok, first, let's at least clear up the fact that no one is called Lord
> by Paul except Jesus, so it is obvious that when James is referred to
> as "the Lord's brother", it is Jesus we are talking about.
Granted. Regardless, James is never referred to as "Jesus' brother." He doesn't
even refer to himself this way in his own epistle, and neither does Jude (though
Jude does specifically refer to himself as the brother of James).
> So the issue is, then, is this talking about a "literal" or
> "figurative" brother? You point out that there are other instances of
> "adelphos" being used figuratively, but are there any other instances
> where it is used to speak of the "Lord's brother"? A quick look at
> the concordance reveals that there are not.
Huh? We're already agreed that "brother of the Lord" was a title specific to
James.
> And given that tradition,
> and other passages, teaches that James was Jesus' natural brother, why
> can't we be safe in concluding this to be Paul's meaning as well?
Because there is another verse in which Paul uses the phrase "brothers of the
Lord" to describe people who have no blood relationship to Jesus: 1 Corinthians
9:5.
"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles,
and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (KJV)
Note that the word translated "sister" is "adelphen," and the word translated
"brethren" is "adelphoi." But Paul is plainly not using "sister" to mean a
literal "sister" - he's using it in apposition to "wife", as a further
descriptive term, meaning a fellow Christian. (The NIV translates it as, "Don't
we have the right to take along a believing wife...?") But if this is the case,
then the "brethren" must also be a generic term for Christians (as, indeed, this
word was standard usage in mystery religions to describe fellow initiates and is
used in this sense even today). But these Christians are described as "brethren
of the Lord" (NIV: "Lord's brothers"). If "brother of the Lord" can simply mean
a fellow Christian, is it that difficult to believe that "*the* brother of the
Lord" was just some kind of title in whatever group James belonged to?
<...>
> >>As I have pointed out and surely will do so again, no epistle ever
> places
> >>Christ's death and resurrection in any earthly setting, in any
> earthly time >>or place. You could search the corpus of epistles in
> vain for a single
> >> mention of
> >>"Calvary", "Golgotha", "Jerusalem", or any other place names related
> to the
> >>gospels' passion story. Indeed, Paul and the other epistle writers,
> >>throughout
> >>the first century, show not a speck of interest in any of the places
> today
> >>venerated by Christians as holy sites. Earl Doherty says it better
> than I >>could:
>
> http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/siltop20.htm
>
> (Scroll down to #20.)
>
> Ok, first off, I'm not familiar with Earl Doherty or his work. I'm a
> bit cautious of reading stuff on the internet as certain truth.
I'm not asking you to accept anything I say as certain truth. I'm asking you to
evaluate the arguments I put forward for yourself and reach your own conclusion.
> Is his work widely accepted by other bible scholars?
I doubt it. ;)
> Does it matter either way? I don't know.
I wouldn't say it matters, unless you believe views different from the
majority's can never be correct.
> The point is, you seem to be very heavily influenced by this one view
> of this one scholar. But do other reasonable views exist? Have you
> considered them?
That depends rather heavily on what one's personal conception of what a
"reasonable view" is, doesn't it? FWIW, I've read Lee Strobel's "The Case for
Christ," in part of which he specifically attempted to build a case for the
historical Jesus, and then I read Earl Doherty's rebuttal. There wasn't even any
contest; Doherty blew him away.
> It sort of seems to me that you read Doherty,
> thought about it a bit, accepted it, and now take it as gospel.
Um... is there a problem with that? I agree: I read Doherty, thought about his
arguments, decided they were convincing, accepted them, and now defend them
against other views. Why do you ask?
> The problem I have with the view that he articulates in the little bit
> that I read is that it assumes his conclusion. I see him doing
> something like this:
>
> 1. Paul was deriving his beliefs from a mystery religion school of
> thought, which held that a spiritual redeemer would be sacrificied in
> a mystical plane.
>
> 2. If Paul was not doing this, he would explicitly make reference to
> the names of people and places that Christ actually encountered.
>
> 3. If Christ was real, epistle writers would have used Him, and
> events from His life, in examples in their letters.
>
> 4. The instances where the epistle writers do talk about Christ as if
> he were a real, physical person, they actually mean something else.
>
>
> The problem I have with all of this is that 1 is the belief that he
> starts with,
No, it's not the belief he starts with; it's his argued conclusion *derived*
from silences, both positive and negative, to be found throughout the gospels.
He says, and I think rightly, that the silences of the epistles are too
widespread and pervasive to be counterbalanced by a bare handful of verses that
*might* indicate some association to a historical man, particularly when those
verses have equally good explanations in the mythicist context.
> and 2 and 3 are HUGE assumptions. Does the fact that
> Paul doesn't explicitly say "Jesus died at Calvary" mean that Paul
> thinks Jesus died in a spiritual plane? Not necessarily. And Doherty
> uses 1 as an interpretive filter, to justify 4. When the writer of
> Hebrews refers to Christ suffering "outside the gate", the fact that
> Paul doesn't directly say "Jerusalem" is grounds for Doherty to
> spiritualize the whole thing.
No, that's not at all the case. As Doherty points out, Hebrews 13 explains that
the gate it's speaking of is the gate of "the camp" (13:13 - note that nowhere
does it say this is a *city* gate). The Greek there is "parembole," which means
a fortified military camp, and is used in the Pentateuch to refer to the
temporary settlements the Israelites built in the wilderness of Sinai. This is
to be expected, since the author of Hebrews is trying to draw parallels between
the Jewish Day of Atonement rite, conducted in the movable tabernacle in the
wilderness, and Jesus' sacrifice. Truthfully, it's the comparison to the Gospels
here that's more strained than my interpretation.
> I don't know. I suppose that you are right that I've been "corrupted"
> by the Gospels, but my personal view is that the Epistles ONLY make
> sense if they are talking about a real person who came to and died in
> the real world. I don't see them being anywhere near as spiritual.
> That's not to say they aren't really deep, so much as to say that
> become nonsensical very quickly if you start looking at them as being
> purely spiritual.
Can you justify why this statement on your part doesn't make this debate a waste
of time for both of us? I'm not asking this to be hostile or insulting; I'm
merely saying that, if you start with the preconceived belief that the epistles
*only* make sense if they're talking about a real person, I don't think this
discussion is going to go anywhere. Aren't you "assuming your conclusion" as you
said above?
The problem is that you're letting a silence stand for the very thing that's not
in evidence. I agree and you agree that this situation invites a natural and
compelling parallel to the Jews' killing of Jesus. *But Paul does not make any
such parallel.* That's the important thing. All you're doing is reading into
these verses what you think *should* be there - assuming that Paul probably
meant to make a parallel with the human Jesus, and so you feel confident in
declaring that his intention, even though he never, ever says so himself. What
you call "masterful subtlety," I call an inexplicable omission - inexplicable,
that is, if Paul knew of and believed in a human Jesus.
> If the latter was the case, then what did Paul mean in 1 Thess 2:15: "
> [the Jews] both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have
> persecuted us..." Did the Jews "spiritually" kill Jesus in a
> "spiritual" plane? Of course not! Again, the simplest interpretation
> makes the most sense here.
1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 is a later interpolation, and that's not just my opinion
or Earl Doherty's, it's the opinion of a wide range of critical scholars. I can
list names on request, but I'm sure you'd prefer the reasons why they feel that
way, so I'll provide those instead for now.
-Verse 16 says of the Jews, "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost," a
pretty clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the
Jewish War. This only happened after Paul's death, however.
-The sentiments expressed in this verse are foreign to Paul's theology. Paul
wasn't an anti-Semite, he didn't hate the Jews, he didn't wish evil upon them.
Paul *was* a Jew. But the venom in these verses is unmistakable. Compare Romans
11:1-2: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.... God hath not
cast away his people which he foreknew." And now 1 Thess 2:15-16: "[the Jews]
killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they
please not God, and are contrary to all men... the wrath is come upon them to
the uttermost."
<...>
> I think this is just your critique of Paul's rhetoric, though. If you
> don't think Paul argues compellingly, and that he passes up a good
> opportunity for a nice parallel, that's one thing. To say that's
> evidence that he's not aware of an external reality, though, is a big
> leap of logic.
Right now I should say something I'll probably have to repeat later: *If* this
was the only example of this kind of bizarre silence to be found in the
epistles, you'd be right. But it's not, not by a long shot. This kind of thing
happens over and over. The epistle writers never say anything about Jesus' birth
or parents, even when they're specifically discussing mothers and sons and the
inheritance of the divine promise. They never mention a single one of Jesus'
miracles (his resurrection being the obvious exception), even when they talk
about how faith can heal the sick or protect one from demonic powers. They never
place his death and resurrection - they never specifically place his *life* - in
any earthly place or any earthly time; none of them ever mention any of the holy
places from the gospel story, even when they write that all they care about is
to know and share in Jesus' sufferings. They never mention that Jesus had
appointed disciples, even when they're arguing about who is a legitimate
follower of his and who has authority to speak in his name. They never mention
Jesus' teachings on the OT law, even when they're debating whether it's still
valid or not. They very frequently (around 200 times in the NT corpus by Earl
Doherty's count) quote teachings about love, mercy, forgiveness, etc., that are
extremely similar to Jesus' gospel pronouncements - but never, not once, do they
specifically attribute any of them to him, not even with a simple "as Jesus
himself said".
For each of these instances considered individually, you might well argue that
this epistle writer on this specific occasion simply decided not to specifically
mention Jesus, even if such a mention would be natural and compelling. But the
more of these instances there are, the more strained this explanation becomes.
As Earl Doherty says, it's like flipping a coin. If you get a few heads in a
row - two, or five, or eight - it's not that big a deal. If you get 200 heads in
a row, something is wrong, and some other explanation needs to be sought. This
overall pattern is the context of my argument. I'm not just lining up isolated
silences; I'm arguing that each one is one piece of a larger puzzle.
<...>
But as I said, this analogy is bad. Job was hardly a model of "patient
endurance" - he lost his temper and demanded that God explain himself, and even
then he didn't get what he was waiting for (an explanation for the cause of his
suffering). James had a much better example of this quality close at hand, yet
for some reason he chose not to use it.
> In contrast, Christ's
> patience wasn't a "waiting expectantly" kind of patience, but rather,
> an "endurance through temporal suffering" kind of patience.
Come on. James 5:6 says, "Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not
resist you." You really think it's reasonable to conclude that such a statement
wouldn't merit even a reference to Jesus, from his own brother nonetheless?
Don't you think it's strange that when seeking for an example of "suffering
affliction, and of patience," the best James can do is "the prophets"?
> So maybe
> it's just not as perfect an analogy as with Job and the prophets, or
> at least, maybe James didn't think it was. Does that mean He didn't
> believe in a real Christ? Not necessarily.
As I said, explanations could be vouchsafed for specific instances of this
neglect (though I don't think yours is particularly strong here). But my purpose
is to show that each such instance fits into a larger pattern.
> >-Hebrews 12:15-16 - a silence that should be beyond belief. The
> author of
> >Hebrews is trying to provide an example of a "root of bitterness"
> growing in >the community, a man falling from the grace of God and
> causing suffering for >many. Who could be a more obvious example than
> the gospel figure of Judas,
> >the archetypal traitor who, jealous and deceitful, sold the Son of
> God to an >unjust and torturous death for thirty pieces of silver? But
> no - the best he >can do is the OT figure of Esau. It is not the
> selling of Jesus' life for >silver that leaps to his mind, but rather
> the selling of a birthright for a >meal. Why this unbelievable
> omission? How can his behavior be explained - >ignoring the perfect
> and obvious example of exactly the point he was trying
> >to make in favor of one much more distant and less applicable? Esau
> had a
> >motive: he wasn't bitter, he was starving. Judas had no such excuse.
>
> Well, again, I don't know why the writer chose this analogy.
I think the silence here is too profound to merit dismissal with a verbal shrug.
The writer of Hebrews is specifically trying to provide an example of "one among
you who forfeits the grace of God... [a] bitter, noxious weed to poison the
whole" (NEB). I say this situation positively screams for a mention of Judas.
And the best the writer could do was *Esau*?
> (incidentally, I don't know if the writer is saying that Esau was
> bitter; I think he's instead considering him a "fornicator or profane
> person", and that, combined with the "root of bitterness" fall under
> the larger umbrella of people who "failed the grace of God".)
Okay, but do you agree with me that a reference to Judas would seem to fit the
point the writer is trying to make far better here? (Was Esau even a "fornicator
or profane person"?)
> But in the same chapter, the writer says this:
>
> "...let us set aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily
> beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
> looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the
> joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,
> and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider
> him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, let ye
> be wearied and faint in your minds."
>
> So here's an example where the writer does use Christ's sacrifice as
> an analogy to make a point. He specifically refers to the Cross, but
> true, not to Calvary. Does that mean the sacrifice took place in a
> "heavenly realm"? Or Lansing, Michigan? Or Uranus? In verse 3, the
> writer talks about Christ enduring the "contradiction of sinners".
> Was this part of the heavenly sacrifice? Who were the sinners who
> were brought into the "perfect" heavenly realm to belittle Christ?
This verse is far too vague for you to read that much into it. It's Christian
dogma, isn't it, that while hanging on the cross Jesus took all the sins of the
world upon himself? I.e., he endured the "contradiction" of sinners for their
own sake? Could this be what that's referring to? (Earl Doherty points out that
this is indeed the way more than one critical scholar reads this passage.)
<...>
Well, you did refer to Jesus as "He", using the capitalized pronoun; that's not
something atheists usually do, in my experience.
> You certainly
> don't know enough from my response to conclude that I am a Christian.
> But I agree, it is the most warranted conclusion, and indeed, the only
> one that really makes sense.
I've debated atheists who do think there was a historical Jesus. I wouldn't be
surprised if you weren't a Christian.
<...>
> >> But ultimately, His primary benefit to us was His
> >> sacrificial death, which broke the prison of sin that separates us
> >> from God. The primary benefit of the Holy Spirit is the
> empowerment
> >> to actually live out the life that Christ called us to, despite
> being
> >> trapped in a "body of death", as Paul puts it, that keeps us from
> >> doing the will of God. And that's what He's talking about here.
> You
> >> make a good point, but He doesn't omit Christ as a "gift" because
> of
> >> ignorance of Christ; rather, it's because he's making a different
> >> point here.
>
> >Christ's sacrifice was a gift, I agree. But what Paul is trying to do
> here >is list the gifts that God has directly given to his followers
> on earth -
> > hence the mention of the shadowing of the Holy Spirit.
>
> This is not at all what Paul is trying to do here. He's contrasting
> our "earthly" and "heavenly" tabernacles. See more on this below.
No, this is exactly what Paul is trying to do here. Compare 2 Cor 1:21-22: "Now
it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set
his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,
guaranteeing what is to come." (NIV) Now see 5:5: "Now it is God who has made us
for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing
what is to come." Clearly, these two thoughts are analogous and complementary,
linked by the phrase "guaranteeing what is to come." But in both cases, Paul
views God's "guarantee" to believers of their future eternal life not as Jesus,
but the Holy Spirit.
Strange, wouldn't you say? I was always under the impression that Jesus'
miracles - healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, etc. -
pointed toward the time of God's future kingdom on earth, when all these things
would be routine and universal, not rare miraculous interventions. Wouldn't
Jesus' miracles prefiguring the Kingdom be a *perfect* "guarantee of what is to
come"? Yet Paul doesn't even cast a glance in their direction.
<...>
> >>> To prove this, check out Romans 5:15 "But the free gift is not
> like
> >>> the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much
> more
> >>> have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one
> man
> >>> Jesus Christ abounded for many." Note that he refers to Jesus as
> a
> >>> "man" here. Note that he also demonstrates an awareness of the
> fact
> >>> that Christ's life and death were a gift for us.
>
> >I would also point out that you neglected to mention verse 5:7, "For
> we walk >by faith, not by sight." Weren't Jesus' handpicked disciples
> still alive
> >when Paul wrote this? Weren't there people who saw him with their own
> eyes,
> > who heard him preach with their own ears, who felt the hem of his garment,
> > who were eyewitness to his miracles? These people *do* "walk by sight,"
> >don't they? I would argue that Paul is expressing himself as if
> Jesus' very
> > existence were a matter of faith.
>
> First, were any of the disciples at Corinth? If not, then Paul is
> writing to those who haven't physically seen Christ.
The "we" refers to Christians in general. Given that, at the time of this
letter's writing, there still should have been people alive who had physically
seen Jesus, it would have been somewhat inappropriate at best for Paul to
denigrate them and instead emphasize faith over sight.
> More to the
> point, though, the verse 7 is talking about a future, heavenly
> dwelling. My interpretation is that Paul is saying we necessarily
> can't "see" our future dwelling; nevertheless, in this life, despite
> tribulation, we are able to become like the kind of people who can put
> on that eternal form; and, that it is through the help of the Spirit,
> God's gift to us, by which we are able to do this. So again, be
> careful about the verse distinctions -- they aren't part of the
> Epistle in any meaningful sense, and I think here, they have
> facilitated your lifting this one clause from its context in an
> imprecise way.
I think you're again letting preconceptions guide your interpretation of this
verse. As for the "out of context" charge, let me point out two other verses
that say the same thing:
Romans 8:24: "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope
at all. Who hopes for what he already has?"
1 Peter 1:8-9: "These (trials) have come so that your faith... may be proved
genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him
now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious
joy..."
> >> > -Ephesians 3:4-5 in which Paul says knowledge of Jesus comes only
> through
> >> > revelation of the Holy Spirit.
<...>
> >My original quote wasn't a misquote, it was the KJV: "Whereby, when
> ye read, >ye
> >may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other
> ages >was
> >not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
> holy
> >apostles and prophets by the Spirit."
>
> No! Your original quote spoke of "knowledge of Christ", but here, you
> correctly quote it as "the mystery of Christ". In verse 7, Paul goes
> on to explain what that mystery is.
Okay, granted - I misread that. Still, I don't think it weakens my point too
much, as I wrote just below.
> >But even using your translation, my point remains. Read verses 5-6.
> What has
> >been revealed by the Holy Spirit? That the Gentiles should be
> partakers of >the new covenant also. Fine. But you haven't solved the
> problem here. Didn't >Jesus himself teach this?
>
> You tell me. Is there a Gospel reference where He did?
Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19, perhaps?
> > Wasn't he the one who said salvation was now open
> > to all? Again, why do these verses only represent that knowledge as having >
come through a revelation of the Spirit?
>
> If Christ did say that (He did, but parabolically -- "I have sheep
> that are not of this fold"), the disciples clearly didn't apprehend
> it, hence their reaction in Acts 10 to the receipt of the Holy Spirit
> by Gentiles.
That just isn't the case. According to 10:45, only the converted Jewish
believers were surprised by this. Peter makes it clear in 10:34-35 that this is
nothing that should be surprising or unexpected; he already knew that God
accepts all kinds of people.
> (And Acts was written by Luke (probably), who also wrote
> a Gospel, thus, if we can assume he was a little bit internally
> consistent, we can conclude that the disciples really didn't "get it"
> until Christ died. That's ok, because this clearly wasn't the only
> saying of His that they didn't understand). In fact, it's through a
> revelation from the Spirit by which the stage is even set for Peter to
> be present when Gentiles receive the Spirit, and it totally shocks
> him.
I fail to see where, if anywhere, Acts says that Peter was surprised by this.
Provide chapter and verse, please.
<...>
I don't think the Greek supports that interpretation. Strong's Concordance gives
the following meaning for "chorizo", which is the word translated there as
"separate":
5563 chorizo kho-rid'-zo from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part;
reflexively, to go away:-- depart, put asunder, separate.
> This fits well with the conception that Christ, even
> while in the flesh, lived a sinless life, which, incidentally, was why
> he was eligible to be a sacrifice for our sin in the first place.
>
> The "true tabernacle" in 8:2 is talking about the presence of God,
> which Christ, by His sacrifice, and by His status as "a minister of
> the sanctuary, and the true tabernacle" is now eligible to enter.
> 9:12 says "neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
> blood he entered once into the holy place." So nowhere does Hebrews
> say that He made His sacrifice IN this holy tabernacle. On the
> contrary, it says that by His sacrifice, He has obtained His position
> in the tabernacle.
The entrance into the heavenly tabernacle with his own blood was the culminating
part of the sacrifice. The writer of Hebrews is attempting to draw a parallel
with the Jewish Day of Atonement rite; in this ritual, the priest slaughters an
animal outside the tent and then enters into the tent with the blood. It is this
latter part that produces atonement, not the slaughter outside the tent which
produced the blood in the first place.
> I think that the reason you juxtaposed the verses this way is because
> of your preconception that Christ sacrificed himself in a spiritual
> realm; no such interpretation is actually contained in the verses.
In that case, please cite verses from Hebrews that depict Christ's sacrifice as
having taken place on earth.
<...>
> >"[Jesus] had lived on earth, he had been human in his incarnation,
> and human
> >blood, the blood of matter, coursed in his veins. It was shed on a
> hill on
> >earth, material, red and sticky. The sacrifice--or at least an
> essential >part of
> >it, a part which the tradition he (i.e., the writer of Hebrews)
> supposedly
> >received would certainly have regarded as essential--took place in
> the >earthly
> >realm, in the world of the transient, unreal copy of the heavenly.
> But such >an earthly dimension would shatter his Platonic comparison.
> It would >irreparably contaminate the purity of the earth / heaven,
> high priest / High > Priest contrast on which his whole theology is
> based.
>
> This contrast is based on the location of the ministry; priests talked
> to God from Earth, by way of sacrifices. Christ, the High Priest, by
> having offering the perfect sacrifice (Himself), now talks to God in
> Heaven.
Where did you get "now" from? That concept isn't in Hebrews, that's for sure.
(As Earl Doherty says, 8:4 itself does not say anything like: "If he were *now*
on earth, he would not be a priest...") Again I ask you: can you produce any
verse from Hebrews that indicates Christ had an earthly ministry?
> >The sacrifice had not been confined to the heavenly realm. It had a
> foot in >both camps, and thus to some extent the writer
> >would be comparing an earthly thing with another earthly thing.
>
> >At the very least, he would have had to address this anomaly. He
> would have >had to explain why 'human' blood shed on earth could at
> the same time be >spiritual and cleanse the heavenly sanctuary (9:23).
>
> Because Christ was God in the flesh! Because He wasn't corrupted by
> Adam's "original sin", and because He lived a sin-free life.
> "Heavenly" things aren't perfect simply by virtue of being "heavenly";
> rather, something is "heavenly" by the fact of its perfection.
> Christ's sacrifice wasn't perfect because of where it was made, but by
> virtue of the perfection of the sacrifice.
Such a justification is exactly what Hebrews itself fails to provide. Do you see
how you're making my point for me?
> >He would have had to justify why,
> >when every Christian circle around him (presumably) thought of
> Christ's
> >sacrifice in terms of its occurrence on Calvary, he has ignored such
> a venue >and placed it in heaven.
>
> This is a misreading of the text. True, the writer doesn't mention
> Calvary, but neither does He place Christ's sacrifice in heaven;
> rather, he places Christ in heaven as a high priest, as a result of
> (and subsequent to) His sacrifice.
Again: If you think Hebrews only places Christ in heaven "subsequent to" his
sacrifice, then please quote any verse from Hebrews that places him on earth
before that.
> [snip]
>
> >> Verse 4 does not say that Christ never came to
> >> earth, of course;
>
> >"Of course"? Be wary of assuming your conclusion.
>
> Yes, assuming the conclusion is bad, but I haven't. It's a simple
> fact: the verse doesn't say "Christ never came to earth". It says "if
> he were on earth", ie, He is not, now, on earth. Does that mean he
> never was? Not necessarily.
Okay, I think I can better communicate my point here with an example from a more
neutral setting. You said you graduated from Binghamton. Let's say you and I are
corresponding, writing letters about a common friend. I write this to you:
"If he were in Binghamton, he wouldn't be taking calculus."
Context aside for the moment, which is a more natural way of interpreting this
statement?
A) Our mutual friend actually did go to Binghamton at one time, and didn't take
calculus while he was there.
B) Our mutual friend never did go to Binghamton, but if he had, he wouldn't have
taken calculus.
I would suggest that (B) is the more natural and less forced way to interpret
this statement. If I wanted to convey the sentiment in (A), I would write
something like, "While he was in Binghamton...", or, "If he was still in
Binghamton..." - wouldn't you?
And I would suggest the situation with Hebrews 8:4 is the same. I mean, under
your interpretation, I don't think this verse makes any sense. If the writer
really had meant that Jesus *was* on earth once and hadn't been a priest then,
why would he bother to say that he wouldn't do it *now* either? That's such a
trivial and irrelevant point.
But I think it makes more sense if the writer was trying to draw a Platonic
parallel. Why wouldn't Jesus be a priest if he were on earth? Christians would
probably say that it's because his death and resurrection have superseded the
old covenant of priestly sacrifices, and made them unnecessary - but that's not
what Hebrews says. Rather, Hebrews says that, if Jesus were on earth, he
wouldn't be a priest, "since there are (already) priests (on earth) who offer
gifts according to the law." (I think the terms I added in parentheses are
implicit here; let me know if you disagree with either of them.) The role of
priest was "taken" on earth, so to speak; it was in heaven where Jesus could
conduct his analogous but more perfect ministry and offer a single sacrifice for
all time.
> >> it simply says that His role as a priest wouldn't be
> >> as meaningful on earth, because there were already priests offering
> >> sacrifices based on Aaronic practices.
>
> >Exactly! But how on earth could any Christian writer think this way,
> how >could
> >any Christian writer express himself this way? "Wouldn't be as
> meaningful"? >Are
> >you saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't as effective as it could have
> been? >That
> >the priests "crowded him out"?
>
> No, of course not. Rather, I'm saying that His role was not to come
> and take over for the priests, by burning offerings; there already was
> an order of priests for that. His purpose was to BE the sacrifice,
> and not only that, but to begin a new kind of priesthood, one which is
> a "more excellent ministry"; He's "the mediator of a better covenant,
> which was established on better promises." It's saying that His point
> wasn't to remain on earth, but to become a high priest at the right
> hand of the throne of majesty -- it's the perfect priesthood, of which
> the Aaronic priesthood was the "example and shadow".
You left out a rather crucial bit of context with that last quote. 8:5 says the
priests are the "example and shadow *of heavenly things*". Was Jesus' sacrifice
a "heavenly thing"? No doubt, you would say, in one sense it was; fine. But
wasn't Jesus' sacrifice also an "earthly thing" in another, equally important
sense? If so, don't you think this fact would have significantly muddied the
waters of the comparison the writer is trying to make here?
Given that the Council of Nicaea is more than two hundred years in the future at
this point; given that Trinitarian theology as modern Christians understand it
didn't exist yet; given that the true nature of Jesus was thereby far from
determinate, far from universally understood and agreed upon, at the time
Hebrews was written - isn't it reasonable to think that the writer should have
devoted at least *some* space to explaining why this isn't an invalid
comparison? Shouldn't we expect an explanation from him as to how Jesus'
material, mortal, vulnerable human body, his sticky, red blood staining a wooden
cross and dripping onto dusty soil, could simultaneously be "heavenly things"
that would fulfill the qualification Hebrews sets forth?
But, of course, Hebrews feels no need to present any such explanation. It's as
if the writer didn't even expect this to be an issue with anyone.
Now, reading the Bible almost two thousand years later, with the nature of
Christ well worked out and widely agreed upon, it's easy for you to impose that
consensus on the text and say that what "everyone knows" now is the same as what
"everyone knew" then. But I say that's not at all the case. (At Nicaea, a *huge*
controversy erupted over *one single letter* in the description of Jesus'
nature.) Again I warn you: Be extremely cautious of imposing modern-day
preconceptions on an ancient text. Not to be insulting, but based on comments
you've already made I fear you're doing this, not just with Hebrews, but with
the entire New Testament canon, and as a result I fear you may completely miss
or fail to see the thrust of many of my arguments.
Yes, as I said: the tense. "It is evident that our Lord has sprung from Judah."
If you're asking for this verse to have a footnote reading: "* By this we mean
the heavenly version of the earthly tribe," well, no, of course there isn't any
such thing. That this is what was meant by this verse is an argued conclusion,
based on evidence of the mindset of the times and other verses that I think
clearly exclude the possibility of a historical man being intended.
> or that any
> interpretation of the OT prophecies could lead to such a status?
Not in the canonical Bible. However, parallels exist among apocryphal works. For
instance, the Jewish Similitudes of Enoch, written probably mid-first century,
regards the members of the sect who wrote it as being represented by a heavenly
champion, the Son of Man, who embodied and defined the characteristics they
viewed themselves as having.
> Furthermore, how could Christ "spiritually" descend from a heavenly
> tribe? What does being a spiritual descendent mean?
Beats me. Paul does say Jesus is a "mystery". But this isn't a problem with my
argument, it's a problem with the modern mindset - we just don't think in these
terms anymore, so it can be difficult to comprehend someone who did.
> Paul does >something
> >similar in Galatians 4, where he says Jesus is "made of a woman" and
> then >goes
> >on to explain how this is an allegory (he uses that specific word) -
> the >"woman"
> >is the heavenly Jerusalem.
>
> I disagree with this. Galatians 4:4 talks about how God sends His
> Son, born of a woman. He then changes the subject, and then in verse
> 23 and 24, he says that Isaac and Ishmael (he doesn't use their names)
He does mention Isaac by name in 4:28.
> are an allegory for two covenants. Moreover, the word "allegory" is
> used in the KJV, true. Did "allegory" mean the same thing then that
> it means now? For example, the KJV also uses "science" (1 Tim 6:20)
> and "replenish" (Gen 1:28) and a bunch of other words that have
> changed meanings in English since then. Is "allegory" such a one?
Not that I'm aware of. The Greek is "allegoreo" - it's essentially the same
word.
> Let's say that it means the same as today. Ok, fine. But I think you
> have to do more work to show that Jesus being "made of a woman"
> (again, keeping in mind that "made" is perhaps in KJV English) is
> included in the allegory.
Galatians 4:4: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his
Son, made of a woman, made under the law."
Compare 4:26: "But Jerusalem which is above (i.e., the heavenly Jerusalem) is
free, which is the mother of us all."
> And even if so, I think you have a lot more
> work to show that this relates in a meaningful way to Christ being
> descended from a "spiritual" tribe.
What I'm attempting to show is that the idea of "descent" in an allegorical
sense was not an unfamiliar concept to the epistle writers. Paul regards the
heavenly archetype of Jerusalem as "the mother of us all".
Because the Old Testament prophecies said he would be, and any candidate claimed
to be the messiah, spiritual or not, had to fulfill those prophecies.
> This is maybe debatable.
>
> It seems we are destined for a debate about Greek here. Do you know
> Greek? I, personally, do not. I am also not the least bit impressed
> by the fact that "Earl Doherty knows Greek". Other scholars do as
> well, and yet have reached different conclusions.
They're not conclusions, I would say, as much as a priori assumptions that, up
until now, have almost never been questioned.
> It seems to me that
> you (or E.D., or whoever) are trying to leverage this one unusual word
> choice to a huge conclusion
If you don't think this is a valid argument, what alternative explanation can
you present for this "unusual" word choice?
> -- the writer was simply trying to appeal
> to the Jews by virtue of having Christ arise from a "heavenly tribe of
> Judah", thus fulfilling the clear word of prophecy that Jesus would be
> a descendent of Judah. But I don't think this is well supported by
> the document itself.
The question you should be asking is whether it's supported by similar documents
from the historical context of the time. (I note that you offered no alternative
explanation as to why Hebrews says Christ "has sprung" from Judah, the timeless
present perfect, rather than simple past-tense "was sprung" as we would expect
if the writer had had a recent historical person in mind; also, I argued that
the verb "sprung" [anatellein] does not necessarily mean "birth" in the human
sense, but rather has a broader meaning of "becoming", and is used in other
messianic passages.) What you should want to know is, is there evidence that
other ancient writers (both Christians and not) also thought of the world as
operating in this way, heaven the mirror image and primary archetype of earth? I
would argue that there is.
Doherty, for instance, quotes a fourth-century writer named Julian the Apostate
who writes of the savior god Attis as existing in a heavenly realm where "the
substance which is subject to change mingles with the passionless revolving
sphere of the fifth substance," a world that is not "matter itself, but the
lowest non-material cause which subsists prior to matter," the "connecting link"
between forms set in matter and forms that transcend matter. Again, while this
is a worldview difficult for a twenty-first-century mind to grasp, the concept
*did* exist in the ancient world.
<...>
--
I'm materialist
Call me a humanist
I guess I'm full of doubt
So I'll gladly have it out with you...
--Bad Religion, "Materialist"
Jeff Warrender
Thanks for your reply. It's very long, so it will take me a little
time to get a full reply out. So, I thought I'd first send out a
preliminary reply to deal with what I see as "preliminary" matters,
and then I'll post my response to the actual content of your post and
analysis of the relevant scriptures. I'll comment on four things
here.
1. Earl Doherty
2. Greek
3. 21st century mindset
4. The likely outcome of this conversation
1. Earl Doherty
> >
> > Great, but let's make a deal. I could do all sorts of web searching
> > for apologetics sites that could help me address all of these points,
> > but I think it's more productive if we try to do this on our own. In
> > reciprocity, might I suggest that you continue the dialogue with no
> > further help from Earl Doherty? Let's see how far we can go with our
> > own understandings of these matters. The alternative becomes a
> > discussion where we cut and paste from Doherty/refutations to Doherty,
> > and that's not all that interesting.
>
> I don't conduct discussions by simply posting links to pages I didn't read
> or quoting reams of text; that would hardly be honest or fair. I put all my
> arguments in my own words, though I may quote and link to short passages
> when I think they make a point particularly well.
I'm sorry if I've put you on the defensive here; I wasn't saying at
all that you are not thorough, or don't do your homework. As I've
said before, I don't see you as one of the "here are 315 links to
Bible Contradictions" type of poster. But for the purposes of this
discussion, I am asking the question: who am I ultimately debating
with -- you, or Earl Doherty?
The reason I ask is not to make you look bad, but rather, to precisely
define my goals and objectives for this conversation. The reason I
initially posted was because I felt that you presented some analysis
of verses that was inaccurate. I presented some counter-verses, and
will continue to do so, and what I want to know is, when I give you a
counter-verse, what is your response --to (a) pick up the Bible and
see what it says, or (b) see what Earl Doherty has to say about that
verse? If it's (a), do you (1) draft your response and post it, or
(2) draft your response, but then check with Earl Doherty's website to
see if your answer is "right"?
The point here is, I can use Google to get at Doherty's thoughts on
this matter, and can therefore inform myself of his opinion.
Similarly, just as you can quote (or cast into your own words)
Doherty's work in forming your argument, I can quote the work of
scholars who have attempted to refute Doherty, but again, you have
access to that information already, so it hardly seems productive for
me to take up your time lobbing someone else's arguments.
I understand that your thinking has been influenced by Doherty, and
that it would be impossible to divorce yourself from that -- perfectly
fine. What I'm asking is for the purposes of this conversation, that
you refrain from further visits to Doherty's sites or books, and in
reciprocity, I will completely stay away from apologetic
interpretations of these verses (as I have so far). The reason I make
this request is, again, because you stated that you don't accept the
historicity of Jesus based on conflicts YOU perceive between the Bible
and Epistles. Let's see if you can have this conversation with no
outside help, to see if you really understand it. It works the same
way for me; if I can't make a good argument against you and Doherty
without outside help, maybe I don't really understand these matters as
well as I think.
In short, I am not asking for this thread to arbitrate whether the
epistles do or do not present a consonant view of Jesus; I'm asking
for it to arbitrate whether either of us can demonstrate whether it
does or does not. If you'd prefer not to participate further under
those conditions, that is fine.
A little more about ED: we had this exchange...
> > Ok, first off, I'm not familiar with Earl Doherty or his work. I'm a
> > bit cautious of reading stuff on the internet as certain truth.
>
> I'm not asking you to accept anything I say as certain truth. I'm asking you to
> evaluate the arguments I put forward for yourself and reach your own conclusion.
Oops, I wasn't talking about the fact that you and I are debating on
the internet; I was talking about the extensive work that Earl Doherty
has published on the internet. As I said, just because somebody wrote
something and put it on the internet, I'm very careful about "taking
their word for it". My guess is that you are too.
>
> > Is his work widely accepted by other bible scholars?
>
> I doubt it. ;)
>
> > Does it matter either way? I don't know.
>
> I wouldn't say it matters, unless you believe views different from the
> majority's can never be correct.
Right, and I emphatically don't believe this. But the problem here
is, Christianity has been around for a long time, and all of that time
has been closer to the "first century" then we are today. Why did no
one ever think of this stuff before? Why did we need Earl Doherty to
show us the light?
As for views different from the majority, here's a common argument put
forward by supporters of evolution in cases like Cobb County and Ohio
-- "Virtually all practicing scientists affirm that evolution has
happened." Do you think that this is a valid arguing tactic? After
all, it is a bit hard to believe that so many very bright scientists
could be so badly mistaken, or could be so influenced by their
mindsets that they'd go in such a wrong direction, right?
So perhaps the appeal to popularity isn't logically rigorous, but I
think it should make us question very seriously why such a broad
consensus has emerged concerning a specific fact, if it seems to us
that the consensus is so obviously wrong; maybe there's just something
that we are missing.
2. Greek
Throughout your response, you say things like "the Greek word here is
[....], which means ‘ [....]', but not ‘[....]'." I asked, but was
not answered, whether you know Greek. I am going to assume that you
do not. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have already said, I don't
know Greek. As such, I'm very uncomfortable with this discussion
becoming about Greek grammar and usage. If there's no way to have the
conversation without invoking the Greek, then I really think it's
better to not have the conversation, because we are not experts, and
should be careful about having a discussion where we're relying
exclusively on other experts.
A word about translators: You say at one point...
>this is an excellent example of how translators have
> read the epistles with gospel preconceptions fixed in mind.
Here, you are accusing translators of having a bias that clouded the
correct interpretation of the verse.
(First, let me say as an aside that I also have no tolerance for
translators with an agenda; they do the Word of God no credit by
reading into it what they think it should say. I very much oppose the
new "gender-inclusive" NIV, that replaces all the masculine personal
pronouns with gender-neutral personal pronouns. You just can't do
that stuff)
The problem I have with this, though, is, again, do you know Greek?
Then how can you fairly level this charge at them? Maybe there is
some subtlety to interpreting the language, and maybe one is allowed
to interpret within a certain context (ie, the immediate context of
the verse/chapter/book/canon?) in such a way that the Bible has, in
fact, been rendered faithfully.
I think your assumption of a bias here is unfair to the translators.
These people believe themselves to be entrusted with translating the
very Word of God into their own language. Sure, some may want to
manipulate it to their own beliefs, but others will recognize the
seriousness of that task and try to perform it as faithfully and
accurately as they can. (It's the same kind of argument that says
"the gospels can't be trusted as historical accounts because the
writers had a spiritual agenda"; but the whole point was, their
spiritual agenda was to record the truth as accurately as possible,
because God must be worshipped in "Spirit and in truth". ) So just
because someone has an agenda, it doesn't preclude them from being
accurate.
And let's be honest enough to admit that Doherty's interpretation is
also driven by an agenda. From the little bit I know of his work, he
seems to be an "evangelistic" atheist -- ie, he is not simply saying
"I don't believe in God", he is trying to falsify the beliefs of
others. He is also trying to sell books, and the best way to do that
is to be provocative, of course. If we can't trust the Bible
interpreters, I don't see how we could trust Doherty, either, if those
are the only criteria that apply.
Of course, if we both knew Greek very well, we could determine for
ourselves whose interpretation was the more accurate. Seeing as how
we don't, though, it seems we have to to someone's word for it. I
have chosen to accept that the many translators who have produced the
KJV, the NIV, and other translations, knew what they were doing well
enough to give us a pretty accurate document. You have taken the side
of the "lone ranger". That's fine, of course, but I don't think
either of us is inherently "unreasonable" for siding with one or the
other...
3. A 21st century mindset
You say a few times that part of the problem is that I'm looking at
this through a 21st century mindset. That's true of course. It's
also true of you and Doherty, who also live in the 21st century.
You're saying that you're trying to look at it from a 1st century
perspective, but how have you done this? By examining original first
century documents? Or, by studying the opinions of 21st century
scholars, who claim to speak to the 1st century mindset? If the
latter, what consensus surrounds their understanding of that mindset?
How sure can we be that they have accurately understood the "1st
century mind"?
4. The likely outcome of this conversation
> Can you justify why this statement on your part doesn't make this debate a waste
> of time for both of us? I'm not asking this to be hostile or insulting; I'm
> merely saying that, if you start with the preconceived belief that the epistles
> *only* make sense if they're talking about a real person, I don't think this
> discussion is going to go anywhere. Aren't you "assuming your conclusion" as you
> said above?
This is actually a good point. Let's be honest enough to admit that
this discussion is probably not going to have the outcome of changing
either of our beliefs. To be honest, just in the reading I've done so
far in the discussion, my belief in the consonance of the Gospels and
Epistles has actually been strengthened, rather than weakened. And I
suspect that this trend will continue. Similarly, I wouldn't ask you
to prefer my opinions to Doherty's -- let's be honest, he's put a lot
more thought into this than I have, whether or not he's a fool. My
main hope is that we'd come out of this having our beliefs subjected
to critical scrutiny, which I think is an important process, and also,
that we'd both be able to point to the assumptions we're making, and
to be able to understand why they may or may not be reasonable.
But, if you think the debate is a waste of time, I understand, and
will happily agree to cessastion of the dialogue (but, please let me
know sooner rather than later, so I don't go to the trouble of
composing a long reply!) Either way, I wish you the best.
-Jeff
Adam Marczyk
I didn't think you were; I understand the point you were trying to make. I'm
sorry if I sounded unduly defensive.
Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea. What's the point of not doing
independent research? All that means is that both of us would simply be relying
on what we each already know about the subject, and in all fairness, I think
that might put you at a disadvantage. I've debated this numerous times before,
so I've used and internalized a fair amount of Doherty's material. I suspect
(though I could be wrong) that this is not a proposition you have a great deal
of experience personally defending.
I think that, by all means, we should both go to whatever other sources either
of us feels necessary or helpful, subject only to what I feel is the eminently
fair restriction that we each put any argument presented in our own words. That
way, we're both more likely to learn and get something out of this discussion.
By all means, I encourage you to go to any source you can find to counteract any
argument I make; I'm confident my position will stand up to criticism, and I
hope you would feel the same way about me.
> A little more about ED: we had this exchange...
>
> > > Ok, first off, I'm not familiar with Earl Doherty or his work. I'm a
> > > bit cautious of reading stuff on the internet as certain truth.
> >
> > I'm not asking you to accept anything I say as certain truth. I'm asking you
to
> > evaluate the arguments I put forward for yourself and reach your own
conclusion.
>
> Oops, I wasn't talking about the fact that you and I are debating on
> the internet; I was talking about the extensive work that Earl Doherty
> has published on the internet. As I said, just because somebody wrote
> something and put it on the internet, I'm very careful about "taking
> their word for it". My guess is that you are too.
> >
> > > Is his work widely accepted by other bible scholars?
> >
> > I doubt it. ;)
> >
> > > Does it matter either way? I don't know.
> >
> > I wouldn't say it matters, unless you believe views different from the
> > majority's can never be correct.
>
> Right, and I emphatically don't believe this. But the problem here
> is, Christianity has been around for a long time, and all of that time
> has been closer to the "first century" then we are today. Why did no
> one ever think of this stuff before? Why did we need Earl Doherty to
> show us the light?
Doherty is by no means the first scholar to postulate that Jesus never existed.
(Even if he was, would that automatically make him wrong? Could the Catholic
Church have used a similar argument against Galileo for first proposing
heliocentrism?)
> As for views different from the majority, here's a common argument put
> forward by supporters of evolution in cases like Cobb County and Ohio
> -- "Virtually all practicing scientists affirm that evolution has
> happened." Do you think that this is a valid arguing tactic? After
> all, it is a bit hard to believe that so many very bright scientists
> could be so badly mistaken, or could be so influenced by their
> mindsets that they'd go in such a wrong direction, right?
>
> So perhaps the appeal to popularity isn't logically rigorous, but I
> think it should make us question very seriously why such a broad
> consensus has emerged concerning a specific fact, if it seems to us
> that the consensus is so obviously wrong; maybe there's just something
> that we are missing.
I would suggest that the two situations are not comparable. Evolutionary theory
is studied and supported by a broad range of scholars from all backgrounds and
all religions. It is a scientific idea, and like every major scientific idea,
had to survive a gauntlet of harsh criticism before it became generally accepted
wisdom. No one has any confessional interest in evolution being right.
New Testament scholarship, on the other hand, is practiced largely by
Christians, for reasons that should be obvious. For these people, the hypothesis
of Jesus' existence is not a scientific theory, but a theological belief. It did
not have to survive peer review to become the generally accepted wisdom; it
never had to show it could account for the evidence better than its competitors.
It *is* defended by people who have a confessional interest in being right about
it, people who admit that they believe it first and foremost because they have
faith that it happened, not because they believe the evidence supports it. (I
can provide quotes backing this up on request.) And, unlike evolution, I would
argue that the idea of a historical Jesus has *never* been seriously questioned
by scholarship as a whole - it has largely "coasted" for two millennia, it has
been taken for granted. As Richard Carrier of the Secular Web wrote in his
review of Doherty's book, even books and papers that explicitly set out to argue
for Jesus' existence frequently take it as given.
> 2. Greek
>
> Throughout your response, you say things like "the Greek word here is
> [....], which means ' [....]', but not '[....]'." I asked, but was
> not answered, whether you know Greek. I am going to assume that you
> do not. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have already said, I don't
> know Greek. As such, I'm very uncomfortable with this discussion
> becoming about Greek grammar and usage. If there's no way to have the
> conversation without invoking the Greek, then I really think it's
> better to not have the conversation, because we are not experts, and
> should be careful about having a discussion where we're relying
> exclusively on other experts.
You're correct that I don't know Greek. However, there are online concordances
that allow anyone to look up the meanings of the Greek words underlying the
English text. (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html is one.) Sorry, but we can't
have this conversation without referring to the original language at least some
of the time. The Bible was not written in English, and I have argued that there
are numerous epistle verses where translators are blatantly guilty of
introducing Gospel associations that were not present in the meaning of the
original text. It is crucial to my argument that I show this.
[snip]
> I think your assumption of a bias here is unfair to the translators.
> These people believe themselves to be entrusted with translating the
> very Word of God into their own language. Sure, some may want to
> manipulate it to their own beliefs, but others will recognize the
> seriousness of that task and try to perform it as faithfully and
> accurately as they can.
Don't misinterpret me here; I'm not saying the translators deviously set out to
twist their translation of the Bible to make it say what they wanted. (Actually,
I think the translators of some versions *did* do this, such as the NIV; you
mentioned how they use gender-neutral pronouns, but I would instead point to
more egregious mistranslations done to "smooth out" some theologically
problematic verses. Anyway, digression ends here...) Instead, they - like you -
were working with an honest belief that the gospels and the epistles were
talking about the same deity, and quite innocently they introduced
gospel-derived ideas into their translations of the epistles. It's crucial to my
argument that I strip away these assumptions and show that the gospel ideas they
introduced do not actually exist in the original wording of the text.
> (It's the same kind of argument that says
> "the gospels can't be trusted as historical accounts because the
> writers had a spiritual agenda"; but the whole point was, their
> spiritual agenda was to record the truth as accurately as possible,
> because God must be worshipped in "Spirit and in truth". ) So just
> because someone has an agenda, it doesn't preclude them from being
> accurate.
>
> And let's be honest enough to admit that Doherty's interpretation is
> also driven by an agenda. From the little bit I know of his work, he
> seems to be an "evangelistic" atheist -- ie, he is not simply saying
> "I don't believe in God", he is trying to falsify the beliefs of
> others. He is also trying to sell books, and the best way to do that
> is to be provocative, of course. If we can't trust the Bible
> interpreters, I don't see how we could trust Doherty, either, if those
> are the only criteria that apply.
As I said, I'm not asking you to immediately trust or mistrust anyone based on
their bias, preconceived notions, or agenda. Instead, I'm asking you and anyone
else reading this to honestly consider the evidence and decide where it really
leads. Yes, I would assert that most mainstream NT scholars and translators are
guided by a Christian bias, but my argument is not, "These people are biased, so
Jesus must not have existed." Instead, it's more the reverse, more like, "Based
on the evidence, Jesus probably never existed, and since these people haven't
recognized that, they're most likely biased." No one's agenda automatically
makes them right or wrong; but consider the facts honestly, I say, and the truth
will always come to light regardless of who tries to spin or slant it their own
way.
> Of course, if we both knew Greek very well, we could determine for
> ourselves whose interpretation was the more accurate. Seeing as how
> we don't, though, it seems we have to to someone's word for it. I
> have chosen to accept that the many translators who have produced the
> KJV, the NIV, and other translations, knew what they were doing well
> enough to give us a pretty accurate document. You have taken the side
> of the "lone ranger". That's fine, of course, but I don't think
> either of us is inherently "unreasonable" for siding with one or the
> other...
On the contrary: I say a simple reading of a Greek dictionary will show where
the translators have gone wrong. In fact, some translations have even introduced
whole entire words or phrases into verses, words and phrases that do not appear
in any form in the original Greek. While most translations, I agree, are "pretty
accurate," none are *entirely* accurate, and that's why we have to go to the
original language when a dispute over meaning or interpretation arises. There's
just no other way to do things.
> 3. A 21st century mindset
>
> You say a few times that part of the problem is that I'm looking at
> this through a 21st century mindset. That's true of course. It's
> also true of you and Doherty, who also live in the 21st century.
> You're saying that you're trying to look at it from a 1st century
> perspective, but how have you done this? By examining original first
> century documents? Or, by studying the opinions of 21st century
> scholars, who claim to speak to the 1st century mindset? If the
> latter, what consensus surrounds their understanding of that mindset?
> How sure can we be that they have accurately understood the "1st
> century mind"?
I quoted first and second-century documents in my preceding post, and can quote
more as necessary. Regardless, though, I would be more willing to accept the
view of a scholar who does his best to interpret the mindset of first-century
writers through their writings, than that of a scholar who simply assumes that
people living two thousand years ago would have thought and believed exactly as
people do today. Culture does change.
> 4. The likely outcome of this conversation
>
> > Can you justify why this statement on your part doesn't make this debate a
waste
> > of time for both of us? I'm not asking this to be hostile or insulting; I'm
> > merely saying that, if you start with the preconceived belief that the
epistles
> > *only* make sense if they're talking about a real person, I don't think this
> > discussion is going to go anywhere. Aren't you "assuming your conclusion" as
you
> > said above?
>
> This is actually a good point. Let's be honest enough to admit that
> this discussion is probably not going to have the outcome of changing
> either of our beliefs.
Agreed. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if either of us actually changed our minds
as a result of this conversation, it'd probably be some sort of first for
Usenet. Still, I find debating things like this fun and intellectually
stimulating, and I often learn things myself as a result. (Which is why I don't
think your proposal that neither of us do outside research is a good idea. If
neither of us is going to change his mind, we should at least hold out the
possibility that we can each do some independent reading and learn some things
as a result of this discussion - else it will *really* be a waste of time for
both of us.)
> To be honest, just in the reading I've done so
> far in the discussion, my belief in the consonance of the Gospels and
> Epistles has actually been strengthened, rather than weakened. And I
> suspect that this trend will continue. Similarly, I wouldn't ask you
> to prefer my opinions to Doherty's -- let's be honest, he's put a lot
> more thought into this than I have, whether or not he's a fool. My
> main hope is that we'd come out of this having our beliefs subjected
> to critical scrutiny, which I think is an important process, and also,
> that we'd both be able to point to the assumptions we're making, and
> to be able to understand why they may or may not be reasonable.
>
> But, if you think the debate is a waste of time, I understand, and
> will happily agree to cessastion of the dialogue (but, please let me
> know sooner rather than later, so I don't go to the trouble of
> composing a long reply!) Either way, I wish you the best.
I don't think this is a waste of time at all; I think it has the potential to be
productive for both of us. We could both end up learning things we didn't know
before. If you've begun to compose your reply, go ahead; I'd be glad of the
chance to read it and respond to it.
Jeff Warrender
full response is getting close to done, hopefully it will be up by the
end of the week. It is very long, and I wonder if I should post it in
separate sections or something.
>
> > I'm sorry if I've put you on the defensive here; I wasn't saying at
> > all that you are not thorough, or don't do your homework.
>
> I didn't think you were; I understand the point you were trying to make. I'm
> sorry if I sounded unduly defensive.
You didn't. I just wanted it to make it clear that I wasn't being
offensive. Glad there were no misconceptions.
Ha! Well, thanks for your sympathy! To be honest, I haven't debated
this issue before, but hey, I'm doing ok so far, yes?
>
> I think that, by all means, we should both go to whatever other sources either
> of us feels necessary or helpful, subject only to what I feel is the eminently
> fair restriction that we each put any argument presented in our own words. That
> way, we're both more likely to learn and get something out of this discussion.
> By all means, I encourage you to go to any source you can find to counteract any
> argument I make; I'm confident my position will stand up to criticism, and I
> hope you would feel the same way about me.
>
I'm not totally happy with this answer, but I guess I'll just have to
live with it. My point was that if I want to know what Doherty
thinks, I can get access to that online. If you want to know what
arguments people have used to challenge Doherty, you can get access to
them as well, and probably have looked at them before. So, if this is
just a debate of paraphrased arguments for and against Doherty, it
doesn't hold as much appeal for me, I guess.
The reason is that I initially jumped in to question a specific set of
beliefs that you said that you, personally, possessed. If you've
already internalized Doherty's thoughts, then there's nothing to be
done about it, but my point is that if you're going to defend "your
views" by simply going and seeing what Doherty says about any
particular point, then in what sense are they "your views"? Since you
don't quote or appear to be aware of any scholarship other than
Doherty's, would I be wrong to conclude that your beliefs on this
matter are simply "whatever Earl says, goes"? If that's not the case,
then I think it should not be that big a request to refrain from
further Doherty look ups, particularly if you have, as you say,
already internalized most of it.
If you simply can't agree to participate without "cheating", then by
all means, continue to look at external source material as needed. I
guess my point was just that such a discussion could ultimately lead
to us having an argument that other people have already had, and it
seems that we could use our time better by simply reading that
argument privately, rather than going to the trouble of paraphrasing
it for each other in the here and now.
[snip remainder on Doherty]
> > 2. Greek
> >
> > Throughout your response, you say things like "the Greek word here is
> > [....], which means ' [....]', but not '[....]'." I asked, but was
> > not answered, whether you know Greek. I am going to assume that you
> > do not. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have already said, I don't
> > know Greek. As such, I'm very uncomfortable with this discussion
> > becoming about Greek grammar and usage. If there's no way to have the
> > conversation without invoking the Greek, then I really think it's
> > better to not have the conversation, because we are not experts, and
> > should be careful about having a discussion where we're relying
> > exclusively on other experts.
>
> You're correct that I don't know Greek. However, there are online concordances
> that allow anyone to look up the meanings of the Greek words underlying the
> English text. (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html is one.)
How do you know they have correctly given you the meanings of the
Greek?
> Sorry, but we can't
> have this conversation without referring to the original language at least > some
> of the time. The Bible was not written in English, and I have argued that there
> are numerous epistle verses where translators are blatantly guilty of
> introducing Gospel associations that were not present in the meaning of the
> original text. It is crucial to my argument that I show this.
>
But how can they be "blatantly guilty" of mistranslating, if you don't
know the language they're translating from? Could it be that the
lexicon is not an exhaustive collection of word meanings? Or that
there are rules of translation that cause the translations to be
accurate, despite diverging from the online lexicon? I understand
that it's crucial to your argument; I am questioning the very basis by
which you feel you are qualified to make the argument that "the
translation is wrong", if you don't know more than how to look up word
meanings.
> [snip]
>
> > I think your assumption of a bias here is unfair to the translators.
> > These people believe themselves to be entrusted with translating the
> > very Word of God into their own language. Sure, some may want to
> > manipulate it to their own beliefs, but others will recognize the
> > seriousness of that task and try to perform it as faithfully and
> > accurately as they can.
>
> Don't misinterpret me here; I'm not saying the translators deviously set out to
> twist their translation of the Bible to make it say what they wanted. (Actually,
> I think the translators of some versions *did* do this, such as the NIV; you
> mentioned how they use gender-neutral pronouns, but I would instead point to
> more egregious mistranslations done to "smooth out" some theologically
> problematic verses. Anyway, digression ends here...) Instead, they - like you -
> were working with an honest belief that the gospels and the epistles were
> talking about the same deity, and quite innocently they introduced
> gospel-derived ideas into their translations of the epistles. It's crucial to my
> argument that I strip away these assumptions and show that the gospel ideas they
> introduced do not actually exist in the original wording of the text.
But again, on what basis can you do this, if you don't know how to
read the original wording of the text? Is simply translating each
word enough?
Let me give you an example. I recently began to reread a book I read
at Binghamton (in a class called "Echoes of the Jazz Era" -- great
class, highly recommended, if they still offer it) by Joseph Skvorecky
called "The Bass Saxaphone". Skvorecky describes being a Jazz music
fan in Nazi-controlled Czechoslovakia (I think). He tells about how
he and his friends would sneak jazz records and learn to play the
compositions; but, and this is the relevant point, they didn't really
know what the heck the songs were about. He talks about how they
never got the point of a song called "Struttin' with Some Barbecue" --
what sense did it make to be "Walking flamboyantly with crisp, charred
meat"? (based on their Webster's dictionary).
My point is, there is more to translation than simply having a
lexicon. If you are going to say that scholars who have studied these
languages and studied these passages for years have totally screwed
up, while not being a scholar yourself, I'm very skeptical about your
ability to legitimately make such an argument. And lest you say
"well, E.D. is a Greek scholar", let me again point out that for the
purposes of this discussion, that really doesn't make an impression on
me at all.
But how can we "go to the original language", if we don't know it? I
completely agree with you, the Bible wasn't written in English, and we
should be very cautious about assuming the English translation
adequately conveys the correct meaning of the original. I think that
most of the stuff on the Skeptics Annotated Bible reflects a belief on
the part of the author that the Bible really was written in English.
And I make similar arguments when people try to whip out the Isaiah
45:7 canard about "God creates Evil".
Let me just illustrate what I think is and is not reasonable with a
few examples.
Sometimes, you say things like "in this passage, [this word] is used
twice, and given that it means this here, it probably means the same
thing over here." Here's an example of such an argument:
>I think it's a bit strained for you to claim
>"ophthe" means "see in flesh" the first three times it appears in
that sentence
>and then suddenly switches meanings the fourth time.
Now, I think this is an argument based on Greek that we can actually,
legitimately make based on the lexicon. I don't have a real problem
with arguments of this sort.
I'm more cautious about this kind of thing:
>"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other
apostles,
>and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (KJV)
>Note that the word translated "sister" is "adelphen," and the word
translated
>"brethren" is "adelphoi." But Paul is plainly not using "sister" to
mean a
>literal "sister" - he's using it in apposition to "wife", as a
further
>descriptive term, meaning a fellow Christian. (The NIV translates it
as, "Don't
>we have the right to take along a believing wife...?") But if this is
the case,
>then the "brethren" must also be a generic term for Christians (as,
indeed, >this
>word was standard usage in mystery religions to describe fellow
initiates and >is used in this sense even today). But these Christians
are described >as "brethren of the Lord" (NIV: "Lord's brothers"). If
"brother of the Lord"
> can simply mean
>a fellow Christian, is it that difficult to believe that "*the*
brother of the
>Lord" was just some kind of title in whatever group James belonged
to?
Here, you're not just talking about a recurrent word, but you're
saying what one particular word means, and then saying that "if it
means X in place A, then could it not mean X in place B as well"?.
Maybe, maybe not; a Greek scholar could tell us. But, ultimately,
this is probably ok too.
The following, I get much more concerned about.
> >Might I also add that the translation you cite has, well,
> mistranslated this
> >verse? The original Greek for the phrase you translate as "was
> descended >from
> >Judah" is not in the past tense, as your English is. Instead, it's in
> the
> >perfect present: "It is evident that our Lord has sprung from Judah."
> This >tense
> >conveys the sense of an eternal, timeless happening, a "window" onto
> the
> >changeless heavenly world. It's certainly not appropriate if it
> really was
> >referring to a mortal birth. The Greek verb, "anatellein", also has
> meanings
> >other than physical birth; it frequently crops up in Septuagint
> versions of
> >messianic passages, for example Ezekiel 29:21 ("the horn of the house
> of >Israel shall spring forth").
Here, you aren't talking about Greek word choices exclusively, you're
also talking about Greek grammar, which you profess to not knowing.
You also tell us that a word that was translated a certain way should
have been translated differently, which again, I am uncomfortable with
you asserting given your lack of Greek scholarship.
So, in conclusion, I think some references to the Lexicon are ok, but
there are some claims that you (and I) are simply not warranted to
make. I think that for you to throw Greek words around, however
crucial to your thesis, is a bit disingenuous, and I would really
recommend that you refrain from doing so as much as possible, as I
will almost certainly not engage them. Not because you might not be
right, but because neither of us really knows enough to be able to
definitively say whether you're right or not. If that leaves us at a
dead end, I think that's still preferable than trying to drive through
the building at the end of the alley to get through to another
street...
> > 3. A 21st century mindset
> >
> > You say a few times that part of the problem is that I'm looking at
> > this through a 21st century mindset. That's true of course. It's
> > also true of you and Doherty, who also live in the 21st century.
> > You're saying that you're trying to look at it from a 1st century
> > perspective, but how have you done this? By examining original first
> > century documents? Or, by studying the opinions of 21st century
> > scholars, who claim to speak to the 1st century mindset? If the
> > latter, what consensus surrounds their understanding of that mindset?
> > How sure can we be that they have accurately understood the "1st
> > century mind"?
>
> I quoted first and second-century documents in my preceding post, and can quote
> more as necessary. Regardless, though, I would be more willing to accept the
> view of a scholar who does his best to interpret the mindset of first-century
> writers through their writings, than that of a scholar who simply assumes that
> people living two thousand years ago would have thought and believed exactly as
> people do today. Culture does change.
>
Right, but there's a huge difference between "these mindsets existed
contemperaneously" and "there is a causal link between these
mindsets." You are saying that the presence of certain mindsets in
the culture is causally linked to the language and expression of the
Epistle writers. As I will argue in my post, that need not be the
case. There are always people around who believe wacked out things,
but that doesn't mean that everyone elses knows or is influenced by
them. The mere existence of Mystery Religion mindsets doesn't, to my
satisfaction, give us evidence of "the 1st century mindset" -- it
gives us evidence about "*A* first century mindset". There's a
profound difference between those.
At any rate, more on all of these posts in my (upcoming, very long)
post.
-Jeff
Jeff Warrender
I have been working on this response for a week now, and frankly, I
think it has gotten away from me. It is now unbelievably long, and I
apologize to all for taking up so much space. No doubt it contains
many redundancies, errors, and incomplete arguments; I've tried to
check it, but some things may have gotten by. Because preparing this
was an enormous investment of time, I think this will probably have to
comprise the bulk of my participation in this discussion. I'll try to
defend any remarks you wish to discuss further, but time will probably
prevent me from keeping up with all of the points. But, honestly, if
I can't "win" with this thread, then further discussion will probably
not get me much farther along anyway.
I'm going to try to reorganize this thread a bit. In doing so, I'm
undoubtably going to lose some content. If you feel I've cut anything
that you particularly wanted me to respond to, just let me know.
I'll organize my remarks in this way:
1. What are the Epistles saying?
2. The formulation of your argument
3. Specific verses
1. What are the Epistles saying?
This thread has gotten so long that I no longer am sure even what you
are arguing. I'll ask a few questions, that hopefully will clarify
things.
First, I'm almost sure you affirm the following statement:
A. Jesus did not die in an earthly setting.
But that's about all that I'm sure of. First, as for the epistles, I
can't tell which of the following you affirm:
A. The epistles present a coherent theology (but it does not agree
with that of the gospels)
B. The epistles present an incoherent theology (but at no point does
it agree with the gospels)
At any rate, the important point seems to be the discord between the
epistles and the gospels; ie, that Jesus, as taught by the epistles,
was not the same Jesus as described in the gospels. You said at one
point, "it would be my contention (and Earl Doherty's) that the Jesus
of the epistles was a spiritual figure", but I'm no longer sure what
you mean by this. Do any of the following statements adequately
contain your belief about what the epistles are teaching?
A. Jesus was purely spiritual; he conducted all his business in a
heavenly sphere, and remains there in perpetuity.
B. Jesus was purely spiritual; he performed his sacrifice in the
heavenly realm, but subsequently came to earth to speak with his
followers, perhaps mystically.
C. Jesus was purley spiritual; he did appear on earth both before and
after his sacrifice, but performed his sacrifice in a heavenly sphere.
D. Jesus was "flesh", but it was a "spiritual, non-physical flesh".
He didn't appear on earth until after he performed his sacrifice in a
heavenly sphere.
E. Jesus was "flesh", but it was a "spiritual, non-physical flesh".
He did appear on earth both prior and subsequent to his sacrifice, but
he performed his sacrifice in a heavenly sphere.
F. Jesus was "flesh" in the conventional sense, but was born without
original sin. He lived on earth, and performed His sacrifice on
earth, after which He became "spiritual flesh"; He appeared to His
disciples in this form, and ascended into the presence of God in
heaven.
F. is my own view. Which of A-E is yours? If none, please state more
clearly a more accurate explanation. As it stands, none of A-E can be
sustained from the Epistles. Let me illustrate the flaws present in
all of them: each of A-E represents a combination of some of the
following flawed arguments.
i. Jesus was purely spiritual.
ii. Jesus was "flesh", but it was "spiritual flesh". (corrolary to
i)
iii Jesus never appeared on earth prior to his death.
iv. Jesus performed his sacrifice in a heavenly realm.
Let's see why each of these statements is flawed.
//****************************************************************
i. Jesus was purely spiritual.
This is refuted by many verses. I'll give a few:
1 Pet 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,
arm yourselves likewise with the same mind...
Crucial clause: "Christ suffered in the flesh". He wasn't purely
spiritual.
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, of the word of life (for the life was manifested,
and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal
life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
Crucial clause: "our hands have handled"...ie, this guy was a real
person. We're not talking about a spirit here, but a physical person,
and we have personally touched him.
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God...
Crucial clause: the whole thing. Jesus came in the flesh, and this is
*essential* -- someone who denies this is not of God.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he
took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people, for in that he himself hath
suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Crucial clause: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels,
but he took on him the seed of Abraham." He didn't appear as an
angel, but in the form of the seed of Abraham, ie, as a descendent of
Abraham, ie, as a man. (More on this verse below)
1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the
firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Crucial clause: "since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead". Adam, as we know from Romans, was the man
by whom death came; Christ was the man by whom the resurrection of the
dead came. This is an analogy; it is explicitly comparing Adam and
Christ as two men. It is not contrasting Adam's manhood with Christ's
"spirit-hood". It's saying that both were men; one man brought death,
the other brought resurrection.
Phil 2:5 [Jesus Christ], being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of
men..
So, here, we have four of the five main epistle writers (James
omitted) attesting to Jesus having been "flesh", or a man. Jesus was
not purely a spiritual redeemer, he was a fleshly man.
(Note: I say "four of the five" because I don't assume here that Paul
wrote Hebrews. He may or may not have; there are arguments for both
sides, but I don't think it matters for the purposes of this
discussion.)
//****************************************************************
ii. Ok, Jesus was "flesh", but it was "spiritual flesh".
You haven't actually advanced this position, but given the verses I've
quoted above, I don't think you have any grounds available to say
Jesus was "pure spirit". He was obviously a man, of flesh and blood.
But, perhaps your response will be "ah, but it was spiritual flesh and
blood..." or something. But that too is inadequate. Consider Hebrews
2. This chapter explicitly shows that Jesus wasn't as angels are, but
rather, he was as men are.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the chlidren are partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through
death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the
devil,
15 and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on
him the seed of Abraham.
17.Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the
people.
Now, how in the world are you going to massage this to say that we're
talking about a "spiritual man" here? It says he "took part of [flesh
and blood]", so that by dying [as flesh and blood] he might destroy
death. It says explicitly that he didn't do this as an angel, but by
taking on the "seed of Abraham", and by being "made like unto his
brethren" (namely, men, as revealed earlier in the chapter). You
tried to show elsewhere that it's possible to be a "spiritual
descendent". Is it possible to be "spiritually of the seed of
Abraham"? More to the point, if he took on the seed of Abraham, but
remained "spiritual", with what is the writer contrasting "the nature
of angels"? You insist that the writer must be making parallels
throughout his letter. Here is a parallel; the nature of angels vs.
the seed of Abraham. What can this mean, other than, "Jesus was flesh
and blood, in the conventional flesh and blood sense"?
Consider also Romans 1:3 "Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh..." So
again, whether or not one can actually be a "spiritual descendent", it
seems that this is not what Paul is talking about here -- he is saying
that Jesus was flesh, and a descendent of David.
And since you show a preference for appealing to the lexicon, you'll
be interested to note that the same word, #4561 sarx, is rendered as
"flesh" throughout the entire NT -- in fact, it's the same word that
Jesus uses when He appears to His disciples and they think He's a
spirit -- He says, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have" (Luke 24:39). Paul and the epistle writers didn't think Jesus
was "pneuma" (spirit) -- they thought he was "sarx" -- flesh. (You
know, now that I think about it, maybe I should rescind my objection
to appealing to Greek -- it does seem to help my case from time to
time).
//****************************************************************
iii. Jesus never appeared on earth before his sacrifice.
Ok, first, you say that the epistle writers don't come out and say
"Just as Jesus said, ....", but you obviously are aware that their
writings are rich with allusions to his teachings (like, for example,
Romans 11). But, since you'll say the Gospels are derivative of the
Epistles, I guess I am not allowed to use that as evidence for my
case. Nevertheless, it does fit perfectly well in the framework of my
case. If I made references to you about "Academic I", I wouldn't need
to append "which, as you know, is a building on the Binghamton
University campus", since we both know this, and we both know that we
know this. So the mere fact that the apostles don't constantly remind
each other "this is what Jesus said" isn't really evidence for or
against.
But, do they say nothing of his life here on earth? First, as I've
shown above, Christ was flesh, and since we don't yet know of any way
for a spiritual savior to also be flesh-and-blood, this is strong
evidence already. What else do we know?
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when
we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he receivded from God the
Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the
excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
in the holy mount."
Here, again, we have a gospel detail reproduced in an epistle. Now,
true, it doesn't say "and Jesus was explicitly a flesh-and-blood man
at the moment that this happened". But to make this scene "spiritual"
and post-sacrificial, you have to assert that the gospel writers and
Peter were not at all on the same page theologically, and someone
badly misunderstood the other. It seems that we don't actually know
whether Peter or Mark was written first, but since they were supposed
to be contemporaries, it seems they didn't communicate well, if your
interpretation is to be preferred.
1 Cor 15 gives us several details. In vs 3-4, we learn that Jesus
died according to the Scriptures, and was buried, and rose again.
1 Cor 11:23-25 describes the Last Supper scene. You disputed this on
the grounds that Paul says he received it from revelation, presumably
because it's assumed that he mentally is appending "rather than from
eyewitness testimony". That may not be true, though; it's very common
for a Christian to recognize God as the source of all things, so a
Christian might say "God blessed me with a new house", even though God
obviously was not acting as a spiritual real estate agent. The same
thing may be at work here (or not). I'll say more about this below.
//****************************************************************
iv. Christ's sacrifice took place in a heavenly realm.
Here, I think you try to capitalize on the fact that the epistles
never specifically refer to "Calvary" or "Golgotha" -- they never say
explicitly that the sacrifice took place on earth. The problem with
that, though, is that they also never say that the sacrifice took
place in a heavenly realm (as I'll show in a separate section, I
continue to feel that your reference to Hebrews is simply based on bad
exegesis), so I don't see how you can avoid throwing out my
interpretation without simultaneously throwing out your own.
The epistles do tell us a few things about Christ's sacrifice.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(a) We know that he was crucified:
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucicified...
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you,
save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified *with him*
(emphasis mine)...
Hebrews 6:6 ...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh...
(ie, Jesus was previously crucified at some past time)
Hebrews 12:2 ...who for the joy that was set before him endured the
shame of the cross...
Phillipians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(b) We know that Christ was crucified by men:
1 Cor 2:8 which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they
known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(I'll omit 1 Thess since you've disputed it, although I disagree with
your analysis, and may talk about this later on.)
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(c) We know that he died as a man:
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.
1 Pet 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,
arm yourselves likewise with the same mind
1 Cor 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how
say some among you that there is no resuurection of the dead? But if
there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, and if
Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is
also vain.
The 1 Corinithians passage, to me, is my "smoking gun". Read 1
Corinthians 15. Better yet, I'll reproduce it here for you, starting
at v12
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ no
risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false winesses of God, because we have
testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if
so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your
sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most
miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of
the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
So from 1 Cor 15, what do we take? A couple of things. First, that
there were some who believed that the dead are not resurrected. But
Paul shows here that if such a belief were true, then neither could
Christ be raised from the dead. What is interesting to note here is
that he doesn't appeal to a special set of rules that apply to Christ,
whereby He, by being "spiritually dead", could be raised in some
special spiritual way that differs from the resurrection that some
believers were concerned about. No, he only refers to one kind of
resurrection, that from the dead. Verse 20 furthers this by saying
that Christ is the firstfruits of them that slept. (ie, died) And he
hammers it home in 21, when he says that "since by man came death, by
man came also the resurrection of the dead". He explicitly shows that
Christ was a man who died and was raised again, and in THIS can
believers also hope to be raised from the dead. The rest of Ch 15
deals with what the resurrected body is like, but I won't get into
that here. The crucial thing this verse shows us that the believer's
hope rests entirely in the fact that Christ was dead *as a man*, not
as a spirit.
Let's also talk about Hebrews for a minute. Hebrews 1 and 2 are also
very helpful to my case. Hebrews 1 shows that Christ is superior to
angels, because He was God. But, in Chapter 2, we see that Christ is
also superior to the angels because He became a man (the writer of
Hebrews is concerned here with resolving the apparent paradox of how a
man, while lower than an angel, could still be "superior" to an
angel). This chapter shows that Jesus died as a man. True, it
doesn't set his death in a specific earthly context (nor in a heavenly
realm, nor does it ever do that). But it does say he was a man, and
not an angel. And again, I'll come back to Hebrews some more in a
minute.
Ok, so what do we have so far? We know that Jesus was crucified, as a
man, by other men. Given that crucifiction was a well-known Roman
form of execution, it seems to me that you would need to demonstrate
somehow that "spiritual crucifiction" was such a universal first
century mode of thinking, that when we hear "Christ was crucified",
our mind should append "like a spiritual savior" and not "like a Roman
criminal". Which do you think is really more likely to be the sense
in which the phrase "Christ was crucified" would be received by the
recipients of the letters, who lived in the Roman empire? Further,
you need to explain how he was "spiritually" crucified as a
flesh-and-blood man, and how this jibes with "it would be my
contention (and Earl Doherty's) that the Jesus of the epistles was a
spiritual figure". And, you'd have to account for how other, earthly
men could be responsible for the death of this spiritual figure.
2. The formulation of your argument
Ok, in part 1, I'm trying to understand what belief system you see the
epistles espousing. Here, I'd like to try to paraphrase your main
arguments, to see whether I've adequately understood your point.
Since you refer to Hebrews 8 as your "smoking gun", I will rely most
heavily on your remarks there. If I'm not mistaken, I think you're
saying this: (please correct if mistaken; I'm not trying to make your
argument look bad, but simply to understand it). I insert my comments
in [ ].
Jesus was invented by Paul and the other epistle writers [although
perhaps you don't mean John]. They envisioned him as being a
spiritual figure, which is consistent with the mystical schools of the
day. If they had believed he was a real person, there would have been
copious references to historical details from his life, or explicit
reference made to His sayings. (In the cases where allusions to
historical details or saying references appear to exist, this is only
the case because the Gospels borrowed from the Epistles.)
Furthermore, the language of Hebrews 8 places Christ's sacrifice in a
heavenly realm, because no specific reference is ever made to his
death having been on earth, and furthermore, Hebrews is built around a
Platonic parallel, that would be imperfect if Christ had been a real
person.
Have I somewhat fairly represented your position?
Let's break this up into individual clauses. This will take some
time, but I think it's important to be patient and build this into a
logical proof:
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Jesus was invented by Paul and the epistle writers.
2. Jesus was a purely spiritual redeemer.
3. Mystical schools that existed in the 1st century also looked for a
purely spiritual redeemer.
4. If the writers had believed he was a real person, they would have
used him in their analogies, examples, etc; they would have referred
to details in his life.
5. There are some cases where Epistle details do line up with Gospel
details.
6. This is only the case because the Gospels borrowed from the
Epistles.
7. The Epistle details do not specifically place these occurences in
an earthly setting.
8. Hebrews makes no specific reference to Christ's sacrifice having
been in an earthly setting.
9. Hebrews sets up a Platonic parallel between an earthly and
heavenly sacrifice.
10. The existence of a earthly messiah would have messed up the
parallel.
11. The writer seems unconcerned that his parallel is messed up.
Ok, now we have a bunch of statements. Let's reorganize them, and see
how the logic actually goes:
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P1a. (4) If the writers had believed Jesus was a real person, they
would have used him in their analogies, examples; they would have
referred to details from his life.
P1b. The writers don't appeal to details from an earthly life.
________
C1. The writers didn't think Jesus was earthly.
Challenge to P1b: (5) There are some cases where Epistle details do
line up with Gospel details.
(purported) Refutation: (6) This is because the Gospels borrowed from
the Epistles.
P2a. (3) Mystical schools existed in the 1st century, who looked for
a spiritual redeemer.
P2b. (9) The writer of Hebrews sets up a parallel between a heavenly
and earthly sacrifice.
_____
C2. The writer was setting up a Platonic parallel, based on the
influence of the mystical schools.
P3a. (10) If Jesus was earthly, the Platonic parallel would be messed
up.
P3b. (8) The writer of Hebrews doesn't explicitly say Jesus was
earthly.
P3c. (11) The writer doesn't seem bothered by this.
______
C3. The writer was unaware of an earthly Jesus.
C1+C2+C3 = There was no earthly Jesus; he was a spiritual figure,
invented by Paul et al.
Now, this logic is just bristling with flaws. First, look at P1a.
You agreed with me in your post that I was right when I said that your
argument basically amounted to a critique of Paul's rhetoric: ie, "I
think Paul should have argued this way; he didn't; therefore, he was
unaware of Jesus". You agreed that I was right that this is not
evidence of absence, but then you argue that, ah, it isn't just in one
or two places that Paul doesn't make an argument that Adam would have
liked him to make, but in fact, it's in hundreds, therefore, Paul was
unaware of Jesus. Now, obviously, repeating a fallacious argument a
few hundred times does not make it rigorous. And trying to say there
are "hundreds of silences" is called "elephant hurling" -- you're
trying to make your case seem overwhelming simply on volume. But, I'm
afraid you're going to have to win on substance. If you really want
to say that there are a couple hundred silences where a reference to
Jesus' life is called for, please list and defend every single one.
If not, then we'll just stick with the ones you've entered into
evidence. And so far, I'm unconvinced by your best efforts to
date...more on this below.
Furthermore, C1 is refuted by the presence of events and descriptions
from the Epistles that do refer either to a flesh-and-blood Jesus, or
to events from His life like the Last Supper, the Transfiguration, or
the Crucifiction. Your main argument seems to be that the writers
don't provide the street address for these occurences, therefore, they
must have happened in heaven. But, the writers don't ever place them
in heaven, either.
That brings us to P2a. How much do we really know about these mystic
schools? Where do we get our information about them? How sure are we
that we actually know what they believed, and when they believed it?
More importantly, are P2a and P2b really connected? Can we really be
sure that the epistle writers were influenced by these mystical
schools? Just because they existed contemporaneously doesn't mean
they colluded. Further, you argue that unless the writers explicitly
place Jesus on earth, then we should prefer to put him in heaven. But
shouldn't the same kind of thinking be applied to the Mystical School
theory? ie, the writers don't explicitly say "we are basing this on
the thinking of the mystical schools." Lacking that, how can we be
sure of the influence?
Moreover, regardless of the specific symbols that may seem similar
(ie, the existence of a "heavenly realm"), are there obvious
similarities between the actual writings of the Epistolarians (is that
a word?) and the Mystics? For example, you cited a passage by a guy
named Julian the Apostate that was absolute nonsense. In contrast,
the Epistles seem grounded in a real world, and a pragmatism that
seeks to apply these concepts to the immediate lives of believers.
Sure, there is some stuff that is a bit deep, but again, are you sure
the similarities aren't due to a simple commonality of language? Are
you positive it's really a commonality of thought process?
Let me give you a modern example. If you talked to a Christian and a
Hindu, or read the writings of both, both might say that they believed
in God, that they believed in Heaven, that God was loving, that he was
a deliverer, etc. In other words, you could find similarities of
language between different religions, like Christianity vs. Islam,
Hinduism, whatever. But the believers of these different religions
are probably not influencing each others' beliefs all that much, and
more importantly, when you get past the superficial similarities of
language, you find that the actual beliefs are diametrically opposed.
And I'd suggest that something similar might be going on in the case
at hand; that it's a reflection of a common language for expressing
beliefs. For example, there's a common assertion that the Pagan
practice of dumping the blood and entrails of an animal over an
initiate is somehow the basis for Christian baptism, and the Bible
teaching that believers are "washed in the blood of the Lamb". But
couldn't it just be that these are superficially similar? Christians,
for example, necessarily understand that this is a strictly symbolic
teaching; you don't see many churches dumping blood over their
congregants.
There's something else missing from your argument; a demonstration
that certain verses directly *contradict* the idea of an earthly
Jesus. If such verses don't exist, then isn't this also a "silence"
that can't be answered? Why, if the writers didn't affirm an earthly
Jesus, could their remarks be fit so smoothly into a framework that
did affirm such a Jesus? As far as I can tell, you have introduced
only 2: Romans 13, which is really just a case of "I feel Paul makes
a weak argument here" and Hebrews 8, which I'll spend quite a bit of
time on below, but which, I'll argue, simply reflects a
misinterpretation on your part.
So, in conclusion, unless there are quite a few more steps to your
logic then I've shown above, I think you have sufficient holes in your
overall logical pattern that renders your whole thesis extremely
suspect.
But first, I'll extend the principle of charity and look at one of
your primary arguments in your own words:
I think there's an important detail that you're overlooking, though.
These Epistles do comprise the New Testament canon of scripture (with
the ‘historical' books -- Gospels & Acts-- and the prophetic Book,
Revelation). But, they do not necessarily comprise the full teaching
of the individual writers. For instance, Paul frequently refers to
"what I said when I was among you". We know that Paul traveled
extensively, and taught and argued in lots of places and in lots of
churches. You are reading these books as if they comprise "the
exhaustive life, works, beliefs, and theology of Paul". You must keep
in mind that these are letters. They are sent, without exception, to
believers, and always with a specific purpose in mind. Frequently
that purpose is to encourage, to rebuke, to expound a specific point
of doctrine, etc. It's not disputed by me that they don't, as I said,
give a GPS location for the actions of Jesus. But they allude to his
sayings, events in his life, and the teachings related to his life
focus primarily on his humanity, on his suffering, and on his
resurrection. Now, you point out, they don't ever append to an
alluded saying, "just as Jesus said." But notice also that they don't
always credit their OT sources, either! The reason for this could be,
again, that their audience was conversant in the OT, and didn't need
the reference to know that what was being said came from "Isaiah 53",
etc. And perhaps it was the same with Jesus' sayings. James, for
example, contains several things that are quite similar to what Jesus
said. Maybe he is quoting Jesus, which the audience would clearly
have understood. You're saying not to impose a 21st century mindset
on these documents, but you yourself are expecting 21st century-style
source citation, and maybe that's too much to ask.
In contrast, look as the Gospels, which are written primarily to
non-believers. They frequently DO include references like "this
[action taken by Jesus] was done to fulfill what was spoken by the
prophet Isaiah, [insert prophecy here]". I think it's not an accident
that the Gospels and Epistles comprise the NT -- the Gospels give the
basic instruction in who Jesus was and what He did. The Epistles are
for believers, and deal with the life of the believer, the theological
significance of Christ and His sacrifice, etc.
As for your "200 heads in a row", I don't think this is a good
analogy, because again, these epistles don't necessarily comprise the
full teachings of the writers (and explicitly say so), so we just
don't know how many coins (ie teachings) have been thrown in total.
Maybe we're only seeing 10% of the coins; even if we're seeing 40% of
the coins, or 50%, that's still consistent with us seeing all heads.
Who knows what order the coins were thrown in, or what throws
intervened the ones we're seeing, or what rules were used to select
which ones we are seeing?
To me, the more compelling argument would be "details from the
Epistles explicitly contradict a human Jesus." But this argument
can't be sustained; first, why have people been able to successfully
believe that the Gospels and Epistles are talking about the same
person, if they're so obviously not? Second, why don't the Epistles
make a positive case for the distinction, ie "Jesus was explicitly not
a man, and explicitly didn't come to earth?" All you can muster are a
couple of verses that, interpreted your way, give a vague impression
that the writer wasn't aware of Jesus. That's not a positive case,
it's a negative one. And if you can't make a positive case, it seems
wildly speculative to say "this is nevertheless true."
I guess for me, "there was no Jesus" just doesn't seem plausible for
(at least) 3 reasons (and I admit that these are personal reasons, and
am not necessarily entering them as arguments; just trying to explain
myself). First, how could the Gospel writers go into your town and
say "hey, there was this guy who lived here a few (<30) years ago, and
he did all this stuff, miracles, you know...and finally, he was buried
and rose from the dead", and have this claim actually be believed?
Couldn't it have been immediately refuted on the spot by the Jews?
Second, if the early Christians knew Jesus wasn't real (and they must
have, if they had invented him), why were they willing to die for
their beliefs? People will die for something they believe to be true;
will they die for something they know is false? Third, why do the
Gospels read like such literal histories, even including minutae like
the part where the woman caught in adultery is brought before Jesus,
and Jesus sits down and starts doodling? Why include things like
this, if this was all constructed to simply be a vehicle for a
historical Jesus that would back up the Epistle writers' teachings?
At any rate, I'll go on now to challenge each of the verses you've
entered into argument.
3. Discussions about specific verses:
Index:
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
1 Corinthians 15:5-11
Romans 8:3
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
2 Corinthians 5:5-7
Ephesians 3:4-5
James 5:6
1 Thess 2:15
Hebrews 12:15-16
Hebrews 8:4
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
> > Ok, but he describes specific details about the physical last supper
> > scene; "In the same night that Jesus was betrayed" -- reference to
> > Judas' betrayal that you said was lacking elsewhere.
>
> Actually, it's not, and this is an excellent example of how translators have
> read the epistles with gospel preconceptions fixed in mind. The word translated
> as "betrayed" is "paradidomi," which does not necessarily carry any such
> connotation. Taken literally it means "hand over, deliver up," and the epistles
> use it frequently to describe something that happened to Jesus when it's plain
> that no betrayal is indicated. Christ "paradidomi"'s *himself* in Ephesians 5:2
> and 5:25. Romans 8:32 says that God "spared not his own Son, but delivered him
> up" - "paradidomi" again - "for us all."
Ok, I really don't want to get into a Greek debate here, but a quick
look at Strong's reveals that ALL of the Gospel accounts that refer to
Judas' betrayal of Jesus use word 3860, "paradidomi". The Strong's
entry says this means "betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver
(up), give (over,up), hazard, put in prison, recommend". If you feel
that it's valid for me to make Greek arguments based on other verses
and the lexicon, then consider yourself refuted as pertains to
‘paradidomi'.
But you make a good point; howbeit (to use a great King James word)
that Christ could simultaneously "give himself up" and be "given up
(ie, betrayed)" by someone else? And the answer is quite easy.
Isaiah 53:7 predicts "he was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he
opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as
a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth".
And sure enough, in Matthew 26, we see Jesus quietly surrender to the
arresters, though He makes it clear that He is doing so willingly
("thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall
presently give me more than 12 legions of angels?"), and doesn't
resist arrest, trial, or crucifiction. In that sense, he surrendered
himself; he "delivered himself up" to death, to be a sacrifice. But
at the same time, he was "delivered up/betrayed" by Judas as well. So
it seems the problem here is simply that we have a word with multiple
meanings, and you personally prefer the "delivered up" meaning (not
surprisingly). But given your lack of Greek scholarship, I don't see
what warrant you have for this claim. Certainly, the concordance and
lexicon do not help you in this instance, however.
> > Paul describes exactly the Last Supper as recounted in the Bible.
>
> True. But since my position is that the Gospels were deliberately created to
> blend Paul's cosmic Son of God (the "Jerusalem Tradition" of NT scholarship)
> with the kingdom-of-God wisdom preaching of the Q community (the "Galilee
> Tradition") in a syncretistic fashion, it doesn't surprise me that such
> similarities exist. The point is *where* Paul got this information from, and he
> says flat-out that he got it through revelation.
I think the point is rather, "where is this event taking place"? It
isn't clear to me that it's taking place in a purely spiritual plane,
for how could a spiritual redeemer give bread and wine if he's in a
purely spiritual realm? And he doesn't say he got the information
through revelation; he says he received it from God. As I show above
(or below, I'm no longer sure where), a common Christian mode of
expression is to credit God as the source of all things. So if a
friend gives me a Bible verse that he feels I should look at, and it
really speaks to a situation I'm currently facing, I might say
something like "God gave me a Word". And perhaps that is what Paul is
doing here. Or perhaps not. Either way, the fact that he knows about
the scene through revelation, if that's the case, doesn't mean he
didn't think it was a historical event that happened here on earth.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Romans 8:3
> > Do they appear "in
> > likeness of sinful flesh"? (Romans 8:3)
>
> Come on - there's an obvious problem for you here and I'm sure you can see it.
> Why does this verse say Jesus appeared only in the "likeness" (Greek "homoioma",
> meaning resemblance, likeness, similitude) of flesh?
But it says in likeness of *sinful* flesh. Paul is perhaps addressing
here that Jesus was not sinful. At other points in the verse and in
his writings, Paul does affirm his belief that Jesus was a fleshly
man. I don't think the context here adequately supports a conclusion
that "likeness" connotes a belief on the part of Paul that "Jesus only
‘appeared' to be human."
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
But he appealed to the Jewish Scriptures here! ie, he's appealing to
the "Jewish-ness" of the Messiah! He appeals to his own Jewishness in
Phillipians 3:5.
> We have precedent for this: Jesus himself, who (even if he was a flesh-and-blood
> human) in no way fit Jewish messianic expectations. In fact, he violated almost
> all of them. The Jews' messiah was supposed to be a conquering military hero,
> like the great kings of the Old Testament, who would subdue their enemies and
> usher in the era of God's kingdom on earth. As Philip Yancey writes in "The
> Jesus I Never Knew": "Devout Jews, bred on stories of a power Jehovah, saw
> little to be admired in this god who died in weakness and in shame. As Justin
> Martyr's 'Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon' shows, Jesus' death on a cross made a
> decisive case against his Messiahship for the Jews...."
>
> So we already have a Christian messiah who's not at all what the Jews expected
> or believed in.
Right, and this is Paul's whole point in Romans. The issue is, Jesus
fit *the Scriptures*, but NOT *Jewish expectations*. The Jews were
looking for the wrong things, and Paul explains why this happened in
Romans 9-11. The Jews missed their Messiah. But their Messiah
nevertheless fulfilled the Scriptures. This was something Jesus also
hit on; in one dialogue with the Pharisees, He contrasts "You have
heard it said" with "It is written". The former refers to the Jewish
oral traditions, the latter refers to the Scriptures themselves.
Christ is exalting the latter over the former, indicating that the
Jews are not following the Scriptures, but their own interpretations
and ideas about them, and as such, they were going to miss the
greatest event in their history.
> It's not that much of a leap for me to argue that Paul violated
> their expectations a bit further and made his messiah entirely spiritual.
It may not be a leap, but it would be an inaccurate assessment, given
the verses I've presented that show Paul's belief in Jesus'
"fleshliness".
> And
> since I'm certain it will come up later, I'll point out how this can be turned
> to my advantage: Virtually all the verses in the epistles that might seem to
> indicate a human Jesus, I will argue, are derived from OT scripture and thus do
> not represent any independent data about the life of Jesus the man.
Virtually is a bit of a hedge word here, indicating to me either your
awareness that there are verses that do indicate a human Jesus and
aren't derived from OT scripture, or that you aren't aware of such
verses, but also aren't sufficiently conversant with the entire canon
of Epistles that such verses may exist. They do, and I've shown some
above and may show more below. You're referring to verses like 1 Pet
2:18-25, where Peter parallels the life of Christ with the prophecies
of Isaiah 53. But he makes one noteworthy addition; in vs 24, he
says, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree",
which is not found in Isaiah 53 (the "tree" part, a clear reference to
the cross). So even when an Epistle writer quotes OT scripture, there
can be "independent data" about the life of Jesus interjected as well.
>
> > Furthermore, Paul says that he was buried, and rose again from the
> > dead. Naturally, Paul doesn't say "and this explicitly happened here
> > on Earth, not in some celestial sphere."
>
> What do you mean by "naturally"? Are you saying it would have been implicit in
> Paul's mind that he meant this happened on earth?
Rather, I'm saying that whatever he meant, it seemed that he knew what
he meant, and he expected his readers to know as well, thus, he
doesn't append "and this explicitly happened in this location". So
the real question becomes, what was his mindset? I've tried to show
that he uses terminology that is consistent with a belief in an
earthly flesh and blood Jesus, and never uses terminology that is
inconsistent with that. You on the other hand, point to the
contemperaneous existence of a conflicting mindset, and to the fact
that Paul doesn't explicitly give a GPS position for the events he
describes, and to the fact that there are some analogies he makes that
you feel "cry out" for a Jesus reference. And my point is, while I
feel that all of your criteria are flawed, your second criteria is
flawed as pertains to this passage. Paul doesn't append the location
of Jesus' sacrifice because whatever he believed, his readers were
expected to understand it already. As such, you can't use this as
evidence for your case, unless you can cite a location where Paul
places the sacrifice in Heaven.
> If so, I would say you've
> naively imposed a twenty-first-century worldview on a first-century document. We
> *can't* simply assume that Paul's mindset would have been the same as ours, and
> in fact, I contend that the idea of a deity symbolically performing some sort of
> salvific act in a spiritual realm was a common mode of thought of that time
> period.
Ok, but how about the "dead and buried" part? Where do they bury dead
Messiahs in this spiritual realm? I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but
I'm trying to make a point; Paul uses language that doesn't reflect a
"naive" imposition of my mindset on him; it reflects real-world
terminology. "Died according to the scriptures", given that Paul
understood the scriptures extremely well based on his formal training,
suggests that he knew the savior was to be a man, and to die as such.
"He was buried and rose again the third day according to the
Sciptures" is also very suggestive. True, he doesn't say "he died on
Golgotha, he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea", etc.
Perhaps the audience was already aware of this; Paul is writing to a
church he's visited and taught at, and by "I delivered unto you", he
indicates that this lesson is a refresher; perhaps he already filled
in the Gospel details when he was present with the congregation and
taught this stuff for the first time.
I don't think Paul is in any sense talking about a "symbolic" death
here. Do they bury symbolically dead saviors for 3 days?
Again, your thesis rests heavily on "this spiritual death stuff was a
common mode of thought." But what you need to show is that this was
what *Paul* believed. And if you impose a rule that I can only
"prove" to you that Paul believed in an earthly Messiah with verses
that speak of the same, then surely you must be held to the same
standard; what verses positively support the claim that Paul believed
in a purely spiritual redeemer and a purely symbolic sacrifice in a
purely spiritual realm? Don't you see how completely circumstantial
your whole case is?
> > You're right that he doesn't give names and addresses, but neither
> > does he seem to be pulling this out of the air. He says that some of
> > the 500 are living to this day, and he refers not to an anonymous
> > "Twelve", but "The Twelve". This must have meant something to the
> > readers (and it really isn't that unreasonable to assume which 12 he
> > was talking about. Judas was dead.
>
> If you feel that way, then please tell us who these "Twelve" were - and if you
> were planning to say the disciples, keep in mind that at this point in the
> story, there *weren't* twelve; there were eleven.
That's a bit of a technicality. I think "The Twelve" here is more of
a title than a headcount. It's the same as if I say "the Senate voted
to confirm Judge Judy for the 14th Circuit Court", and you say "ah,
but Sen Byrd wasn't there, therefore it wasn't ‘the Senate', but
rather, ‘the Senate sans Byrd'". For you to say that "the Twelve" are
not the 12 disciples is, as I said, imposing criteria on this document
that you would let pass on any other ancient document.
Again, keep in mind that this is a letter to a church that Paul has
visited. Would THEY have known who "the Twelve" were? What
legitimate reason can you give for disputing that the obvious
interpretation is that "the Twelve" are the only "Twelve" that they
possibly could be? Aren't you being a bit hyper-skeptical here?
Verses 5-11
> > >So as not to leave anyone in suspense, here's my interpretation of
> this
> > > right now: what Paul is describing here is a visionary experience, a shared
> "feeling" of Jesus' presence. Why do I argue this? Because this passage
> > > contains one very significant anomaly you've overlooked. Paul says that the
> last of these "appearances" (the Greek word is "ophthe", which means "to
> > > become visible to, to appear to, to be seen by") was to *him*. But Paul
> > > never met the human Jesus, not even under the orthodox picture. His only
> > > experience of Jesus was during the Damascus Road conversion, and I'm sure
> > > you'll agree that that was a purely
> > > visionary event, nothing more. Yet he makes no distinction between his own
> > > experience of Jesus and anyone else's. He describes them all in the same
> > > terms.
> First, I must point out that you did not in any way address my most important
> point: Paul describes *his* experience of Jesus in the exact same terms as
> everyone else's, although Paul never claims to have met the human Jesus even
> under the orthodox picture. I think it's a bit strained for you to claim
> "ophthe" means "see in flesh" the first three times it appears in that sentence
> and then suddenly switches meanings the fourth time. (Similar confirmation: 1
> Corinthians 9:1. Paul claims to legitimize his apostolic authority by asking,
> "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" Again, according to the orthodox
> picture, he *didn't* - or at least, he only did in spirit, not in flesh. But if
> this is the standard he appeals to to justify his authority, does this not
> suggest that this was the standard everyone else was judged by as well?)
Well, first of all, I think it's a bit strained for you to lean too
heavily on the Greek here, especially when, as far as I've been able
to tell in the concordance I've looked at, "ophthe" is not a word, or
at the least, is not the word rendered here as "see". The actual word
is 3700 "optomai", ‘to gaze', which, according to Strongs, is
interchangable with 3708 "horao", ‘to behold; to experience'". I
think that the important thing is that Paul is saying that each of
them "saw" Christ, but he isn't necessarily saying that Christ was or
was not the same in each experience. Maybe this word can mean more
than one thing; certainly, in English, we use "see" for multiple
meanings, and could even do so in the same sentence; consider the
following lyric from the Eagles: "when you look up in the sky, you can
see the stars but still not see the light." Granted, that's poetry of
a sort, and isn't a good analogy for Paul's language here; it's simply
to demonstrate a simple case where the same word is used in the same
sentence but with 2 different meanings. So even if Paul's experience
was different from the other disciples, it's not clear that he is
equating the types of experience that they had; merely the commonality
of the fact that they had an experience. I think this one leans to
heavily on the Greek for us to make much progress, and I suggest we
drop it.
>
> Secondly, I think it makes perfect sense for a god to have earthly disciples who
> had spiritual experiences of him, even if he himself resides only in the
> heavenly plane. Isn't this the situation with the Christian God today? Why
> couldn't it have been the situation back then too?
Well, the experiences described by the disciples, one wouldn't
typically speak of as happening today. No one says "we have handled
him with our hands", as John does.
> > To be honest, it seems like
> > your thesis rests heavily on the fact that Paul and the other Epistle
> > writers don't clearly distinguish the events of Christ's life as
> > having taking place on Earth rather than a heavenly sphere, therefore
> > they must have meant that it took place in the heavenly sphere. Paul
> > also isn't careful to point out that Christ didn't come to Mars, die
> > and rise from the dead there. Does that mean that we should consider
> > that a possibility as well?
>
> My thesis goes a bit further than that: it is that Paul and the other epistle
> writers *never* clearly distinguish *any* events in Jesus' life as having taken
> place on an earthly plane, even when a mention of such a thing would be natural
> and inviting. I would also supplement my case with what Earl Doherty calls
> "positive silences", verses that not only lack mention of a human Jesus, but
> positively exclude the possibility that such a human was present in their minds.
> The verse from Romans 13 I cited above is one example of this.
I don't agree. Let's look at Romans 13 again...
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
thou then be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou
shalt have praise of the same.
4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do
that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain,
for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him
that doeth evil.
Ok, so yet again, by starting at verse 3, you have taken this passage
out of context. Verse 1 and 2 indicate the sovereignty of God over
the rulers. Christ was a perfect example of submitting himself to the
rulers because of God's will. Now, verse 3 does say "rulers are not a
terror to good works, but to the evil". Does that mean that "corrupt
rulers will never punish good works"? I think Paul is just
establishing a general principle here.
Let me give an example. I was driving the other day, and a police
officer was driving behind me. Now, should I have "feared him"? No,
because I was driving in accordance with the law. Does that mean that
there aren't situations where police officers do "evil" things like
racially profile drivers, pull people over unfairly, beat or kill
innocent people? No, of course not -- those situations all exist.
But in principle, they are a reflection of corrupt individuals, and
not of a flaw in the institution of law enforcement.
It's the same thing here. Rulers are not in principle a terror to
good works; do good things, and you have nothing to fear. More
ultimately, all rulers, even the bad ones, govern with God's
permission.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Corinthians 5:5-7
> > >> > -2 Corinthians 5:5-7, in which Paul says Christians "walk by
> faith, not by
> > >> > sight", and who says that God has rewarded his true followers by
> sending the
> > >> > Holy Spirit (not the Son) down to them.
>
> > >> Can't it be true that God has rewarded his followers with BOTH the
> Son
> > >> and the Holy Spirit?
>
> > >Under the orthodox picture, yes. But again you're letting gospel
> > >preconceptions taint your viewpoint - 2 Corinthians itself makes no
> > such >link.
> >
> > Rather, I'm assuming that Paul was at least reasonably internally
> > consistent with his own theology. The example I appeal to below that
> > demonstrates this link came from Romans, also written by Paul.
> > Certainly Paul can talk about two different things in two different
> > places, with two different audiences in mind, and nevertheless not be
> > said to be incomplete in his understanding if he fails to spell out
> > the whole picture to both audiences. Do you accuse a Pastor of having
> > no knowledge of the Old Testament if he preaches exclusively one
> > Sunday from a NT text? Of course not.
> >
> > >Don't you see
> > >how easily you keep letting supposedly historical gospel details slip
> > into >what you write? That's a very natural thing for a Christian to
> > do, I know -
> > >> But ultimately, His primary benefit to us was His
Let's first be clear on what we mean by "this is what Paul is doing
here." Originally, you said he was trying to list the gifts God has
given to believers. This is false, and I argued that Paul was instead
contrasting the earthly and heavenly tabernacles (ie, bodies),
pointing to the latter as what is to come. Here, you seem to be
trying to contradict me while simultaneously agreeing with what I was
saying.
At any rate, let's be clear. Paul is talking about the future,
heavenly body that we will inherit. I agree, he views God's
"guarantee" as the Holy Spirit, not Jesus.
Again, read 2 Cor 5:1-7. Here is the full text:
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were
dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens.
2. For in this we groan, earnestly deriving to be clothed upon with
our house which is from heaven
3 If so be that being clothed, we shall not be found naked
4. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not
for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might
be swallowed up of life.
5. Now, he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who
also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6. Therefore, we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at
home in the body, we are absent from the Lord
7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the
body and to be present with the Lord.
>
> Strange, wouldn't you say?
Not really, no.
> I was always under the impression that Jesus'
> miracles - healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, etc. -
> pointed toward the time of God's future kingdom on earth, when all these things
> would be routine and universal, not rare miraculous interventions. Wouldn't
> Jesus' miracles prefiguring the Kingdom be a *perfect* "guarantee of what is to
> come"? Yet Paul doesn't even cast a glance in their direction.
Adam, I'm sorry for how this is going to sound, but it seems that you
simply aren't in possession of sound Christian doctrine here
(obviously not your fault, since you're not a Christian), and are
extrapolating a misunderstanding into something bigger than it really
is.
Look again at what this passage is saying: "Life here is sometimes a
bummer, and we look forward to life in heaven, which won't be a
bummer. We can be confident that we are going to enter that heavenly
life, because we have the Spirit as a guarantee. By definition, we
can't see what that life will be like (because we aren't dead), but we
have faith in God that we are going to be at home with God once we
die."
The idea expressed here is that Christ's death is the "payment" that
gives us access to the eternal life Paul longs for. (expressed in 2
Cor 5:15) The Spirit is God's "promissory note" that He is going to
deliver on the deposit Christ made, and is going to place us in that
eternal life. (Stepping out of the immediate context of this epistle
Christ's life is the "instruction manual" for how to get ready for the
new life that we are going to own. )
Since Paul is talking here about the future life, you can see why
Christ's life doesn't apply in this analogy. I know you think Paul
should have used it as an example of a "guarantee". But you are
wrong. If not, you need to demonstrate to me that you understand
Christianity better than me; otherwise, this example is not evidence
for your case.
> > >I would also point out that you neglected to mention verse 5:7, "For
> > we walk >by faith, not by sight." Weren't Jesus' handpicked disciples
> > still alive
> > >when Paul wrote this? Weren't there people who saw him with their own
> eyes,
> > > who heard him preach with their own ears, who felt the hem of his garment,
> > > who were eyewitness to his miracles? These people *do* "walk by sight,"
> > >don't they? I would argue that Paul is expressing himself as if
> Jesus' very
> > > existence were a matter of faith.
> >
> > First, were any of the disciples at Corinth? If not, then Paul is
> > writing to those who haven't physically seen Christ.
>
> The "we" refers to Christians in general. Given that, at the time of this
> letter's writing, there still should have been people alive who had physically
> seen Jesus, it would have been somewhat inappropriate at best for Paul to
> denigrate them and instead emphasize faith over sight.
In what sense do you feel that Paul has denigrated them? And again,
he isn't saying, as you want him to be saying, "We only know about
Jesus through faith; we haven't seen him." He's saying that as
pertains to our future, heavenly, dwelling, we walk by faith -- in
fact, we have to, because we can't *see* that dwelling. But the
Spirit is our guarantee that it is coming. So again, the context of
what Paul is actually talking about here is crucial.
> > More to the
> > point, though, the verse 7 is talking about a future, heavenly
> > dwelling. My interpretation is that Paul is saying we necessarily
> > can't "see" our future dwelling; nevertheless, in this life, despite
> > tribulation, we are able to become like the kind of people who can put
> > on that eternal form; and, that it is through the help of the Spirit,
> > God's gift to us, by which we are able to do this. So again, be
> > careful about the verse distinctions -- they aren't part of the
> > Epistle in any meaningful sense, and I think here, they have
> > facilitated your lifting this one clause from its context in an
> > imprecise way.
>
> I think you're again letting preconceptions guide your interpretation of this
> verse.
And you're not? But again, I'm letting the context of the passage
guide my interpretation, and sound exegesis must always proceed from
such an approach. If you disagree, that is fine, but I'm afraid that
we will have to cease this discussion, as this is an axiom that I
simply don't feel can be abandoned willy-nilly.
> As for the "out of context" charge, let me point out two other verses
> that say the same thing:
No! You've lifted both of them out of context as well!
>
> Romans 8:24: "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope
> at all. Who hopes for what he already has?"
>
But again, Romans 8 is talking about the future glory that God is
preparing. v18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed
in us."
> 1 Peter 1:8-9: "These (trials) have come so that your faith... may be proved
> genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
> Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him
> now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious
> joy..."
And who does Peter say that he is writing to? To "the strangers
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
elect according to the foreknowledge of God" Isn't it possible that
Peter is writing to people who didn't see Christ firsthand? That
seems to be the plain interpretation of the text. And given that 2
Peter 16 says "[we] were eyewitnesses of his majesty", it doesn't seem
like Peter could possibly be saying "we haven't really seen Jesus",
unless he was quite scatterbrained.
Incidentally, I showed above how 1 John 1:1 says "our hands have
handled the Word of life" (ie, Jesus). So John also affirms that
Jesus was seen and touched by eyewitnesses. I believe the Hebrews
writer does this as well, in Heb 2:3-4, but it's perhaps a bit more
debatable, so I won't enter it into evidence here.
At any rate, in conclusion, Paul obviously can't be saying "no one has
seen Jesus", since he describes in 1 Cor 15 all the people who have
seen Jesus. Even if this was simply a "spiritual" seeing, it is still
seeing, and therefore, your accusation that Paul's saying "we walk by
faith, not by sight" constitutes evidence that he didn't believe
anyone had seen Jesus, is false. Moreover, the context of the verse
indicates that Paul's intention was not to describe or refer to the
incarnation, but to talk about the future, heavenly body that
believers will inherit, and this is why a reference to Jesus' life
being a gift to us was not made; it doesn't pertain to the subject at
hand.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> > -Ephesians 3:4-5 in which Paul says knowledge of Jesus comes only
> through
> > >> > revelation of the Holy Spirit.
> <...>
> > >My original quote wasn't a misquote, it was the KJV: "Whereby, when
> ye read, >ye
> > >may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other
> ages >was
> > >not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
> holy
> > >apostles and prophets by the Spirit."
> >
> > No! Your original quote spoke of "knowledge of Christ", but here, you
> > correctly quote it as "the mystery of Christ". In verse 7, Paul goes
> > on to explain what that mystery is.
>
> Okay, granted - I misread that. Still, I don't think it weakens my point too
> much, as I wrote just below.
How can it not weaken your point? It completely transforms your
entire point here! You were saying that Paul says we know about Jesus
through revelation, not through first-hand experience. But what he is
actually saying is that the ability to understand the "mystery" to
which he's referring comes by revelation. And this is what Acts
shows, as I'll demonstrate below. As such, he is NOT saying what you
alleged he was saying, and thus, this cannot be adduced as evidence
that Paul doesn't affirm a historical Jesus.
>
> > >But even using your translation, my point remains. Read verses 5-6.
> What has
> > >been revealed by the Holy Spirit? That the Gentvles should be
> > partakers of >the new covenant also. Fine. But you haven't solved the
> > problem here. Didn't >Jesus himself teach this?
> >
> > You tell me. Is there a Gospel reference where He did?
>
> Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19, perhaps?
>
> > > Wasn't he the one who said salvation was now open
> > > to all? Again, why do these verses only represent that knowledge as having >
> come through a revelation of the Spirit?
> >
> > If Christ did say that (He did, but parabolically -- "I have sheep
> > that are not of this fold"), the disciples clearly didn't apprehend
> > it, hence their reaction in Acts 10 to the receipt of the Holy Spirit
> > by Gentiles.
>
> That just isn't the case. According to 10:45, only the converted Jewish
> believers were surprised by this. Peter makes it clear in 10:34-35 that this is
> nothing that should be surprising or unexpected; he already knew that God
> accepts all kinds of people.
Right, and he had only just learned this earlier in Chapter 10! Verse
9-16 describes the vision that Peter receives, the climax of which
occurs when God says in v15 "What God hath cleansed, that call not
thou common." In verse 28, Peter reveals the influence that this
episode had on him; prior to the vision, he would have thought even
associating with non-Jews was unlawful, but God reveals his mistake in
the vision. Further, in v34, after Cornelius et al reveal why they
wanted to meet with Peter, he says "Of a truth, I perceive that God is
no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and
worketh righteousness is accepted with him." Peter *perceives* this
because of this whole episode, which is not something he expected.
You're right; Jesus did tell them to preach the Gospel to all flesh.
He also told them that He had "sheep that are not of this fold", ie,
the gentiles. But they clearly didn't appreciate the full weight of
what that meant until Acts 10, and it was by the Spirit that Peter was
able to understand what had happened, which is what Eph 3:5 is saying:
"In other ages, it wasn't known, but now it is known by the apostles
and prophets, by the Spirit -- the Gentiles are equal to Jewish
believers".
Again, it isn't that problematic for the disciples to not have
completely understood everything Jesus said, particularly when Jesus
Himself said that "the Spirit will guide you into all truth."
>
> > (And Acts was written by Luke (probably), who also wrote
> > a Gospel, thus, if we can assume he was a little bit internally
> > consistent, we can conclude that the disciples really didn't "get it"
> > until Christ died. That's ok, because this clearly wasn't the only
> > saying of His that they didn't understand). In fact, it's through a
> > revelation from the Spirit by which the stage is even set for Peter to
> > be present when Gentiles receive the Spirit, and it totally shocks
> > him.
>
> I fail to see where, if anywhere, Acts says that Peter was surprised by this.
> Provide chapter and verse, please.
Ok, in reading it again, maybe "totally shocks" was too strong. I
think Peter's vision does seem to surprise him, and I think that what
he says in 10:34 "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" and
then in 11:17 "what was I, that I could withstand God?", shows that
this was not something he was expecting. In verse 11:18, the Jewish
believers are left scratching their heads and saying, "wow, I guess
the gentiles really have been granted repentence", and I think one
gets the impression that Peter was probably scratching his head a bit
too; he didn't ‘know all along', but because of his vision, he
obviously had a leg up on the others.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's put this in perspective and notice that James really only makes
a hand-waving reference to Job here; it's not a major theme, he simply
alludes to the patience of Job. Now, although you are correct, that
Job challenges God, his story does nevertheless teach us about
patience. It's kind of the same way that David; as badly and
frequently as he messed up, was considered "a man after God's own
heart". His point here is that endurance will produce a good result
in the end, and that is what happened with Job. He lost his cool, but
he certainly never cursed God in all of his suffering. And in the
end, he was blessed. Now, is Jesus a better model for this than Job?
Perhaps. But your argument here is that this proves James didn't know
about Jesus. I continue to disagree, and think that it simply shows
that you and James have different ideas about what constitutes a good
example of patience. I agree with you, Jesus is an excellent example
of what you are saying. But the fact that James felt differently,
doesn't, to me, prove a lack of awareness of Jesus.
> > In contrast, Christ's
> > patience wasn't a "waiting expectantly" kind of patience, but rather,
> > an "endurance through temporal suffering" kind of patience.
>
> Come on. James 5:6 says, "Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not
> resist you." You really think it's reasonable to conclude that such a statement
> wouldn't merit even a reference to Jesus, from his own brother nonetheless?
Are you sure that this ISN'T a reference to Jesus? It seems that
you've picked up on James' meaning quite well, and you're not even a
Christian! I know, you'll say "you can't let a silence stand for
evidence", but you've demonstrated a few times now that these unstated
analogies practially slapped you in the face. Could it be, perhaps,
that the text is loaded in such a way as to make these analogies
obvious, but leave them unstated? James is writing to fellow
Christians; maybe "beating them over the head with the obvious" was
unnecessary.
> Don't you think it's strange that when seeking for an example of "suffering
> affliction, and of patience," the best James can do is "the prophets"?
>
But again, James is talking about waiting for an event that might not
happen for some time, but being confident that the event is going to
happen at some point. The prophets are a better example for this than
Jesus; Jesus knew full well when His show was going to end. Jesus
displayed patience, but it was a different kind than what James is
calling the reader to observe.
> > So maybe
> > it's just not as perfect an analogy as with Job and the prophets, or
> > at least, maybe James didn't think it was. Does that mean He didn't
> > believe in a real Christ? Not necessarily.
>
> As I said, explanations could be vouchsafed for specific instances of this
> neglect (though I don't think yours is particularly strong here). But my purpose
> is to show that each such instance fits into a larger pattern.
I know that's your purpose. But if I say "Adam's a serial killer,
because he killed 10 gypsies!" and for each of the 10 alleged gypsies,
it turns out that I had incorrectly evaluated the evidence and blamed
you erroneously, then you aren't a serial killer. I understand that
you're trying to make the "argument from silence", but if each
specific example you cite that "cries out for a Jesus reference" is
just fine without such a reference, then your argument from silence is
reduced to a vague and nebulous preference on your part.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >-Hebrews 12:15-16 - a silence that should be beyond belief. The
> author of
> > >Hebrews is trying to provide an example of a "root of bitterness"
> > growing in >the community, a man falling from the grace of God and
> > causing suffering for >many. Who could be a more obvious example than
> > the gospel figure of Judas,
> > >the archetypal traitor who, jealous and deceitful, sold the Son of
> > God to an >unjust and torturous death for thirty pieces of silver? But
> > no - the best he >can do is the OT figure of Esau. It is not the
> > selling of Jesus' life for >silver that leaps to his mind, but rather
> > the selling of a birthright for a >meal. Why this unbelievable
> > omission? How can his behavior be explained - >ignoring the perfect
> > and obvious example of exactly the point he was trying
> > >to make in favor of one much more distant and less applicable? Esau
> had a
> > >motive: he wasn't bitter, he was starving. Judas had no such excuse.
> >
> > Well, again, I don't know why the writer chose this analogy.
>
> I think the silence here is too profound to merit dismissal with a verbal shrug.
> The writer of Hebrews is specifically trying to provide an example of "one among
> you who forfeits the grace of God... [a] bitter, noxious weed to poison the
> whole" (NEB). I say this situation positively screams for a mention of Judas.
> And the best the writer could do was *Esau*?
To be honest, though, the crucial clauses in your statement are "I
think" and "I say". You're expressing your opinion of how the writer
should have argued again.
>
> > (incidentally, I don't know if the writer is saying that Esau was
> > bitter; I think he's instead considering him a "fornicator or profane
> > person", and that, combined with the "root of bitterness" fall under
> > the larger umbrella of people who "failed the grace of God".)
>
> Okay, but do you agree with me that a reference to Judas would seem to fit the
> point the writer is trying to make far better here? (Was Esau even a "fornicator
> or profane person"?)
>
I'm really not sure. I agree, Judas probably fits the point the
writer is making. But, he's writing to the Hebrews, who presumably
knew quite a bit about Esau, being well versed in the Scriptures.
They may have known relatively little about Judas. We know a lot
about him because of the Gospels. But at that point, perhaps teaching
and preaching focused more on Christ, but not so much on the life and
times of Judas. So I think that your argument is greatly helped by a
"21st century" mindset of who Judas was and what he was like. Perhaps
it wouldn't have resonated as much with the Hebrews at the time that
the letter was written.
> > But in the same chapter, the writer says this:
> >
> > "...let us set aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily
> > beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
> > looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the
> > joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,
> > and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider
> > him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, let ye
> > be wearied and faint in your minds."
> >
> > So here's an example where the writer does use Christ's sacrifice as
> > an analogy to make a point. He specifically refers to the Cross, but
> > true, not to Calvary. Does that mean the sacrifice took place in a
> > "heavenly realm"? Or Lansing, Michigan? Or Uranus? In verse 3, the
> > writer talks about Christ enduring the "contradiction of sinners".
> > Was this part of the heavenly sacrifice? Who were the sinners who
> > were brought into the "perfect" heavenly realm to belittle Christ?
>
> This verse is far too vague for you to read that much into it. It's Christian
> dogma, isn't it, that while hanging on the cross Jesus took all the sins of the
> world upon himself? I.e., he endured the "contradiction" of sinners for their
> own sake? Could this be what that's referring to? (Earl Doherty points out that
> this is indeed the way more than one critical scholar reads this passage.)
Even if this is the case, what about the part where this is a specific
reference to a specific event in Christ's life, and the writer uses it
to make a point about how believers should be patient? You've said
that examples like this do not exist, but here's one that does exist,
and in the same chapter that you're objecting to. Again, I ask, why
should we prefer a "heavenly realm" or "Lansing, Michigan" as the
location of Christ's crucifiction? (whether or not the "contradiction"
of sinners relates to bearing the sins of the world -- I would argue,
based on the context, that it doesn't, but I don't think it's a major
issue here.)
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Thess 2:15
> > If the latter was the case, then what did Paul mean in 1 Thess 2:15: "
> > [the Jews] both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have
> > persecuted us..." Did the Jews "spiritually" kill Jesus in a
> > "spiritual" plane? Of course not! Again, the simplest interpretation
> > makes the most sense here.
>
> 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 is a later interpolation, and that's not just my opinion
> or Earl Doherty's, it's the opinion of a wide range of critical scholars.
Well, that is *incredibly* convenient for you!
> I can
> list names on request, but I'm sure you'd prefer the reasons why they feel that
> way, so I'll provide those instead for now.
Let me just ask this: are any of these "scholars" conservative
scholars, or are they all liberal? Do any hold a "high view" of
Scripture? Not that this arbitrates truth, of course, but if there
was consensus on both sides of the aisle, I'd find that more
compelling. But, the reasons you list below, I don't find compelling.
Let me show why.
> -Verse 16 says of the Jews, "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost," a
> pretty clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the
> Jewish War. This only happened after Paul's death, however.
Ok, but could it be that this reference is actually a predictive
prophecy? In other words, I don't find it compelling to say "this
only happened after Paul's death, therefore he couldn't have known
about it" -- I fully affirm that predictive prophecy can and does
happen. If one assumes that prophecy can't happen, then of course one
will do things like date books like Daniel and Isaiah late, and say
"ah, this one verse in 1 Thess must be a later interpolation", but
frankly, I don't find very much warrant for that belief.
> -The sentiments expressed in this verse are foreign to Paul's theology. Paul
> wasn't an anti-Semite, he didn't hate the Jews, he didn't wish evil upon them.
> Paul *was* a Jew. But the venom in these verses is unmistakable. Compare Romans
> 11:1-2: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.... God hath not
> cast away his people which he foreknew." And now 1 Thess 2:15-16: "[the Jews]
> killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they
> please not God, and are contrary to all men... the wrath is come upon them to
> the uttermost."
Ok, first off, Acts 17:5 does describe Jews at Thessolonica
persecuting Christians. And notice that you can't say here "Acts was
written based on Paul's epistles", since you're saying that this
portion of the epistle was a later interpolation. Is that relevant
section of Acts also a "later interpolation"? (As a sidenote, my
personal belief about Acts is that it must have been written in the
early 60's AD, prior to Paul's death. Given the concern that Luke
showed with describing the details of Paul's life, howbeit that he
ignored this crucial and culminating event, except that it hadn't
happened yet?)
Second, you're saying Paul was a Jew, and didn't hate the Jews. Does
this verse suggest to you hatred, or anger? To me, it's not
unimaginable that Paul, while sympathizing with the Jews, and wishing
them the absolute best, would nevertheless get upset with them for
their conduct. Perhaps the memory of the Thessalonican persecution
was fresh in his mind, and his blood was a bit hot. Given that Romans
was written several years after 1 Thess, maybe he had calmed down by
then, and had put everything in perspective. The bottom line is that
it's not inconsistent to love your countrymen, and yet be angry with
their actions. He indicates in 2 Cor 11:24, for example, how he was
beaten by the Jews 5 times. No doubt that didn't go over too well
with him.
You speak of Paul's theology, but my understanding of Paul's theology
as pertains to the Jews is, "The Jews have messed up very, very badly.
They have pursued righteousness the wrong way, and that culminated in
their missing the event they've been looking for for so long. Jesus
is now a stumbling block to them. Some will be saved, and it's my
prayer that they all will be." And then, appending 1 Thess 2, "the
reality, though, is that they won't all be saved, because they are so
far gone from God's way of doing things."
I don't know. If you said "this is a later interpolation because here
is an MS where it doesn't appear, which is earlier than the first MS
where is does", I would say that was a valid point. But to argue,
"this is a later interpolation because I claim to be able to read
Paul's mind", seems like a very presumptuous thing to do. I don't
think that these grounds reflect anything more than the imposition of
your preconceptions on the text, and I don't think those are fair
grounds with which to evaluate an ancient document. As such, unless
you've got more, I think 1 Thess 2 stands as is for now, and I will
continue to consider it evidence for my case (although you, obviously,
will not be persuaded by such evidence).
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your opinion is duly noted, and recognized as simply an opinion. At
any rate, I didn't interpret this from the blue, I let the context of
the passage speak for itself. The passage says he is "separate from
sinners, holy, harmless, undefiled."
> Strong's Concordance gives
> the following meaning for "chorizo", which is the word translated there as
> "separate":
>
> 5563 chorizo kho-rid'-zo from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part;
> reflexively, to go away:-- depart, put asunder, separate.
>
> > This fits well with the conception that Christ, even
> > while in the flesh, lived a sinless life, which, incidentally, was why
> > he was eligible to be a sacrifice for our sin in the first place.
> >
> > The "true tabernacle" in 8:2 is talking about the presence of God,
> > which Christ, by His sacrifice, and by His status as "a minister of
> > the sanctuary, and the true tabernacle" is now eligible to enter.
> > 9:12 says "neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
> > blood he entered once into the holy place." So nowhere does Hebrews
> > say that He made His sacrifice IN this holy tabernacle. On the
> > contrary, it says that by His sacrifice, He has obtained His position
> > in the tabernacle.
>
> The entrance into the heavenly tabernacle with his own blood was the culminating
> part of the sacrifice. The writer of Hebrews is attempting to draw a parallel
> with the Jewish Day of Atonement rite; in this ritual, the priest slaughters an
> animal outside the tent and then enters into the tent with the blood. It is this
> latter part that produces atonement, not the slaughter outside the tent which
> produced the blood in the first place.
Whoa, look what you just said! This is a parallel with the Day of
Atonement rite? In which the animal is slaughtered OUTSIDE the tent?
And then the priest enters into the tent with the blood? Isn't this
EXACTLY in accordance with my argument, that Christ was killed
"outside the tent"--in earth--but then entered "into the tent"--into
heaven--with His blood? Your original thesis was that Christ
performed his sacrifice in heaven, but unless you have mispoken here,
you have just dismantled your own argument. Do you want to rephrase
your description of the Atonement rite? Or, do you wish to drop
emphasis of the "Platonic parallel", under which you won't allow "a
foot in both camps" (ie, if the analogy has to be perfect, then the
sacrifice has to be ‘outside' the tent, based on your description
here.)? Or, are we done?
>
> > I think that the reason you juxtaposed the verses this way is because
> > of your preconception that Christ sacrificed himself in a spiritual
> > realm; no such interpretation is actually contained in the verses.
>
> In that case, please cite verses from Hebrews that depict Christ's sacrifice as
> having taken place on earth.
Sure, after you provide verses that place it in Heaven. Otherwise,
I'll stick to my current interpretation.
>
> <...>
>
> > >"[Jesus] had lived on earth, he had been human in his incarnation,
> and human
> > >blood, the blood of matter, coursed in his veins. It was shed on a
> hill on
> > >earth, material, red and sticky. The sacrifice--or at least an
> essential >part of
> > >it, a part which the tradition he (i.e., the writer of Hebrews)
> supposedly
> > >received would certainly have regarded as essential--took place in
> the >earthly
> > >realm, in the world of the transient, unreal copy of the heavenly.
> > But such >an earthly dimension would shatter his Platonic comparison.
> > It would >irreparably contaminate the purity of the earth / heaven,
> > high priest / High > Priest contrast on which his whole theology is
> > based.
> >
> > This contrast is based on the location of the ministry; priests talked
> > to God from Earth, by way of sacrifices. Christ, the High Priest, by
> > having offering the perfect sacrifice (Himself), now talks to God in
> > Heaven.
>
> Where did you get "now" from? That concept isn't in Hebrews, that's for sure.
Really? How about in verse 6, "but NOW hath he obtained a more
excellent ministry, by how much also he IS the mediator of a better
covenant" (emphasis mine)
or, backing up to verse 1: "We have such a high priest, who IS set on
the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens..."
What exactly do you mean that the concept of "now" "isn't in Hebrews"?
See below where I argue that Hebrews clearly puts Christ's sacrifice
in the past, and correspondingly, puts his ministry in Heaven in the
present.
> (As Earl Doherty says, 8:4 itself does not say anything like: "If he were *now*
> on earth, he would not be a priest...")
That seems to be the most straightforward word to inject into 8:4,
though. On what grounds do you prefer to render it as "if he had ever
been on earth"?
> Again I ask you: can you produce any
> verse from Hebrews that indicates Christ had an earthly ministry?
I've cited a few above that showed he had a fleshly ministry, and that
he was crucified.
>
> > >The sacrifice had not been confined to the heavenly realm. It had a
> > foot in >both camps, and thus to some extent the writer
> > >would be comparing an earthly thing with another earthly thing.
> >
> > >At the very least, he would have had to address this anomaly. He
> > would have >had to explain why 'human' blood shed on earth could at
> > the same time be >spiritual and cleanse the heavenly sanctuary (9:23).
> >
> > Because Christ was God in the flesh! Because He wasn't corrupted by
> > Adam's "original sin", and because He lived a sin-free life.
> > "Heavenly" things aren't perfect simply by virtue of being "heavenly";
> > rather, something is "heavenly" by the fact of its perfection.
> > Christ's sacrifice wasn't perfect because of where it was made, but by
> > virtue of the perfection of the sacrifice.
>
> Such a justification is exactly what Hebrews itself fails to provide. Do you see
> how you're making my point for me?
I can't say this politely, so I apologize for the flip-ness, but all I
see is that you are making declarative statements about a book that
you haven't read thoroughly enough (or, haven't read recently enough
to be facile with it).
As I showed above, Hebrews 1:4-14 shows "Jesus is God."
Hebrews 2 shows "Jesus was not an angel; He was a man, in the
flesh-and-blood sense; He was a brother to other fleshly men."
We can take these as axioms; Jesus was fully God, and Jesus was fully
human.
Now, I'm going to jump around and remove verses from context in a way
that I've accused you of doing. But, I encourage you to read chapters
9 and 10 to follow the full detail and context in which I'm making my
argument.
Ok, Ch 9 first lays out the details of the sacrificial system under
the old covenant. Inside the sanctuary is the "Holiest of all", which
symbolizes/is the direct presence of God. "9:7 But into the second
went the high priest alone once every year... 8 the Holy Spirit thus
signifying that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made
manifest".
So, at this point, we see that the general populace can't enter the
Holiest of all, because the way in is not yet prepared. Skipping
ahead to Ch 10, verse 1 says "The law having a shadow of good things
to come...can never with those sacrifices...make the comers thereunto
perfect....v4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins."
This explains "why" the people can't enter the Holiest of All; the law
is a shadow of a better sacrifice, but the sacrifices of bulls and
goats don't remove sin.
So, we come to 10:5: "Wherefore when he [ie, Jesus] cometh into the
world, he saith, "Sacrifice and offering though wouldest not, but a
body hast thou prepared me." 10:10 "By the [will of God] we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all." 12 "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." 14 "For by one offering
he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
So, what do we have up to now? The bulls and goats couldn't remove
sins. But, the offering of the body of the man (anthropos) Jesus can,
and did.
19 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by
the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated
for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..."
So, now, we DO have access to the "holiest of all", because the blood
of Jesus is the sacrifice that can remove our sins; it "sanctifies"
us.
Now, skip back to Chapter 2 for a second: 2:11 "For both he that
sanctifieth [ie, Jesus] and they who are santified are all of one, for
which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."
So, Jesus was fully God, and fully man. He was perfect, according
9:14 -- he "offered himself without spot to God"-- which can only mean
that he was without sin. (otherwise Christ would also need to atone
for his own sin, which was what the priests were already doing.) His
sacrifice was acceptable to God, and cleanses all of our sins, and
AFTER He made this sacrifice, He sat down on the right hand of God.
And it's "through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (10:20) by
which we have access to the Holiest of all.
And again, none of this has anything to do with where the sacrifice
was made, but rather, with the perfection of the sacrifice. But the
identity that is drawn between Jesus and his "brethren", the
affirmation that Jesus was flesh, and the several references to His
death on the cross, strongly (I would say overwhelmingly) point to the
traditional interpretation of a sacrifice made on earth.
> > >He would have had to justify why,
> > >when every Christian circle around him (presumably) thought of
> > Christ's
> > >sacrifice in terms of its occurrence on Calvary, he has ignored such
> > a venue >and placed it in heaven.
> >
> > This is a misreading of the text. True, the writer doesn't mention
> > Calvary, but neither does He place Christ's sacrifice in heaven;
> > rather, he places Christ in heaven as a high priest, as a result of
> > (and subsequent to) His sacrifice.
>
> Again: If you think Hebrews only places Christ in heaven "subsequent to" his
> sacrifice, then please quote any verse from Hebrews that places him on earth
> before that.
First, it is beyond dispute that the relevant sections of Hebrews are
necessarily dealing with a time period "subsequent to" Christ's
sacrifice. That's why the writer says "so Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many" (9:28) and "...we are santified through the
offerering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (10:10) and
"[Jesus] for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,
despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne
of God." (12:2) So, it is crystal clear that the writer places
Christ's sacrifice at some point in the past. It is also crystal
clear that he places Christ's present minsitry at the right hand of
God in the present.
The question for both of us then, is what was Jesus' nature prior to,
and during, His sacrifice? And, where did His sacrifice occur? I
have demonstrated how the writer showed that Christ took on human
flesh, and that he died on a cross. From there, I suggest that it
makes the most sense to interpret this in the orthodox picture; that
Jesus was a man, who lived and died on earth. In contrast, the best
evidence you can adduce for your case is "I personally believe the
writer is making a Platonic parallel. Based on what I know (or think
I know) about Platonic parallels, a heavenly thing is contrasted with
an earthly thing. I think that Jesus' sacrifice, to be a correct
parallel for the priestly sacrifice, must have been purely heavenly.
The writer should have known this, and a "flesh-and-blood" Jesus would
have messed up his parallel. Therefore, there must not have been a
flesh and blood Jesus."
The problem is that your *entire* thesis rests on your assumptions
that (a) the writer is making a Platonic parallel and (b) the parallel
must be perfect to be valid. You are also making the mistake of
believing the parallel to be about the sacrifice itself, when in
actuality, the relevant portion of Hebrews is comparing the
*priesthoods*. The Aaronic priests talked to God from Earth; the new,
better High Priest talks to God from Heaven.
And again, I think the burden of proof rests with you; if the writer
of Hebrews places the sacrifice in a heavenly setting, where does he
say this?
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> Verse 4 does not say that Christ never came to
> > >> earth, of course;
> >
> > >"Of course"? Be wary of assuming your conclusion.
> >
> > Yes, assuming the conclusion is bad, but I haven't. It's a simple
> > fact: the verse doesn't say "Christ never came to earth". It says "if
> > he were on earth", ie, He is not, now, on earth. Does that mean he
> > never was? Not necessarily.
>
> Okay, I think I can better communicate my point here with an example from a more
> neutral setting. You said you graduated from Binghamton. Let's say you and I are
> corresponding, writing letters about a common friend. I write this to you:
>
> "If he were in Binghamton, he wouldn't be taking calculus."
>
> Context aside for the moment, which is a more natural way of interpreting this
> statement?
> A) Our mutual friend actually did go to Binghamton at one time, and didn't take
> calculus while he was there.
> B) Our mutual friend never did go to Binghamton, but if he had, he wouldn't have
> taken calculus.
>
> I would suggest that (B) is the more natural and less forced way to interpret
> this statement. If I wanted to convey the sentiment in (A), I would write
> something like, "While he was in Binghamton...", or, "If he was still in
> Binghamton..." - wouldn't you?
Ok, first, here is how I'd interpret the statement. "If he were in
Binghamton" strongly suggests to me that the person is not in
Binghamton at the moment. "He wouldn't be taking calculus" doesn't
tell me much without me knowing some more about the situation. Has he
already taken calculus? Is he not in a math-heavy discipline?
>
> And I would suggest the situation with Hebrews 8:4 is the same. I mean, under
> your interpretation, I don't think this verse makes any sense. If the writer
> really had meant that Jesus *was* on earth once and hadn't been a priest then,
> why would he bother to say that he wouldn't do it *now* either? That's such a
> trivial and irrelevant point.
>
I'm sorry, but (A) is not a good representation of my position. I'm
not saying that "if he were on earth" is supposed to be interpreted as
teaching that "Jesus was on earth, but isn't now"; rather, I'm saying
it is CONSISTENT with that view.
> But I think it makes more sense if the writer was trying to draw a Platonic
> parallel. Why wouldn't Jesus be a priest if he were on earth? Christians would
> probably say that it's because his death and resurrection have superseded the
> old covenant of priestly sacrifices, and made them unnecessary - but that's not
> what Hebrews says. Rather, Hebrews says that, if Jesus were on earth, he
> wouldn't be a priest, "since there are (already) priests (on earth) who offer
> gifts according to the law." (I think the terms I added in parentheses are
> implicit here; let me know if you disagree with either of them.) The role of
> priest was "taken" on earth, so to speak; it was in heaven where Jesus could
> conduct his analogous but more perfect ministry and offer a single sacrifice for
> all time.
Once again, you've tried to connect two things together that don't
necessarily belong. "It was in heaven where Jesus could conduct his
analogous but more perfect ministry", I agree with (although perhaps
‘analogous' is a debatable word), but then you append "and offer a
single sacrifice for all time." Yes, the writer says that Christ
offered a single sacrifice for all time. But nowhere does he connect
it with the heavenly ministry (except to explain that the sacrifice
was what granted access to the heavenly ministry), and nowhere does he
place it in a heavenly locale. You're reading in Platonism, where it
is not explicit, and in a few places, downright contradicts other
things the writer says.
Again, just because there were some people at the time who espoused
this belief in Platonism, that doesn't mean that is what the writer is
trying to do. You accused me previously of letting a silence stand
for what is not in evidence. You're doing pretty much the same thing
here; the writer doesn't say he *isn't* making a Platonic parallel,
therefore, he must be, and therefore he must not be aware of an
earthly Christ, and *furthermore*, the places where he talks about a
fleshly Christ, just mean something else.
Who cares? Why do you care so much about the quality of this Platonic
parallel?
>
> Given that the Council of Nicaea is more than two hundred years in the future at
> this point; given that Trinitarian theology as modern Christians understand it
> didn't exist yet; given that the true nature of Jesus was thereby far from
> determinate, far from universally understood and agreed upon, at the time
> Hebrews was written
How do you know that the true nature of Jesus was far from
determinate? And what difference does that make? Christians believe
that the Bible was inspired by God. The mere fact that some people
weren't on the same page doesn't mean that no writings from that
period can be trusted to reliably present accurate theology; rather,
it's to say that all of the documents that we call "accurate theology"
should be consistent with each other, and we should have means by
which we can prefer them to "inaccurate theology" documents.
>- isn't it reasonable to think that the writer should have
> devoted at least *some* space to explaining why this isn't an invalid
> comparison? Shouldn't we expect an explanation from him as to how Jesus'
> material, mortal, vulnerable human body, his sticky, red blood staining a wooden
> cross and dripping onto dusty soil, could simultaneously be "heavenly things"
> that would fulfill the qualification Hebrews sets forth?
But again, in Hebrews 2, the writer makes it clear that he fully
affirms Jesus' humanity. He ‘took not on him the nature of angels';
he ‘took part' of flesh and blood; He ‘took on Him' the seed of
Abraham; ‘it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren'. Further,
the writer describes the cross as shameful in ch 12. He messes up his
own parallel, by that argument. But so what? Again, he's concerned
with the perfection of Christ's sacrifice, which isn't arbitrated by
whether it was "material" or "spiritual". Where, from the Bible, do
you get the idea that "material = bad"? God blessed the initial
creation; He was pleased with it. God is material-affirming. If I'm
not mistaken, the view that "matter is bad" was a heresy called
Gnosticism.
>
> But, of course, Hebrews feels no need to present any such explanation. It's as
> if the writer didn't even expect this to be an issue with anyone.
>
Probably because he was writing to 1st century Hebrews, and not 21st
century hyper skeptics like Earl Doherty!
> Now, reading the Bible almost two thousand years later, with the nature of
> Christ well worked out and widely agreed upon, it's easy for you to impose that
> consensus on the text and say that what "everyone knows" now is the same as what
> "everyone knew" then.
Rather, I'm saying that if what "everyone knows" now is truly what God
would have us to know, then people at that time would also have
"known" the same things, even if they weren't even in the majority.
"Let God be true, and every man a liar." I think you're arguing that
the Bible was considered the word of God because it was canonized by
the church. But Christians would say the opposite; that the Bible was
canonized, because it is the Word of God.
Furthermore, Christians take into account a factor that you presumably
would not; we believe that there is an extremely powerful spirit who
is wrestling for the hearts and minds of believers. Based on the
Bible, the primary mode of attack that he uses is to challenge the
Word of God; to question it skeptically (cf Genesis 3: "Hath God said,
you shall not eat of every tree in the garden"). So I would fully
expect that at the time the Word was being established and written,
that the Devil would have dramatically heightened his efforts to sew
confusion and discord among believers, to get them to dispute over the
Word of God. But the resiliency of the Word is such that even amidst
tumultuous times, it emerges unscathed.
Obviously, you're not going to accept this argument; I'm just trying
to demonstrate that there is more than one way to look at the
situation.
> But I say that's not at all the case. (At Nicaea, a *huge*
> controversy erupted over *one single letter* in the description of Jesus'
> nature.) Again I warn you: Be extremely cautious of imposing modern-day
> preconceptions on an ancient text. Not to be insulting, but based on comments
> you've already made I fear you're doing this, not just with Hebrews, but with
> the entire New Testament canon, and as a result I fear you may completely miss
> or fail to see the thrust of many of my arguments.
>
[snip]
> >
> > Ok, first, is there any evidence FROM THE BIBLE to suggest that there
> > is such a thing as a "heavenly tribe of Judah",
>
> Yes, as I said: the tense. "It is evident that our Lord has sprung from Judah."
> If you're asking for this verse to have a footnote reading: "* By this we mean
> the heavenly version of the earthly tribe," well, no, of course there isn't any
> such thing. That this is what was meant by this verse is an argued conclusion,
> based on evidence of the mindset of the times and other verses that I think
> clearly exclude the possibility of a historical man being intended.
First, one of your main theses is that the writers don't append things
like "by this we mean Jesus, who died literally here on earth", and
yet you try to let yourself off the hook when the same things don't
exist for your own case. You ask me to "provide verses that place
Jesus' sacrifice in an earthly setting", but for you, "argued
conclusion" is sufficient? Isn't that a double standard? And before
you charge me with simply "going with the flow" of the traditional
interpretation, you'll notice that I've repeatedly ‘argued' for my
conclusion, and have done so with other verses written by the same
writer. In contrast, you appeal to Platonism, which we don't know
whether the writer affirmed or not.
The problem with your "argued conclusion" is threefold. First, the
existence of a particular mindset contemporary to these writings does
not prove that the writers espoused that mindset. Paul, for instance,
indicates in several places his own "Jewish-ness". Second, the ‘other
verses' you cite by no means accomplish anything ‘clearly', without
lots of speculation. Third, you assume your conclusion, ie, that
Jesus wasn't historical, to dismiss verses that suggest that he was a
bona fide, flesh and blood man. And wherever points of correspondence
exist with the Gospel narratives, you say, "ah, but the Gospels
borrowed that from the Epistles". It seems like your case is built
out of pure Teflon.
>
> > or that any
> > interpretation of the OT prophecies could lead to such a status?
>
> Not in the canonical Bible. However, parallels exist among apocryphal works. For
> instance, the Jewish Similitudes of Enoch, written probably mid-first century,
> regards the members of the sect who wrote it as being represented by a heavenly
> champion, the Son of Man, who embodied and defined the characteristics they
> viewed themselves as having.
But who borrowed from whom? Maybe the writer of that lifted some of
the thinking from Christianity, and not vice versa. The Jehovah's
Witnesses believe some downright heretical things, and yet, at a lot
of points, they agree with Christianity. If I wrote a book about
Christianity, that doesn't mean someone 200 or 2000 years from now
should look at my book, look at a book by a JW, and conclude that I
was heavily influenced by them simply because of some similarities
between our works.
>
> > Furthermore, how could Christ "spiritually" descend from a heavenly
> > tribe? What does being a spiritual descendent mean?
>
> Beats me. Paul does say Jesus is a "mystery". But this isn't a problem with my
> argument, it's a problem with the modern mindset - we just don't think in these
> terms anymore, so it can be difficult to comprehend someone who did.
But the problem is, you're saying "I understand Paul/Hebrews
writer/etc just well enough to know that they aren't talking about an
earthly Messiah, but beyond that, I have no idea what he's talking
about." That's incredibly convenient; it lets you stop at the point
of refuting what you want to refute, but exempts you from actually
having to understand what the person is actually saying. Lacking
that, I don't see how you can be sure that you have correctly
understood "the 1st century mindset".
I don't think that these verses adequately make that case, though.
Again, the allegory is that Isaac and Ishmael represent two covenants.
Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the current Jerusalem, which is in
bondage. Sarah, the free woman, represents "Jerusalem which is
above", which is free, and which is the mother of us all. The
allegory is not saying we are all "sprung from Sarah" or some thing,
it's saying that Sarah and Hagar are an allegory for the covenants,
one that we used to be under, and the other that we currently are
under. And there is NO connection to verse 4 in the section about
Hagar and Sarah. Again, the chapters and verses are not part of the
original letter. Just because they are in the same chapter doesn't
mean they are logically connected thoughts. And reading the chapter,
it's by no means certain that "made of a woman" in verse 4 is not
related to the analogy that involves the 2 women in verse 24.
Well, I think it's obvious what my interpretation would be, but as to
why the writer uses an unusual word choice? I just don't know. As I
said, I don't know Greek, and couldn't begin to comment on the nuances
of word choice in that language.
>
> > -- the writer was simply trying to appeal
> > to the Jews by virtue of having Christ arise from a "heavenly tribe of
> > Judah", thus fulfilling the clear word of prophecy that Jesus would be
> > a descendent of Judah. But I don't think this is well supported by
> > the document itself.
>
> The question you should be asking is whether it's supported by similar documents
> from the historical context of the time. (I note that you offered no alternative
> explanation as to why Hebrews says Christ "has sprung" from Judah, the timeless
> present perfect, rather than simple past-tense "was sprung" as we would expect
> if the writer had had a recent historical person in mind; also, I argued that
> the verb "sprung" [anatellein] does not necessarily mean "birth" in the human
> sense, but rather has a broader meaning of "becoming", and is used in other
> messianic passages.)
Again, is this really what "we" would expect, or is this what Earl
Doherty says we should expect? Again, are you a Greek scholar, or are
you appealing to someone else's scholarship here?
Perhaps the timelessness, if it in fact exists in the Greek (a claim
that I'll accept for now, but by no means actually grant you), is
related to Christ's own timelessness. Given that He is God (which
Hebrews 1 teaches), He is, in a certain sense, ageless. And yet, at
one point in eternity, He "became" a man, and "has sprung" from Judah
into the God-Man couple that He now "is". So maybe "was sprung" would
have placed a temporality to Him in a way that is inconsistent with
His eternal preexistence.
> What you should want to know is, is there evidence that
> other ancient writers (both Christians and not) also thought of the world as
> operating in this way, heaven the mirror image and primary archetype of earth? I
> would argue that there is.
>
> Doherty, for instance, quotes a fourth-century writer named Julian the Apostate
> who writes of the savior god Attis as existing in a heavenly realm where "the
> substance which is subject to change mingles with the passionless revolving
> sphere of the fifth substance," a world that is not "matter itself, but the
> lowest non-material cause which subsists prior to matter," the "connecting link"
> between forms set in matter and forms that transcend matter. Again, while this
> is a worldview difficult for a twenty-first-century mind to grasp, the concept
> *did* exist in the ancient world.
Well, if I am supposed to take a paragraph written by a guy called
"Julian the APOSTATE", a worshipper of Attis, a paragraph which is so
bizarre as to not make any sense, and was written 200-300 years after
Paul, as in some way being a useful example of how to interpret Paul's
mindset, I'm afraid I must decline.
The other problem is, you're trying to say "this mindset was present
at the time, therefore, that must be the mindset Paul was operating
from." But obviously this is an unwarranted conclusion. There are
obviously lots of bizarre things that people think these days, too,
but just because someone writes something with a similarity to
something that those people think, doesn't mean that the writer is
working from the mindset of the bizarre belief-holder. It's the same
with the Epistle writers. The mere contemporary presence of mystery
religion people doesn't prvoe for us that Paul et al were a part of
that school. On the contrary, they seem to want to distance
themselves from beliefs that are not anchored in reality.
At any rate, this post has been brutally long, and again, my
apologies. Hopefully, it lays out a more comprehensive case for my
side of the argument. Again, I welcome your comments, but regrettably
can't promise that I'll be able to give a full and detailed response
to further dialogue (nor would I expect you to reply to every point
I've raised here...)
Best,
Jeff
Rik Trottier
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
Louann Miller
<ri...@ns.sympatico.cca> wrote:
>Check out this link on that very subject. Its excellent.
>
>http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
"Distribute at your own risk. Prepare to defend yourself from
physical attack. "
Sarah Whippman
<rgre...@binghamton.edu> writes
>Why would an atheist care if Jesus ever existed. So what if he did. Why
>assert it? Why discount it?
Out of interest. Same reason that, for example, people still debate
over whether Richard III really killed the Princes in the Tower - it's
not going to make a blind bit of practical difference at this stage
whether he did or didn't do it, but some people, including me,
nevertheless find it fascinating to try to the best of our abilities to
decide, on the basis of the available evidence, what actually did
happen. In the same way, many people (again including me) find it
fascinating to try to figure out just how much, if any, of the stories
of Jesus's lifetime are historically true.
All the best,
Sarah
Adam Marczyk
> Adam,
>
> I have been working on this response for a week now, and frankly, I
> think it has gotten away from me. It is now unbelievably long, and I
> apologize to all for taking up so much space.
Heh. Mine is even longer, I think, though I've trimmed a lot and tried to save
space where I could, and I apologize for that. Still, no worries - I think
there's plenty of space left on Usenet. (The Google people may be upset at me
for clogging their archive, though...) Those who are interested and have the
time to read all the way through it can do that, and those who can't should feel
free to ignore it.
> No doubt it contains
> many redundancies, errors, and incomplete arguments; I've tried to
> check it, but some things may have gotten by. Because preparing this
> was an enormous investment of time, I think this will probably have to
> comprise the bulk of my participation in this discussion.
I understand - I wish I had more time as well, but mine is just as limited as
yours.
> I'll try to
> defend any remarks you wish to discuss further, but time will probably
> prevent me from keeping up with all of the points. But, honestly, if
> I can't "win" with this thread, then further discussion will probably
> not get me much farther along anyway.
>
> I'm going to try to reorganize this thread a bit. In doing so, I'm
> undoubtably going to lose some content. If you feel I've cut anything
> that you particularly wanted me to respond to, just let me know.
>
> I'll organize my remarks in this way:
>
> 1. What are the Epistles saying?
> 2. The formulation of your argument
> 3. Specific verses
>
>
> 1. What are the Epistles saying?
>
> This thread has gotten so long that I no longer am sure even what you
> are arguing. I'll ask a few questions, that hopefully will clarify
> things.
Fair enough, and I apologize if I've confused you. I'll do my best to present an
accurate summary of my views below, which will hopefully clear some things up.
> First, I'm almost sure you affirm the following statement:
>
> A. Jesus did not die in an earthly setting.
>
> But that's about all that I'm sure of. First, as for the epistles, I
> can't tell which of the following you affirm:
>
> A. The epistles present a coherent theology (but it does not agree
> with that of the gospels)
> B. The epistles present an incoherent theology (but at no point does
> it agree with the gospels)
The former. Actually, the epistles aren't perfectly consistent, which is
understandable since they were written by many different people dispersed over a
wide geographic area and a timespan of several decades; there are minor
variations in their theology and their soteriology. But I would argue that they
all express essentially the same viewpoint: they all express belief in a
spiritual Jesus whose sacrificial death and salvific resurrection took place in
a heavenly sphere and who is known on earth through revelation.
As for the six options A-F you presented, none of them exactly captures my view,
though A is closest. I would argue that ancient thought saw the heavens as
divided into "spheres" - usually seven, to correspond with the planets known at
that time (the moon was seen as a planet back then). The highest sphere was the
realm of God and was purely spiritual. The lowest was the realm of the demon
spirits, which although they were heavenly beings, were seen as semi-corporeal,
close to the sphere of matter and flesh. I would further argue that Jesus, the
Logos or Word, started out in the highest sphere of pure spirit with God. But
purely spiritual beings can't suffer or die, so to perform his salvific act, he
descended through the spheres of the heavens, taking on increasing similarity to
flesh along the way. He finally reached the lowest sphere, where he took on the
"likeness" of flesh, becoming able to suffer and die. This is what happened, as
the demon spirits (the "rulers of this age"), not knowing who he was, crucified
him. He then resurrected, breaking their power over humanity in the process, and
ascended back to the highest heaven to take his rightful place with God. This
motif is called the "descending-ascending redeemer" and appears in the
literature of other salvation religions of that era.
[...]
> Let's see why each of these statements is flawed.
>
> ****************************************************************
> i. Jesus was purely spiritual.
>
> This is refuted by many verses. I'll give a few:
>
> 1 Pet 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,
> arm yourselves likewise with the same mind...
>
> Crucial clause: "Christ suffered in the flesh". He wasn't purely
> spiritual.
I agree, he wasn't. As I said above, a Christ in the highest heaven, that of
pure spirit, would not have been able to suffer or die. That's why he had to
descend to the realm of the demon spirits and take on the "likeness" of flesh.
The epistle writers don't always use this laborious way to write out what he
did, and often just use the shortcut of saying he performed his act "in flesh",
which makes it that much easier for modern readers to misinterpret the epistles.
Nevertheless, there are textual clues to what they really meant. The "likeness"
verses are one.
And another is the actual Greek. I won't quote Earl Doherty, but another expert
who's reviewed his book, Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, points out that the
phrase in the epistles usually translated as "in the flesh" or "in accordance
with flesh", namely "kata sarka", is a very strange and unconventional way to
phrase it if the gospel meaning is what was intended ("en sarki" would be a much
more natural way to convey that meaning). It can, however, mean "towards flesh",
"in the region of flesh", or even "like flesh". The way most Bibles translate it
is highly unorthodox, and is derived from gospel preconceptions. (URL on
request.)
> 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
> which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
> hands have handled, of the word of life (for the life was manifested,
> and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal
> life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
>
> Crucial clause: "our hands have handled"...ie, this guy was a real
> person. We're not talking about a spirit here, but a physical person,
> and we have personally touched him.
As before, you're reading gospel associations into a verse that does not itself
contain them. Nowhere does this verse say that they actually touched or handled
any human being. The most it says is that they've seen and handled the "word of
life", a vague concept whose interpretation in no way mandates a recent human
Jesus.
> 1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
> confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God...
>
> Crucial clause: the whole thing. Jesus came in the flesh, and this is
> *essential* -- someone who denies this is not of God.
As above, the "flesh" being referred to here is that of the demon spirits who
inhabited the lowest realm of heaven. These beings were seen in the thought of
the time as fleshly and semi-corporeal, though they had heavenly versions of
earthly bodies.
> Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he
> took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved
> him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and
> faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
> reconciliation for the sins of the people, for in that he himself hath
> suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
>
> Crucial clause: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels,
> but he took on him the seed of Abraham." He didn't appear as an
> angel, but in the form of the seed of Abraham, ie, as a descendent of
> Abraham, ie, as a man. (More on this verse below)
I'll discuss this later on, following your lead.
> 1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the
> firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man
> came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even
> so in Christ shall all be made alive.
>
> Crucial clause: "since by man came death, by man came also the
> resurrection of the dead". Adam, as we know from Romans, was the man
> by whom death came; Christ was the man by whom the resurrection of the
> dead came. This is an analogy; it is explicitly comparing Adam and
> Christ as two men. It is not contrasting Adam's manhood with Christ's
> "spirit-hood". It's saying that both were men; one man brought death,
> the other brought resurrection.
This verse will be discussed in detail later on also.
> Phil 2:5 [Jesus Christ], being in the form of God, thought it not
> robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and
> took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of
> men..
Here the verse itself contradicts you. It simply says that Jesus was made in the
"likeness" ("homoioma" again, which I've already mentioned) of man. You
suggested when I pointed this word out before, in Romans 8:3, that the
"likeness" was of sinfulness, not flesh itself. In this verse, that is not a
viable interpretation. Why does it only say that Jesus took on the "likeness" of
men? I would suggest the answer is that Jesus descended to the demon spirits'
realm and there took on a form that *appeared* human, to deceive them about his
true identity so that they would play into his hands by crucifying him.
[...]
In fact, this is much easier to explain under my theory than you might think. To
demonstrate this, I'll again refer to the Greek, because the English translation
here has masked a potentially very important word.
The word translated as "likewise" in 2:14 is "paraplesios". It means "near to,
similar, resembling" in the sense of "in a similar manner". In other words, this
verse doesn't say Jesus became flesh and blood, it says he became *like* flesh
and blood, or "similar to" flesh and blood. Again, this fits perfectly with the
theory that Jesus only took on a semblance of flesh and blood, in the ethereal
realm of the demon spirits. Demons are hardly "of the nature of angels" in any
case, so the first part of verse 16 is resolved.
> It says explicitly that he didn't do this as an angel, but by
> taking on the "seed of Abraham", and by being "made like unto his
> brethren" (namely, men, as revealed earlier in the chapter). You
> tried to show elsewhere that it's possible to be a "spiritual
> descendent". Is it possible to be "spiritually of the seed of
> Abraham"?
Yes, certainly. Why not? If early Christians could regard Jesus as spiritually
"born of woman" (Galatians 4:4, 26), it's not that much more of a leap for them
to regard him as spiritually descended from Abraham. In any case, the Old
Testament prophesied that the messiah would be a descendant of Abraham (and
David), and anyone claimed to fulfill this role *had* to satisfy that prophecy
regardless of his nature. This doesn't represent independent biographical data
about any human life of Jesus.
[...]
> ****************************************************************
> iii. Jesus never appeared on earth before his sacrifice.
>
> Ok, first, you say that the epistle writers don't come out and say
> "Just as Jesus said, ....", but you obviously are aware that their
> writings are rich with allusions to his teachings (like, for example,
> Romans 11).
To say the epistles are "allusions" to Jesus' gospel teachings is to assume the
proposition in question. I would suggest that basic human psychology compels us
to believe that, if the epistle writers knew of a recent human Jesus whom they
had worshipped and loved with all their hearts and minds and souls, whom they
believed to be God on earth, whose teachings they had reshaped their entire
lives around, at least one of them would, at least once, have given us a phrase
as simple and easy as "as Jesus himself taught us". But this doesn't happen
anywhere in the epistles, not even once. As in my coin-flipping example, I think
this is a discrepancy that requires an explanation.
> But, since you'll say the Gospels are derivative of the
> Epistles, I guess I am not allowed to use that as evidence for my
> case. Nevertheless, it does fit perfectly well in the framework of my
> case. If I made references to you about "Academic I", I wouldn't need
> to append "which, as you know, is a building on the Binghamton
> University campus", since we both know this, and we both know that we
> know this.
This isn't a good analogy. Academic I is a building that has a definite earthly
location. Your analogy would be more relevant if any of the epistle writers had
mentioned any aspect of Jesus' life in relation to any definite place -
Bethlehem, Galilee, Jerusalem, Calvary, Golgotha - which, of course, they never
do.
> So the mere fact that the apostles don't constantly remind
> each other "this is what Jesus said" isn't really evidence for or
> against.
Your argument here founders on an important point. If what you say is true, why
would the epistle writers even need to repeat these statements at all? After
all, if their intended audiences already knew that Jesus had said them, they
would by definition also already know that they had been said. Why bother
repeating what everyone already knows? If the answer is that it's a matter of
basic psychology, that they liked these sayings so much or found them so
valuable that they repeated them even though there was no real need to, then we
end up right back at what I said above: in that case we should also, at least
some of the time, expect them to actually attribute these sayings to Jesus,
whether there was a need to or not.
[...]
> 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when
> we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
> but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he receivded from God the
> Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the
> excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
> And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
> in the holy mount."
>
> Here, again, we have a gospel detail reproduced in an epistle. Now,
> true, it doesn't say "and Jesus was explicitly a flesh-and-blood man
> at the moment that this happened". But to make this scene "spiritual"
> and post-sacrificial, you have to assert that the gospel writers and
> Peter were not at all on the same page theologically, and someone
> badly misunderstood the other. It seems that we don't actually know
> whether Peter or Mark was written first, but since they were supposed
> to be contemporaries, it seems they didn't communicate well, if your
> interpretation is to be preferred.
No, this is not at all what I'm arguing. Rather, Mark deliberately intended his
gospel to be a syncretistic blend, incorporating in more literal form revelatory
and visionary epistle details such as the crucifixion, the Last Supper, and this
(which became the Transfiguration).
Would you argue that I'm taking things in reverse, that this is a clear
description of the Gospel Transfiguration? Then I would say that you've
overlooked a verse of crucial significance concerning what those allegedly
present at this event had to say about it. I quote from the NIV:
"16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17
For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him
from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am
well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we
were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 ***And we have the word of the prophets
made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light
shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your
hearts.***" (my emphasis)
Read verse 19 in particular, and then ask yourself what is going on here. Do you
understand why this is bizarre under the gospel picture? Is Peter really saying
that his eyewitness experience of Jesus being glorified and transfigured into a
transcendent divine persona, his hearing the very voice of God proclaim Jesus
his only beloved Son, serves no greater purpose than to further confirm what
they already knew about Old Testament scripture?
Earl Doherty quotes mainstream scholars who call this striking juxtaposition
"paradoxical". But it's far more than that. If the writer of this verse had had
a human Jesus in mind, an earthly incarnated Christ, how could he *not* have
conceived of *him* and his teachings, not "the word of the prophets", as the
"light shining in a dark place"? This is nothing more or less than an utterly
inexplicable omission (under the gospel picture anyway).
So what is this verse describing? As with other seemingly historical epistle
details, I would say that it's referring to a shared visionary experience, a
"feeling" of Christ's presence among the writers that quite possibly initiated
the sect they then belonged to. It was Mark who took this ball and ran with it,
fleshing it out into the full gospel picture of the Transfiguration.
[...]
> The epistles do tell us a few things about Christ's sacrifice.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (a) We know that he was crucified:
Agreed, he was crucified - but in a heavenly realm, not a mortal one.
[...]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (b) We know that Christ was crucified by men:
>
> 1 Cor 2:8 which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they
> known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
No. This verse is not referring to human beings. (If you think otherwise, then
who do you suppose the "princes of this world" were? What princes were involved
in the crucifixion, according to the gospels?)
As I said earlier, the early Christians believed that by his death Jesus broke
the power of the demon spirits. Prevailing thought of that time saw the world as
pervaded by malign spiritual influences which caused virtually all of the pains,
miseries and injuries that afflicted man. (Even the gospels support this - look
at how many verses there are that attribute illness and disability to demon
possession.) These demon spirits were called the "rulers of this age," because
God was temporarily allowing them to rule over the world until the Messiah came
to overthrow them and usher in the age of God's kingdom. (Again, Christians
still believe something similar, this isn't a great leap.) Many salvation
religions were largely devoted to providing ways to resist these evil spirits'
perceived power, and Christianity was no exception: by his death and
resurrection Christ had broken their power over man.
These evil spirits and demon powers, therefore, are the ones here called the
"princes of this world". Ephesians 2:2 and 6:12 are other epistle verses that
make this more clear. Even the gospels support this: Jesus frequently refers to
Satan as the "prince of this world". (Compare John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11.)
[...]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (c) We know that he died as a man:
>
> 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
> for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
> the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.
I've already discussed "flesh", and not to get embroiled in a battle over
translations, but I will point out that there's an alternate translation of this
verse which some Bible editions (such as the NEB) use:
"In the body he was put to death; in the spirit he was brought to life."
[...]
> 1 Cor 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how
> say some among you that there is no resuurection of the dead? But if
> there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, and if
> Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is
> also vain.
>
> The 1 Corinithians passage, to me, is my "smoking gun". Read 1
> Corinthians 15. Better yet, I'll reproduce it here for you, starting
> at v12
All right, but I don't think this passage comes close to supporting you - in
fact, I think it can be turned around and used to my advantage. We'll see.
> 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
> among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
> 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ no
> risen:
> 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your
> faith is also vain.
> 15 Yea, and we are found false winesses of God, because we have
> testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if
> so be that the dead rise not.
> 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
> 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your
> sins.
> 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
> 19 If in this only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most
> miserable.
> 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
> of them that slept.
> 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of
> the dead.
> 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
>
> So from 1 Cor 15, what do we take? A couple of things. First, that
> there were some who believed that the dead are not resurrected.
And this is powerful circumstantial evidence in favor of my case. If the church
of Corinth knew of a historical, human Jesus who had done dramatic miracles like
raising Lazarus or Jairus' daughter from death, or rising from that same state
himself, how could there possibly have been any of them who said "that there is
no resurrection of the dead"? Why was there even an argument about this? And
furthermore, why didn't Paul refer to these miracles as undeniable proof of his
case? You said that the epistle writers didn't mention some gospel details
because their intended audience already knew of them; here that argument can't
help you. Here it was obvious that the intended audience did *not* already know
of these things, and so there would be a pressing need to refer to them. But
Paul doesn't do this - he doesn't even make the obvious appeal that there were
eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection body. Instead, he expresses himself as if
that resurrection was purely a matter of faith - exactly as my interpretation
would lead a person to believe.
> But Paul shows here that if such a belief were true, then neither could
> Christ be raised from the dead.
Agreed. So why was there even an argument about this?
> What is interesting to note here is
> that he doesn't appeal to a special set of rules that apply to Christ,
> whereby He, by being "spiritually dead", could be raised in some
> special spiritual way that differs from the resurrection that some
> believers were concerned about.
Of course he doesn't. The whole point of the salvific mystery religions was that
the initiates would undergo (in some sense) the same thing that their savior
deity underwent. That promise would be rather significantly weakened if Christ's
death and resurrection was different from the one promised to believers.
(Compare Romans 6:3-5.) (Granted, Christ's resurrection took place in a heavenly
plane rather than earth, but the processes were still analogous - they took
place under the same set of rules, as you put it. Besides, even today,
Christians believe that the eternal life they'll gain by believing in Jesus is
spiritual and heavenly in nature.)
> No, he only refers to one kind of
> resurrection, that from the dead. Verse 20 furthers this by saying
> that Christ is the firstfruits of them that slept. (ie, died) And he
> hammers it home in 21, when he says that "since by man came death, by
> man came also the resurrection of the dead". He explicitly shows that
> Christ was a man who died and was raised again, and in THIS can
> believers also hope to be raised from the dead.
Now here you have a serious point that's very worth dealing with. I agree, 1
Corinthians 15:21 says that Jesus was "man". Does this mandate an interpretation
of a recent historical human?
Surprisingly, no. Have you ever heard of Philo of Alexandria? He was a
Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher who lived at the same time and in the same region
as Paul and the other early Christians. Philo had an unusual way of reconciling
the two different creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis: He
wrote that Genesis 1:26-27 refers to the creation of the *idea* of man - the
"archetype", the mold, so to speak. (This is a Platonic idea; as I said, Philo
was heavily influenced by Hellenistic thought.) Genesis 2, on the other hand,
refers to the first true man, Adam, who was a sort of copy of this "Heavenly
Man".
In Philo's world, the Heavenly Man (a phrase he himself coined) was not a human
being in any literal sense. The Heavenly Man was transcendent, made of perfect
heavenly material, incorporeal and incorruptible; he had no gender in the usual
sense of the word, and possibly didn't even have a body in the usual sense of
*that* word. Philo also says that the Heavenly Man was not a created thing in
the sense that ordinary men were, but rather was directly stamped with the image
of God. (I can provide quotes from Philo for all of this upon request.)
It's plain to see that it's not much of a leap to equate this Heavenly Man idea
with Christ, the cosmic transcendent Logos; and the situation in 1 Corinthians,
I would suggest, is an example of exactly this. Paul is here attempting to
compare and contrast Adam, the "first man", and Christ, the "last man"; but
Christ is a man only in the same sense that the "Heavenly Man" was. In fact,
there are some extremely revealing verses in this chapter that show exactly what
Paul thought Christ was - verses 45-46.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam
was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but
that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (KJV)
These verses, I would suggest, are nothing less than devastating to your case.
They say flat-out that Paul thought of Jesus as spiritual. In conjunction with
that fact, once we understand why reference to him as "man" does not necessarily
mean a mortal existence, the rest of your argument here evaporates.
> The rest of Ch 15
> deals with what the resurrected body is like, but I won't get into
> that here.
I think we *should* get into it, because there's another very significant
anomaly here you've overlooked. Continuing my argument from above, the point of
Paul's comparison and contrast between the "natural" Adam and the "spiritual"
Christ is to draw an analogy to the believer's own experience, his promised
resurrection from a mortal body to a heavenly one. (Compare 15:47-49: "The first
man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." (NIV) .... "And
as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly." (KJV))
But there's a glaring problem here. Paul is saying that Christians will be
resurrected to a spiritual body, just like Christ's body. But he fails to
specify that he is referring to Christ's body *after* his resurrection. This is
a point that he should have to make, because while on earth Jesus had a
fallible, mortal body - one made of the "dust of the earth" - just like everyone
else, and that is not the type of body believers will have. This omission would
severely impair the point he is trying to make, and yet it is there; Paul is
silent about any distinction.
[...]
> Let's also talk about Hebrews for a minute. Hebrews 1 and 2 are also
> very helpful to my case. Hebrews 1 shows that Christ is superior to
> angels, because He was God. But, in Chapter 2, we see that Christ is
> also superior to the angels because He became a man (the writer of
> Hebrews is concerned here with resolving the apparent paradox of how a
> man, while lower than an angel, could still be "superior" to an
> angel).
Hebrews chapter 2 does *not* say that Jesus became a man. (If you disagree,
please cite chapter and verse.) What it does say in 2:7, and I'm pretty sure
this is what you were referring to, is that Jesus for a time became "a little
lower than the angels". But nothing about this implies or requires a mortal
sojourn. The sphere of the demon spirits was also "a little lower than the
angels," but it was still heavenly.
> This chapter shows that Jesus died as a man. True, it
> doesn't set his death in a specific earthly context (nor in a heavenly
> realm, nor does it ever do that). But it does say he was a man, and
> not an angel. And again, I'll come back to Hebrews some more in a
> minute.
Again, this is not true. Neither Hebrews chapter 1 nor chapter 2 ever says Jesus
was a man.
[...]
> 2. The formulation of your argument
>
> Ok, in part 1, I'm trying to understand what belief system you see the
> epistles espousing. Here, I'd like to try to paraphrase your main
> arguments, to see whether I've adequately understood your point.
> Since you refer to Hebrews 8 as your "smoking gun", I will rely most
> heavily on your remarks there. If I'm not mistaken, I think you're
> saying this: (please correct if mistaken; I'm not trying to make your
> argument look bad, but simply to understand it). I insert my comments
> in [ ].
>
> Jesus was invented by Paul and the other epistle writers [although
> perhaps you don't mean John]. They envisioned him as being a
> spiritual figure, which is consistent with the mystical schools of the
> day. If they had believed he was a real person, there would have been
> copious references to historical details from his life, or explicit
> reference made to His sayings. (In the cases where allusions to
> historical details or saying references appear to exist, this is only
> the case because the Gospels borrowed from the Epistles.)
Almost, but not quite. I would say that allusions to apparently historical
details in the epistles represent one of two things: either knowledge the
epistle writers claimed to have received through revelation, or predetermined
Old Testament prophecies that any messiah candidate had to fulfill regardless of
his nature. Some of these scenes, as you rightly said, were transmuted into more
literal form in the epistles.
> Furthermore, the language of Hebrews 8 places Christ's sacrifice in a
> heavenly realm, because no specific reference is ever made to his
> death having been on earth, and furthermore, Hebrews is built around a
> Platonic parallel, that would be imperfect if Christ had been a real
> person.
>
> Have I somewhat fairly represented your position?
Again, close, but you left out a few things. More significant about Hebrews 8, I
would say, is its explanation of *why* Christ wouldn't have been a priest if he
had been on earth, and what that tells us about where its writer saw Christ as
operating.
> Let's break this up into individual clauses. This will take some
> time, but I think it's important to be patient and build this into a
> logical proof:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 1. Jesus was invented by Paul and the epistle writers.
> 2. Jesus was a purely spiritual redeemer.
> 3. Mystical schools that existed in the 1st century also looked for a
> purely spiritual redeemer.
> 4. If the writers had believed he was a real person, they would have
> used him in their analogies, examples, etc; they would have referred
> to details in his life.
> 5. There are some cases where Epistle details do line up with Gospel
> details.
> 6. This is only the case because the Gospels borrowed from the
> Epistles.
> 7. The Epistle details do not specifically place these occurences in
> an earthly setting.
> 8. Hebrews makes no specific reference to Christ's sacrifice having
> been in an earthly setting.
> 9. Hebrews sets up a Platonic parallel between an earthly and
> heavenly sacrifice.
> 10. The existence of a earthly messiah would have messed up the
> parallel.
> 11. The writer seems unconcerned that his parallel is messed up.
> Ok, now we have a bunch of statements. Let's reorganize them, and see
> how the logic actually goes:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> P1a. (4) If the writers had believed Jesus was a real person, they
> would have used him in their analogies, examples; they would have
> referred to details from his life.
> P1b. The writers don't appeal to details from an earthly life.
> ________
> C1. The writers didn't think Jesus was earthly.
>
> Challenge to P1b: (5) There are some cases where Epistle details do
> line up with Gospel details.
> (purported) Refutation: (6) This is because the Gospels borrowed from
> the Epistles.
This is true but doesn't capture the entire essence of what I'm saying, which I
described above.
> P2a. (3) Mystical schools existed in the 1st century, who looked for
> a spiritual redeemer.
> P2b. (9) The writer of Hebrews sets up a parallel between a heavenly
> and earthly sacrifice.
> _____
> C2. The writer was setting up a Platonic parallel, based on the
> influence of the mystical schools.
>
> P3a. (10) If Jesus was earthly, the Platonic parallel would be messed
> up.
> P3b. (8) The writer of Hebrews doesn't explicitly say Jesus was
> earthly.
> P3c. (11) The writer doesn't seem bothered by this.
> ______
> C3. The writer was unaware of an earthly Jesus.
>
> C1+C2+C3 = There was no earthly Jesus; he was a spiritual figure,
> invented by Paul et al.
>
> Now, this logic is just bristling with flaws. First, look at P1a.
> You agreed with me in your post that I was right when I said that your
> argument basically amounted to a critique of Paul's rhetoric: ie, "I
> think Paul should have argued this way; he didn't; therefore, he was
> unaware of Jesus". You agreed that I was right that this is not
> evidence of absence,
Each such instance, by itself, is at best circumstantial evidence of absence.
But there aren't just one or a few of them, there are many of them.
> but then you argue that, ah, it isn't just in one
> or two places that Paul doesn't make an argument that Adam would have
> liked him to make, but in fact, it's in hundreds, therefore, Paul was
> unaware of Jesus.
True, and furthermore, Paul doesn't refer to Jesus' words or deeds even in
places where such a mention would have been natural and compelling, where they
would have emphasized and strengthened the point he was trying to make, and
where such details were apparently either not known or were being ignored by the
people he was writing to (as in 1 Corinthians 15 where he's trying to persuade
people of the reality of resurrection). This is a stronger form of what you say
above.
> Now, obviously, repeating a fallacious argument a
> few hundred times does not make it rigorous.
But this argument is not fallacious. I agree, most individual instances of
silence are circumstantial at best; you can explain them by simply saying this
writer, in this particular circumstance, felt no need to include such a
reference. But the more of these instances mount up, the weaker such an
explanation becomes. This is where my coin-flipping analogy enters. No
individual flip, or even a few flips, can establish with certainty that a coin
is loaded; but when you start getting a recurring pattern, then coincidence
becomes an untenable explanation and another one must be sought.
Anyway, there's more to this than such a frankly simplistic summary lets on.
Again, there are places where epistle writers are arguing, seeking to convince,
to win others over to their side. Even in these circumstances, they make no
appeal to earthly words or deeds of Jesus that would have strongly supported
their case. The 1 Corinthians passage discussed above is one. Another is Romans
14 where Paul is arguing that all foods are clean. Yet another is Romans 12,
where Paul is arguing that we should love one another; he feels so passionate
about this that he quotes scripture to back up his point - but the sayings he
quotes come only from the Old Testament!
> And trying to say there
> are "hundreds of silences" is called "elephant hurling" -- you're
> trying to make your case seem overwhelming simply on volume. But, I'm
> afraid you're going to have to win on substance. If you really want
> to say that there are a couple hundred silences where a reference to
> Jesus' life is called for, please list and defend every single one.
I could do this if you really wanted me to, but a) it would require a lot more
time than either of us have at present, and b) it would require me to depend
heavily on Earl Doherty's site and other external sources, which you've already
said you don't want me to do.
> If not, then we'll just stick with the ones you've entered into
> evidence. And so far, I'm unconvinced by your best efforts to
> date...more on this below.
>
> Furthermore, C1 is refuted by the presence of events and descriptions
> from the Epistles that do refer either to a flesh-and-blood Jesus, or
> to events from His life like the Last Supper, the Transfiguration, or
> the Crucifiction.
(Uh, is this just a typo? Only militant atheists usually spell it that way, in
my experience...)
> Your main argument seems to be that the writers
> don't provide the street address for these occurences, therefore, they
> must have happened in heaven. But, the writers don't ever place them
> in heaven, either.
I would argue, as I have with Hebrews 8 here, that some do. Others say their
knowledge of these events comes purely through revelation. (As regards the Last
Supper scene, Paul has already declared in Galatians 1 that his gospel comes
"from no man", but from revelation sent by God.) Still others of these events
are described in terms that are at best anomalous and at worst starkly
inconsistent when compared to the gospel account. (Again, my example is this
assumed transfiguration scene, in which the eyewitness "Peter" says its primary
purpose was simply to confirm what he already knew about OT scripture.)
> That brings us to P2a. How much do we really know about these mystic
> schools? Where do we get our information about them? How sure are we
> that we actually know what they believed, and when they believed it?
> More importantly, are P2a and P2b really connected? Can we really be
> sure that the epistle writers were influenced by these mystical
> schools?
No, and I've never attempted to suggest otherwise. But I can show that these
concepts were "in the air", that they were known and even common at the time,
and that they provide a milieu through which we can and should try to understand
the gospel traditions.
> Just because they existed contemporaneously doesn't mean
> they colluded. Further, you argue that unless the writers explicitly
> place Jesus on earth, then we should prefer to put him in heaven.
No, I don't argue this, and I never have. There are "positive silences" that
show that the epistle writers actually did conceive of Jesus as primarily
spiritual and heavenly, such as 1 Cor 15:45-46; the other silences I've pointed
out simply give this thesis circumstantial support.
[...]
> Moreover, regardless of the specific symbols that may seem similar
> (ie, the existence of a "heavenly realm"), are there obvious
> similarities between the actual writings of the Epistolarians (is that
> a word?) and the Mystics? For example, you cited a passage by a guy
> named Julian the Apostate that was absolute nonsense. In contrast,
> the Epistles seem grounded in a real world, and a pragmatism that
> seeks to apply these concepts to the immediate lives of believers.
This is a purely subjective argument on your part, you realize.
> Sure, there is some stuff that is a bit deep, but again, are you sure
> the similarities aren't due to a simple commonality of language? Are
> you positive it's really a commonality of thought process?
>
> Let me give you a modern example. If you talked to a Christian and a
> Hindu, or read the writings of both, both might say that they believed
> in God, that they believed in Heaven, that God was loving, that he was
> a deliverer, etc. In other words, you could find similarities of
> language between different religions, like Christianity vs. Islam,
> Hinduism, whatever. But the believers of these different religions
> are probably not influencing each others' beliefs all that much,
In some traditions of Hinduism, the savior Krishna was born to a virgin, Devaki.
His nativity was heralded by an unusual star; he was born in a cave and visited
by wise men almost immediately after his birth. An evil king, Kansa, sought to
kill him when he was still an infant, and did so by ordering the slaughter of
all male children born on that day. However, a "heavenly voice" warned his
parents about this, and they fled across the Jumna River with the child Krishna
and so escaped the massacre.
I think *someone* is influencing someone else here. Which direction that
influence is in, I couldn't say, but Hinduism is a considerably older religion
than Christianity.
> and more importantly, when you get past the superficial similarities of
> language, you find that the actual beliefs are diametrically opposed.
> And I'd suggest that something similar might be going on in the case
> at hand; that it's a reflection of a common language for expressing
> beliefs. For example, there's a common assertion that the Pagan
> practice of dumping the blood and entrails of an animal over an
> initiate is somehow the basis for Christian baptism, and the Bible
> teaching that believers are "washed in the blood of the Lamb". But
> couldn't it just be that these are superficially similar?
I think it borders on special pleading for you to claim that similarities
between Christianity and the mystery religions should be dismissed as pure
coincidence - particularly in light of evidence that the mystery religions came
first. Even early *Christian* writers, in arguing against pagans, admitted that
the very similar pagan mystery cult practices and beliefs preceded their own.
(They explained this by arguing that Satan had set up counterfeits of
Christianity ahead of time to test the faith of believers.) And the taurobolium
may have been an extreme example, but *most* religions and cults throughout
history have had some sort of practice of sprinkling or immersing a new convert
in water to mark his initiation. (John the Baptist was doing his thing before
Jesus ever showed up. Where did he get the idea?)
> Christians,
> for example, necessarily understand that this is a strictly symbolic
> teaching; you don't see many churches dumping blood over their
> congregants.
What about the Eucharist? Not all Christian denominations see this act of ritual
cannibalism as "strictly symbolic".
[...]
> I think there's an important detail that you're overlooking, though.
> These Epistles do comprise the New Testament canon of scripture (with
> the 'historical' books -- Gospels & Acts-- and the prophetic Book,
> Revelation). But, they do not necessarily comprise the full teaching
> of the individual writers. For instance, Paul frequently refers to
> "what I said when I was among you". We know that Paul traveled
> extensively, and taught and argued in lots of places and in lots of
> churches. You are reading these books as if they comprise "the
> exhaustive life, works, beliefs, and theology of Paul".
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting Paul told everyone all about
the life and deeds of Jesus in documents which did not survive? You can't make
an argument based on non-existent evidence. We can only interpret the evidence
we do have and draw conclusions from that.
> You must keep
> in mind that these are letters. They are sent, without exception, to
> believers, and always with a specific purpose in mind. Frequently
> that purpose is to encourage, to rebuke, to expound a specific point
> of doctrine, etc.
Yes, and such "expoundings" are never backed up by quotes from the life of Jesus
or any other appeal to the fact that Jesus himself had taught these things. A
good example of something missing from one of these expoundings is Colossians
1:13-22, where Paul presents a long christological hymn about Jesus: he is
beloved of the Father, "the image of the invisible God," he created all things
in earth and heaven, he redeemed us through the cross - yet not once in this
long creed of faith does Paul ever say that this awesome cosmic force took human
form and was incarnated on earth. (The passing reference to Jesus' "body" is an
allusion to the church, as 1:24 makes explicit.) Again, the "no need" argument
doesn't help you here, since presumably Paul's audience already knew these
things.
> It's not disputed by me that they don't, as I said,
> give a GPS location for the actions of Jesus. But they allude to his
> sayings, events in his life, and the teachings related to his life
> focus primarily on his humanity, on his suffering, and on his
> resurrection. Now, you point out, they don't ever append to an
> alluded saying, "just as Jesus said." But notice also that they don't
> always credit their OT sources, either!
The difference is significant. To these people, the Old Testament was at best a
pile of ancient prophetic books whose very purpose was to *forecast* Jesus -
secondary at best. But Jesus himself - supposedly - was the living presence who
had walked among them, who many of them had touched and seen and heard with
their own eyes and ears, who had set the example for love and forgiveness whom
they had reshaped their entire lives around. But while the epistle writers
*frequently* quote and cite the OT (with formal phrases such as "as it is
written"), they *never* quote or credit Jesus.
[...]
> In contrast, look as the Gospels, which are written primarily to
> non-believers. They frequently DO include references like "this
> [action taken by Jesus] was done to fulfill what was spoken by the
> prophet Isaiah, [insert prophecy here]". I think it's not an accident
> that the Gospels and Epistles comprise the NT -- the Gospels give the
> basic instruction in who Jesus was and what He did. The Epistles are
> for believers, and deal with the life of the believer, the theological
> significance of Christ and His sacrifice, etc.
What this amounts to is a claim on your part that we should assume the gospels
and the epistles were written to describe the same god in the same belief
system - the very assumption that has obscured the true nature of early
Christianity for 2,000 years. And in any case, I have argued that there are
epistle verses which flat-out contradict the picture painted by the gospels; to
this I could add the argument that the gospels cannot be taken as reliable
history since all available extra-biblical accounts fail to corroborate their
story (and, indeed, since their stories often contradict each other).
[...]
> To me, the more compelling argument would be "details from the
> Epistles explicitly contradict a human Jesus." But this argument
> can't be sustained; first, why have people been able to successfully
> believe that the Gospels and Epistles are talking about the same
> person, if they're so obviously not?
In much the same way, I might ask a Christian, "Why haven't the Jews all
converted to Christianity, if the Old Testament prophecies so obviously refer to
Jesus?"
> Second, why don't the Epistles
> make a positive case for the distinction, ie "Jesus was explicitly not
> a man, and explicitly didn't come to earth?"
I would argue that they do. Again, see 1 Corinthians 15:45-46 for an example.
(That's about as explicit an example as you'll get. It would be naive in the
extreme to assume that the early church, once it became established and
enshrined the historical-Jesus idea as dogma, would have accepted any documents
that explicitly and blatantly contradicted this idea into the canon. However,
there are non-canonical documents, such as the Ascension of Isaiah, and writings
by early apologists such as Minucius Felix, that *do* make a positive case for
this distinction by spelling out the spiritual nature of Jesus' sacrifice.)
[...]
> I guess for me, "there was no Jesus" just doesn't seem plausible for
> (at least) 3 reasons (and I admit that these are personal reasons, and
> am not necessarily entering them as arguments; just trying to explain
> myself). First, how could the Gospel writers go into your town and
> say "hey, there was this guy who lived here a few (<30) years ago, and
> he did all this stuff, miracles, you know...and finally, he was buried
> and rose from the dead", and have this claim actually be believed?
> Couldn't it have been immediately refuted on the spot by the Jews?
First, I'm arguing that the gospels were originally written as instructive
allegories, not intended to represent literal history, so no one would have been
saying those things. Second, the weight of scholarly opinion holds that the
gospels weren't even written until at least the year 70, after the disastrous
Jewish War in which Jerusalem was burned to the ground and three-quarters of the
population of Palestine was killed or scattered; after such a catastrophe, no
one would be in any position to refute stories about the existence of an obscure
Galilean rabbi several decades earlier (once the Christians lost sight of the
fact that the gospels weren't meant to be taken as history). Third, you really
don't even have any evidence that those claims "actually were believed", as you
put it. (Isn't that precisely why Christianity began to target the Gentiles -
because it met with such widespread rejection among the Jews?)
> Second, if the early Christians knew Jesus wasn't real (and they must
> have, if they had invented him), why were they willing to die for
> their beliefs? People will die for something they believe to be true;
> will they die for something they know is false?
Who said any early Christians were willing to die for what they knew was false?
The god they believed in (at least at first) was the spiritual Jesus of the
epistles, and they did die for him, just as people today die for gods they
believe in through faith alone. They weren't dying for the Jesus of the
gospels - if they knew about those, they believed in them only as instructional
allegory. Once upheavals such as the Jewish War helped Christians to lose sight
of why the gospels had been written in the first place, then they began to
believe Jesus was historical on the basis of faith alone, and then they did die
for those beliefs.
> Third, why do the
> Gospels read like such literal histories, even including minutae like
> the part where the woman caught in adultery is brought before Jesus,
> and Jesus sits down and starts doodling? Why include things like
> this, if this was all constructed to simply be a vehicle for a
> historical Jesus that would back up the Epistle writers' teachings?
You're still failing to understand my argument. The gospels were *not*
"constructed to be a vehicle" to back up the epistles. They were written as
instructional allegories - fiction with a message. If we don't understand the
point of some detail, it would be best to ask what the writers sought to
communicate by including it.
> At any rate, I'll go on now to challenge each of the verses you've
> entered into argument.
>
>
> 3. Discussions about specific verses:
>
But again you're using gospel details to bolster your case, which I would
maintain is circular and invalid. I'm arguing that we absolutely *can't* rely on
the gospels to tell us what the epistle writers meant; such assumptions are what
has made Christianity what it now is. The context in which this word is used in
the epistles shows that they did not mean it in the sense the gospels'
translators have rendered it - whatever "paradidomi" means, they depict Jesus as
doing it to himself, or God as doing it to him. For that reason it can't
possibly mean "betray" in the gospel sense.
[...]
> > > Paul describes exactly the Last Supper as recounted in the Bible.
> >
> > True. But since my position is that the Gospels were deliberately created to
> > blend Paul's cosmic Son of God (the "Jerusalem Tradition" of NT scholarship)
> > with the kingdom-of-God wisdom preaching of the Q community (the "Galilee
> > Tradition") in a syncretistic fashion, it doesn't surprise me that such
> > similarities exist. The point is *where* Paul got this information from, and
he
> > says flat-out that he got it through revelation.
>
> I think the point is rather, "where is this event taking place"? It
> isn't clear to me that it's taking place in a purely spiritual plane,
> for how could a spiritual redeemer give bread and wine if he's in a
> purely spiritual realm?
As discussed in my previous post, other salvation religions of the day did
indeed think this was possible. (Christianity was hardly the only religion that
had the concept of a sacred, symbolic meal.) The key is to keep Platonism in
mind: things on earth are merely imperfect reflections of things in heaven.
> And he doesn't say he got the information
> through revelation; he says he received it from God.
No, there's more to it than that. Paul says flat-out in Galatians 1:11-12 that
he did not receive his gospel from any man, nor was he taught it by any man, but
that he got it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Not only is this powerful
circumstantial evidence in support of my contention that Paul thought of Jesus
as spiritual only, it disproves your argument that Paul is merely "crediting God
as the source of all things".
[...]
Yes, he did appeal to the Jewish scriptures, and at the same time was trying to
convince the Jews that they were mistaken in their beliefs about what the
scriptures really said about the messiah. Christians today do the exact same
thing, so no problem for me there.
[...]
> > And
> > since I'm certain it will come up later, I'll point out how this can be
turned
> > to my advantage: Virtually all the verses in the epistles that might seem to
> > indicate a human Jesus, I will argue, are derived from OT scripture and thus
do
> > not represent any independent data about the life of Jesus the man.
>
> Virtually is a bit of a hedge word here, indicating to me either your
> awareness that there are verses that do indicate a human Jesus and
> aren't derived from OT scripture,
As mentioned before, I would argue that the verses which seem to indicate a
human Jesus and are not derived from OT scripture are the result of personal
revelation (such as the Last Supper scene in 1 Corinthians, or the crucifixion
itself).
[...]
> True, he doesn't say "he died on
> Golgotha, he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea", etc.
> Perhaps the audience was already aware of this; Paul is writing to a
> church he's visited and taught at, and by "I delivered unto you", he
> indicates that this lesson is a refresher; perhaps he already filled
> in the Gospel details when he was present with the congregation and
> taught this stuff for the first time.
Maybe. Or maybe when he was first present with the congregation he told them all
about his belief in a spiritual Messiah who died, was buried and resurrected in
a heavenly realm. Either way, we can't know and can only rely on the documents
that did survive. I really must ask you to please refrain from drawing
conclusions based on evidence we don't have.
> I don't think Paul is in any sense talking about a "symbolic" death
> here. Do they bury symbolically dead saviors for 3 days?
Of course. Haven't you ever heard of Jonah? (Even in the gospels, Jesus says
that his death is the "sign of Jonah," a symbolic echo of this event. Compare
Matthew 12:40. Not at all surprising, since I would contend that the gospels
were created through a Jewish literary process called midrash, which involves
lifting verses out of pre-existing scripture, with little or no thought for
their context, and weaving them together into a new story.)
[...]
> > > You're right that he doesn't give names and addresses, but neither
> > > does he seem to be pulling this out of the air. He says that some of
> > > the 500 are living to this day, and he refers not to an anonymous
> > > "Twelve", but "The Twelve". This must have meant something to the
> > > readers (and it really isn't that unreasonable to assume which 12 he
> > > was talking about. Judas was dead.
> >
> > If you feel that way, then please tell us who these "Twelve" were - and if
you
> > were planning to say the disciples, keep in mind that at this point in the
> > story, there *weren't* twelve; there were eleven.
>
> That's a bit of a technicality. I think "The Twelve" here is more of
> a title than a headcount.
That was exactly my point!
> It's the same as if I say "the Senate voted
> to confirm Judge Judy for the 14th Circuit Court", and you say "ah,
> but Sen Byrd wasn't there, therefore it wasn't 'the Senate', but
> rather, 'the Senate sans Byrd'". For you to say that "the Twelve" are
> not the 12 disciples is, as I said, imposing criteria on this document
> that you would let pass on any other ancient document.
>
> Again, keep in mind that this is a letter to a church that Paul has
> visited. Would THEY have known who "the Twelve" were?
Sure. Why not? You've already indicated that you have no problem with the notion
that Paul has already corresponded with these churches, "off-camera" as it were,
and they've already worked out a common basis and context for their beliefs. I
agree with you that this probably happened; we merely differ on what that
context was. (There were twelve tribes of Israel. It'd be a natural choice for a
symbolic number of people to comprise some sort of governing council.)
> What legitimate reason can you give for disputing that the obvious
> interpretation is that "the Twelve" are the only "Twelve" that they
> possibly could be?
I already did give a perfectly legitimate reason: at this point in the gospel
story, there were elven disciples, not twelve. This is not a technicality, it's
a rather significant inconsistency in your argument.
> Aren't you being a bit hyper-skeptical here?
Personally, I can't help but feel you're the one who's flailing a bit. I don't
think your attempt to dismiss this as a "technicality" holds water - as any good
criminal attorney will tell you, sometimes it's the small inconsistencies that
bring a whole case crashing down.
Yes. "Ophthe" is a form of that verb. And you'll notice that, by your own
admission, this verb doesn't require any literal sense of "seeing", but can mean
something more metaphorical, such as "to experience". This fits quite well with
what Paul tells us about his "vision" of Christ.
> I think that the important thing is that Paul is saying that each of
> them "saw" Christ, but he isn't necessarily saying that Christ was or
> was not the same in each experience. Maybe this word can mean more
> than one thing
You're doing exactly what I anticipated - claiming this word means one thing the
first three times he says it and then suddenly completely changes its meaning
the fourth time, all within the context of a single thought. It's the exact same
word each time. This is not a tenable line of argument.
> certainly, in English, we use "see" for multiple
> meanings, and could even do so in the same sentence; consider the
> following lyric from the Eagles: "when you look up in the sky, you can
> see the stars but still not see the light." Granted, that's poetry of
> a sort, and isn't a good analogy for Paul's language here; it's simply
> to demonstrate a simple case where the same word is used in the same
> sentence but with 2 different meanings. So even if Paul's experience
> was different from the other disciples, it's not clear that he is
> equating the types of experience that they had; merely the commonality
> of the fact that they had an experience. I think this one leans to
> heavily on the Greek for us to make much progress, and I suggest we
> drop it.
I feel like I'm hearing a small undercurrent of anxiety in your argument here. I
don't think my case leans heavily on the Greek at all; in fact it doesn't even
depend on what "ophthe" actually means in Greek. I'm merely pointing out that,
whatever it means, Paul uses it to describe his *own* vision of Jesus as well as
everyone else's, and other verses tell us that Paul's vision of Jesus was in
spirit only.
[...]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Romans 13
>
> 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
> power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
> 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
> of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
> 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
> thou then be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou
> shalt have praise of the same.
> 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do
> that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain,
> for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him
> that doeth evil.
>
> Ok, so yet again, by starting at verse 3, you have taken this passage
> out of context. Verse 1 and 2 indicate the sovereignty of God over
> the rulers. Christ was a perfect example of submitting himself to the
> rulers because of God's will. Now, verse 3 does say "rulers are not a
> terror to good works, but to the evil". Does that mean that "corrupt
> rulers will never punish good works"? I think Paul is just
> establishing a general principle here.
And yet this general principle wasn't true even in the recent past - in fact,
the very event that started the entire movement Paul was a part of was a stark
violation of it. Was Jesus "resisting the ordinance of God" when he broke Roman
laws by declaring himself the messiah? Regardless of what you think about it
being necessary, you surely agree that crucifixion is a terrible and agonizing
way to die, a fate that no person in his right mind would desire. It is, as Paul
put it, "a terror" - but the very founding of Christianity was based on this act
being inflicted not on the evil, but on the good. If Paul, or his intended
audience for that matter, had any sense of Jesus' betrayal, unfair trial and
undeserved execution, even this "general principle" would sound very discordant
to them indeed.
[...]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 2 Corinthians 5:5-7
>
> > > >> > -2 Corinthians 5:5-7, in which Paul says Christians "walk by
> > faith, not by
> > > >> > sight", and who says that God has rewarded his true followers by
> > sending the
> > > >> > Holy Spirit (not the Son) down to them.
[...]
> > > >Christ's sacrifice was a gift, I agree. But what Paul is trying to do
> > > here >is list the gifts that God has directly given to his followers
> > > on earth -
> > > > hence the mention of the shadowing of the Holy Spirit.
> > >
> > > This is not at all what Paul is trying to do here. He's contrasting
> > > our "earthly" and "heavenly" tabernacles. See more on this below.
> >
> > No, this is exactly what Paul is trying to do here. Compare 2 Cor 1:21-22:
"Now
> > it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us,
set
> > his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,
> > guaranteeing what is to come." (NIV) Now see 5:5: "Now it is God who has
made us
> > for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing
> > what is to come." Clearly, these two thoughts are analogous and
complementary,
> > linked by the phrase "guaranteeing what is to come." But in both cases, Paul
> > views God's "guarantee" to believers of their future eternal life not as
Jesus,
> > but the Holy Spirit.
>
> Let's first be clear on what we mean by "this is what Paul is doing
> here." Originally, you said he was trying to list the gifts God has
> given to believers. This is false,
No, it's not. The Holy Spirit is the gift God has given his followers now as a
guarantee and a foreshadowing of what is to come, according to Paul.
[...]
> At any rate, let's be clear. Paul is talking about the future,
> heavenly body that we will inherit. I agree, he views God's
> "guarantee" as the Holy Spirit, not Jesus.
Jesus' heavenly, post-resurrection body, which was seen and touched by
eyewitnesses no less, seems to me like a far more appropriate "guarantee" of
what believers themselves will get. The mere giving of the Holy Spirit does not
provide so solid evidence - don't you agree?
[...]
> > I was always under the impression that Jesus'
> > miracles - healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, etc. -
> > pointed toward the time of God's future kingdom on earth, when all these
things
> > would be routine and universal, not rare miraculous interventions. Wouldn't
> > Jesus' miracles prefiguring the Kingdom be a *perfect* "guarantee of what is
to
> > come"? Yet Paul doesn't even cast a glance in their direction.
>
> Adam, I'm sorry for how this is going to sound, but it seems that you
> simply aren't in possession of sound Christian doctrine here
> (obviously not your fault, since you're not a Christian), and are
> extrapolating a misunderstanding into something bigger than it really
> is.
>
> Look again at what this passage is saying: "Life here is sometimes a
> bummer, and we look forward to life in heaven, which won't be a
> bummer. We can be confident that we are going to enter that heavenly
> life, because we have the Spirit as a guarantee.
Yes, that was my point. Why appeal to the Spirit as a guarantee of this, when
the much better example of a recent human Jesus was (supposedly) close at hand?
Aren't Jesus' miracles examples that point towards the time when such things
will be commonplace? (You said I was wrong about that interpretation, but
offered no explanation of what specifically about it was wrong.)
> By definition, we
> can't see what that life will be like (because we aren't dead),
But they *did* see what it was going to be like, according to you, when they
witnessed Jesus and his miracles, and when they witnessed the transfigured body
he possessed after his resurrection.
> but we
> have faith in God that we are going to be at home with God once we
> die."
>
> The idea expressed here is that Christ's death is the "payment" that
> gives us access to the eternal life Paul longs for. (expressed in 2
> Cor 5:15) The Spirit is God's "promissory note" that He is going to
> deliver on the deposit Christ made, and is going to place us in that
> eternal life. (Stepping out of the immediate context of this epistle
> Christ's life is the "instruction manual" for how to get ready for the
> new life that we are going to own. )
>
> Since Paul is talking here about the future life, you can see why
> Christ's life doesn't apply in this analogy. I know you think Paul
> should have used it as an example of a "guarantee". But you are
> wrong. If not, you need to demonstrate to me that you understand
> Christianity better than me; otherwise, this example is not evidence
> for your case.
Again, you've called my interpretation wrong without making any attempt to
explain what about it was wrong.
> > > >I would also point out that you neglected to mention verse 5:7, "For
> > > we walk >by faith, not by sight." Weren't Jesus' handpicked disciples
> > > still alive
> > > >when Paul wrote this? Weren't there people who saw him with their own
> > eyes,
> > > > who heard him preach with their own ears, who felt the hem of his
garment,
> > > > who were eyewitness to his miracles? These people *do* "walk by sight,"
> > > >don't they? I would argue that Paul is expressing himself as if
> > Jesus' very
> > > > existence were a matter of faith.
> > >
> > > First, were any of the disciples at Corinth? If not, then Paul is
> > > writing to those who haven't physically seen Christ.
> >
> > The "we" refers to Christians in general. Given that, at the time of this
> > letter's writing, there still should have been people alive who had
physically
> > seen Jesus, it would have been somewhat inappropriate at best for Paul to
> > denigrate them and instead emphasize faith over sight.
>
> In what sense do you feel that Paul has denigrated them? And again,
> he isn't saying, as you want him to be saying, "We only know about
> Jesus through faith; we haven't seen him."
That is *exactly* what he is saying. Now you're neglecting the context: verse 6
says that "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord." But
this was not true in the very recent past - supposedly, the Lord was with them
even while they were in their mortal bodies. Why doesn't Paul give even a nod to
that fact?
> He's saying that as
> pertains to our future, heavenly, dwelling, we walk by faith -- in
> fact, we have to, because we can't *see* that dwelling. But the
> Spirit is our guarantee that it is coming. So again, the context of
> what Paul is actually talking about here is crucial.
Again, why is the Spirit a better guarantee than Jesus himself? The Spirit is at
best a vague presence in our hearts; Jesus was a real, tangible human being.
[...]
> > Romans 8:24: "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no
hope
> > at all. Who hopes for what he already has?"
> >
> But again, Romans 8 is talking about the future glory that God is
> preparing. v18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
> are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed
> in us."
That bit of context makes no difference to my interpretation. Regardless of what
Paul is specifically talking about, the general statement he makes above would
have to mean that he considers Jesus "no hope at all". I can think of no
reasonable explanation why he wouldn't make even a reference to the Son of God's
recent earthly career, not even to explain why there's no contradiction with his
statements here. Your charge that I've taken this "out of context" essentially
amounts to a claim that I haven't read this chapter with gospel preconceptions
in mind.
> > 1 Peter 1:8-9: "These (trials) have come so that your faith... may be proved
> > genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is
revealed.
> > Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see
him
> > now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious
> > joy..."
>
> And who does Peter say that he is writing to? To "the strangers
> scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
> elect according to the foreknowledge of God" Isn't it possible that
> Peter is writing to people who didn't see Christ firsthand? That
> seems to be the plain interpretation of the text.
You don't think it odd that that verse says "when Jesus Christ is revealed"? Any
concept that this is to be a *second* coming seems conspicuously absent; the
writer makes no reference to the fact that Jesus Christ had, supposedly, been
revealed already.
[...]
> Incidentally, I showed above how 1 John 1:1 says "our hands have
> handled the Word of life" (ie, Jesus). So John also affirms that
> Jesus was seen and touched by eyewitnesses.
This is incredible. *You* added that "i.e."! You've decided for yourself that
that verse "must have been" talking about Jesus, even though it doesn't say so
itself, and then turning around and asserting that it proves the epistle writers
must have believed in a historical Jesus! Talk about disregard for context! That
argument is 100% circular.
> I believe the Hebrews
> writer does this as well, in Heb 2:3-4, but it's perhaps a bit more
> debatable, so I won't enter it into evidence here.
>
> At any rate, in conclusion, Paul obviously can't be saying "no one has
> seen Jesus", since he describes in 1 Cor 15 all the people who have
> seen Jesus. Even if this was simply a "spiritual" seeing, it is still
> seeing, and therefore, your accusation that Paul's saying "we walk by
> faith, not by sight" constitutes evidence that he didn't believe
> anyone had seen Jesus, is false.
If the "seeing" he referred to was of a visionary nature, a revelation or a
shared "experience" (the translation you yourself offered) of Jesus' presence,
then those two statements are perfectly consistent with each other.
[...]
> > > >> > -Ephesians 3:4-5 in which Paul says knowledge of Jesus comes only
> > through
> > > >> > revelation of the Holy Spirit.
> > <...>
> > > >My original quote wasn't a misquote, it was the KJV: "Whereby, when
> > ye read, >ye
> > > >may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other
> > ages >was
> > > >not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
> > holy
> > > >apostles and prophets by the Spirit."
> > >
> > > No! Your original quote spoke of "knowledge of Christ", but here, you
> > > correctly quote it as "the mystery of Christ". In verse 7, Paul goes
> > > on to explain what that mystery is.
> >
> > Okay, granted - I misread that. Still, I don't think it weakens my point too
> > much, as I wrote just below.
>
> How can it not weaken your point? It completely transforms your
> entire point here! You were saying that Paul says we know about Jesus
> through revelation, not through first-hand experience. But what he is
> actually saying is that the ability to understand the "mystery" to
> which he's referring comes by revelation.
You haven't dealt with my argument - even if the "mystery" being referred to is
that the Gentiles should be converted as well, that doesn't explain why this
knowledge is represented as coming only through the Spirit, when Jesus himself
plainly taught that very thing on several occasions in the gospels (compare Mark
16:15, Matthew 28:19). Even if it wasn't until later that they figured out what
he meant through revelation from the Spirit, why don't any of the epistles
credit Jesus as the one who taught it in the first place?
[...]
> file://~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > > >-James 5:6,10-11 - a truly astonishing silence. James is trying to
> >>> provide examples of men of God remaining patient and steadfast in
> the
> >>> face of suffering, persecution and even death. But the best
> example of
> >>> this he can come up with >is the Old Testament figure of Job.
[...]
> Let's put this in perspective and notice that James really only makes
> a hand-waving reference to Job here; it's not a major theme, he simply
> alludes to the patience of Job. Now, although you are correct, that
> Job challenges God, his story does nevertheless teach us about
> patience. It's kind of the same way that David; as badly and
> frequently as he messed up, was considered "a man after God's own
> heart". His point here is that endurance will produce a good result
> in the end, and that is what happened with Job. He lost his cool, but
> he certainly never cursed God in all of his suffering. And in the
> end, he was blessed. Now, is Jesus a better model for this than Job?
> Perhaps. But your argument here is that this proves James didn't know
> about Jesus. I continue to disagree, and think that it simply shows
> that you and James have different ideas about what constitutes a good
> example of patience. I agree with you, Jesus is an excellent example
> of what you are saying. But the fact that James felt differently,
> doesn't, to me, prove a lack of awareness of Jesus.
Yet to counterbalance these silences, the best you can offer is an assumption
that James "must" have known about a historical Jesus. (The epistle of James
contains possibly more echoes of typically Christian ethical sayings per page
than any other epistle, and yet not once does the writer ever attribute any of
them to a teaching Jesus. He never even claims to have been Jesus' brother.) I
think my argument in this respect stands completely untouched.
> > > In contrast, Christ's
> > > patience wasn't a "waiting expectantly" kind of patience, but rather,
> > > an "endurance through temporal suffering" kind of patience.
> >
> > Come on. James 5:6 says, "Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth
not
> > resist you." You really think it's reasonable to conclude that such a
statement
> > wouldn't merit even a reference to Jesus, from his own brother nonetheless?
>
> Are you sure that this ISN'T a reference to Jesus?
Since Jesus' name is never mentioned in connection with it, that seems like a
fairly reasonable conclusion.
> It seems that
> you've picked up on James' meaning quite well, and you're not even a
> Christian! I know, you'll say "you can't let a silence stand for
> evidence",
Yes, I have said that, and I would repeat it.
> but you've demonstrated a few times now that these unstated
> analogies practially slapped you in the face. Could it be, perhaps,
> that the text is loaded in such a way as to make these analogies
> obvious, but leave them unstated? James is writing to fellow
> Christians; maybe "beating them over the head with the obvious" was
> unnecessary.
What purpose could James or any other epistle writer possibly have had for
leaving these analogies "unstated"? Why would the epistle writers so
consistently conform to such a bizarrely cryptic policy of omission? (In other
words, why were they trying to "hide" Jesus?) As I've said before, if his
intended audience knew that Jesus had done these things, they would by
definition know that they had been done. Why then would he bother to tell those
people about them again?
[...]
No, I'm pointing out that Judas fits the situation he's trying to create much
better than Esau does.
> > > (incidentally, I don't know if the writer is saying that Esau was
> > > bitter; I think he's instead considering him a "fornicator or profane
> > > person", and that, combined with the "root of bitterness" fall under
> > > the larger umbrella of people who "failed the grace of God".)
> >
> > Okay, but do you agree with me that a reference to Judas would seem to fit
the
> > point the writer is trying to make far better here? (Was Esau even a
"fornicator
> > or profane person"?)
> >
> I'm really not sure. I agree, Judas probably fits the point the
> writer is making. But, he's writing to the Hebrews, who presumably
> knew quite a bit about Esau, being well versed in the Scriptures.
> They may have known relatively little about Judas.
Your overall argument is not consistent. According to you, sometimes the epistle
writers leave out mention of gospel details because their intended audience
already knew them, and sometimes they leave them out because their intended
audience *didn't* know them. This just isn't sustainable. If the audience didn't
know about these details, wouldn't this have been a perfect opportunity to bring
them up to speed?
> We know a lot
> about him because of the Gospels. But at that point, perhaps teaching
> and preaching focused more on Christ, but not so much on the life and
> times of Judas.
If teaching focused more on Christ, then the writer should have used an example
related to Christ's life, not one from the Old Testament. My argument stands.
[...]
> > > But in the same chapter, the writer says this:
> > >
> > > "...let us set aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily
> > > beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
> > > looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the
> > > joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,
> > > and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider
> > > him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye
> > > be wearied and faint in your minds."
> > >
> > > So here's an example where the writer does use Christ's sacrifice as
> > > an analogy to make a point. He specifically refers to the Cross, but
> > > true, not to Calvary. Does that mean the sacrifice took place in a
> > > "heavenly realm"? Or Lansing, Michigan? Or Uranus? In verse 3, the
> > > writer talks about Christ enduring the "contradiction of sinners".
> > > Was this part of the heavenly sacrifice? Who were the sinners who
> > > were brought into the "perfect" heavenly realm to belittle Christ?
> >
> > This verse is far too vague for you to read that much into it. It's
Christian
> > dogma, isn't it, that while hanging on the cross Jesus took all the sins of
the
> > world upon himself? I.e., he endured the "contradiction" of sinners for
their
> > own sake? Could this be what that's referring to? (Earl Doherty points out
that
> > this is indeed the way more than one critical scholar reads this passage.)
>
> Even if this is the case, what about the part where this is a specific
> reference to a specific event in Christ's life,
Need I point out, the *only* event from Christ's life that is ever used to draw
parallels in the epistles, and in the epistles it's given no context that would
indicate it took place on earth. When the epistle writers are trying to draw a
parallel that requires an earthly event, such as James' rebuke "Ye have
condemned and killed the just", or Hebrews' reference to a "root of bitterness"
growing within the community of believers, we get no gospel comparison.
> and the writer uses it
> to make a point about how believers should be patient? You've said
> that examples like this do not exist, but here's one that does exist,
> and in the same chapter that you're objecting to. Again, I ask, why
> should we prefer a "heavenly realm" or "Lansing, Michigan" as the
> location of Christ's crucifiction? (whether or not the "contradiction"
> of sinners relates to bearing the sins of the world -- I would argue,
> based on the context, that it doesn't, but I don't think it's a major
> issue here.)
I agree that it's not, but I still think my interpretation makes more sense. If
the writer's point is that, when we feel weary, we should think of Jesus who
endured so much more than we did - such a reminder fits far better with the idea
of Jesus literally taking the sins of the world upon himself, than with the idea
of Jesus putting up with the taunting of a fellow crucified criminal and a few
miscellaneous onlookers while he hung there.
> file://~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1 Thess 2:15
>
> > > If the latter was the case, then what did Paul mean in 1 Thess 2:15: "
> > > [the Jews] both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have
> > > persecuted us..." Did the Jews "spiritually" kill Jesus in a
> > > "spiritual" plane? Of course not! Again, the simplest interpretation
> > > makes the most sense here.
> >
> > 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 is a later interpolation, and that's not just my
opinion
> > or Earl Doherty's, it's the opinion of a wide range of critical scholars.
>
> Well, that is *incredibly* convenient for you!
I don't know what point you're trying to make. Do you think I'm lying when I say
that many critical scholars believe this? Or are you just saying it's a funny
coincidence that the only thing Paul ever wrote that unambiguously refers to a
human Jesus is widely accepted to be interpolation? I agree, that is convenient
for me, and it's also exactly what we would expect if I was right.
> > I can
> > list names on request, but I'm sure you'd prefer the reasons why they feel
that
> > way, so I'll provide those instead for now.
>
> Let me just ask this: are any of these "scholars" conservative
> scholars, or are they all liberal? Do any hold a "high view" of
> Scripture? Not that this arbitrates truth, of course, but if there
> was consensus on both sides of the aisle, I'd find that more
> compelling. But, the reasons you list below, I don't find compelling.
> Let me show why.
I don't know where on the spectrum these people fall (though it's safe to say
they're not far-right-wing fundamentalists who hold that every verse of the New
Testament was directly inspired by God). Would you know if I told them who they
were? Do you want names and cites?
> > -Verse 16 says of the Jews, "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost,"
a
> > pretty clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during
the
> > Jewish War. This only happened after Paul's death, however.
>
> Ok, but could it be that this reference is actually a predictive
> prophecy?
No, because it's not a prophecy, it's a statement made in past tense. It's
specifically describing something that has already happened, not something that
will happen.
> In other words, I don't find it compelling to say "this
> only happened after Paul's death, therefore he couldn't have known
> about it" -- I fully affirm that predictive prophecy can and does
> happen. If one assumes that prophecy can't happen, then of course one
> will do things like date books like Daniel and Isaiah late, and say
> "ah, this one verse in 1 Thess must be a later interpolation", but
> frankly, I don't find very much warrant for that belief.
Your argument is entirely beside the point. This isn't a prophecy; it's written
in the past tense. All three major Bible translations (KJV, RSV and NIV) agree
on this. It doesn't matter whether predictive prophecy is possible or not,
because this verse is not one.
The rest of your comments here I'm not going to comment on. Suffice it to say
that, regardless of whether you're convinced or not, many critical scholars *do*
agree that this is an interpolation, referring to events that occurred after
Paul's death in the past tense, and inconsistent with his beliefs regarding the
Jews.
[...]
> > > >> > -Hebrews 8:4, the "smoking gun", which says of Jesus: "Now, if he
> > had been on
> > > >> > earth..." and goes on to explain why a Jesus on earth would have
> > had nothing to
> > > >> > do - namely, because the role of offering sacrifices here was
> > already filled by
> > > > >> the priests, and only in a Platonic higher world could Jesus make a
> > better and
> > > >> > more perfect sacrifice for sin.
[...]
No, my argument is consistent. The "true tabernacle" was in Heaven. It was not
all of Heaven. (Particularly under the layered view of Heaven.)
[...]
My point was that you said Christ "now talks to God in Heaven" in a way that
implies there was a time during which he was *not* in Heaven. I was pointing out
that Hebrews contains no such concept.
> > (As Earl Doherty says, 8:4 itself does not say anything like: "If he were
*now*
> > on earth, he would not be a priest...")
>
> That seems to be the most straightforward word to inject into 8:4,
> though. On what grounds do you prefer to render it as "if he had ever
> been on earth"?
Well, at least you're being open about the gospel interpretation you prefer to
layer over this passage. Verse 8:4 is, strictly speaking, written in the past
tense, which is why the NEB version translates it as, "If he had been on earth,
he would not be a priest..." On what grounds do you argue that it needs *any*
additional words injected into it?
[...]
I think the rest of your argument here has already been dealt with: the
reference to Christ as "man" (anthropos) does not imply a mortal life, the
reference to him being "a little lower than the angels" applies to the demon
sphere at least as well as it does to the mortal world, the reference to him
"taking on the seed of Abraham" was a predetermined Old Testament prophecy
believed to have occurred in a Platonic sense (the same with the crucifixion),
since the worldview of Hebrews itself is Platonic.
I didn't want to extend the analogy because I thought you'd object, but if you
insist. Let's say our friend is a math professor, and I write, "If he were here
in Binghamton, he wouldn't be teaching math, since there are already professors
here who teach math and who serve as the example of the ones in Harvard."
Again, which interpretation of this is more natural? That our mutual friend was
once in Binghamton, teaching math, and has since left? Or that he's always
taught at Harvard? The latter option is, I would say, the only sensible way to
read that.
> > And I would suggest the situation with Hebrews 8:4 is the same. I mean,
under
> > your interpretation, I don't think this verse makes any sense. If the writer
> > really had meant that Jesus *was* on earth once and hadn't been a priest
then,
> > why would he bother to say that he wouldn't do it *now* either? That's such
a
> > trivial and irrelevant point.
> >
> I'm sorry, but (A) is not a good representation of my position. I'm
> not saying that "if he were on earth" is supposed to be interpreted as
> teaching that "Jesus was on earth, but isn't now"; rather, I'm saying
> it is CONSISTENT with that view.
My argument above remains. Under your preferred interpretation, the point
Hebrews 8:4 is trying to make is so trivial, one wonders why the writer even
bothered to include it.
[...]
> Again, just because there were some people at the time who espoused
> this belief in Platonism, that doesn't mean that is what the writer is
> trying to do. You accused me previously of letting a silence stand
> for what is not in evidence. You're doing pretty much the same thing
> here; the writer doesn't say he *isn't* making a Platonic parallel,
> therefore, he must be,
This fails to represent my argument. Verses such as 8:2 ("the true tabernacle
which the Lord pitched and not man") and 8:5 (the priests who serve "unto the
example and shadow of heavenly things") simply mandate a Platonic
interpretation. There's no other way to understand it.
> and therefore he must not be aware of an
> earthly Christ, and *furthermore*, the places where he talks about a
> fleshly Christ, just mean something else.
Yes, because to casually introduce a human, earthly Christ would irreparably
damage the comparison he was trying to make. Additionally, verses such as 9:23
show that the writer thought heavenly blood, a "better sacrifice" than anything
available on earth, was required to cleanse the true heavenly sanctuary; and I
have argued that if the writer believed in a human Jesus, he would have to have
devoted at least some room to explaining how the death of Jesus' human body, how
his earthly blood shed on the ground of Calvary, could be "heavenly things" that
would fulfill this qualification.
[...]
> > Given that the Council of Nicaea is more than two hundred years in the
future at
> > this point; given that Trinitarian theology as modern Christians understand
it
> > didn't exist yet; given that the true nature of Jesus was thereby far from
> > determinate, far from universally understood and agreed upon, at the time
> > Hebrews was written
>
> How do you know that the true nature of Jesus was far from
> determinate?
As I said - because modern Trinitarian theology was not formally established
until the adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325. Obviously I can't "prove" with
mathematical certainty that there wasn't a small group of believers who were far
ahead of the times and who established the exact same doctrine for themselves,
more than two hundred years earlier, with such precision and unanimity that they
could discuss it among themselves without making any explicit reference to it -
but given the ad hoc nature of such a supposition, I would say it is incumbent
on you to support it if you want to claim it. I merely argue that the fact that
Nicaea hadn't happened at this point makes it more likely than not that this
theology wasn't universally understood among the Hebrews community, and so more
likely than not the writer would have to have explained the discrepancy in his
Platonic parallel if he believed in a recent human Jesus.
> And what difference does that make?
The difference, as I have discussed, is crucial to the theology of Hebrews.
[...]
> >- isn't it reasonable to think that the writer should have
> > devoted at least *some* space to explaining why this isn't an invalid
> > comparison? Shouldn't we expect an explanation from him as to how Jesus'
> > material, mortal, vulnerable human body, his sticky, red blood staining a
wooden
> > cross and dripping onto dusty soil, could simultaneously be "heavenly
things"
> > that would fulfill the qualification Hebrews sets forth?
>
> But again, in Hebrews 2, the writer makes it clear that he fully
> affirms Jesus' humanity. He 'took not on him the nature of angels';
> he 'took part' of flesh and blood; He 'took on Him' the seed of
> Abraham; 'it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren'.
If you're correct, then it's all the more puzzling why no such explanation is
presented.
> Further,
> the writer describes the cross as shameful in ch 12. He messes up his
> own parallel, by that argument.
How does that affect the parallel?
> But so what? Again, he's concerned
> with the perfection of Christ's sacrifice, which isn't arbitrated by
> whether it was "material" or "spiritual".
Oh, yes, it is. See 9:23.
[...]
> > Galatians 4:4: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth
his
> > Son, made of a woman, made under the law."
> >
> > Compare 4:26: "But Jerusalem which is above (i.e., the heavenly Jerusalem)
is
> > free, which is the mother of us all."
> >
> > > And even if so, I think you have a lot more
> > > work to show that this relates in a meaningful way to Christ being
> > > descended from a "spiritual" tribe.
> >
> > What I'm attempting to show is that the idea of "descent" in an allegorical
> > sense was not an unfamiliar concept to the epistle writers. Paul regards the
> > heavenly archetype of Jerusalem as "the mother of us all".
> >
> I don't think that these verses adequately make that case, though.
> Again, the allegory is that Isaac and Ishmael represent two covenants.
> Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the current Jerusalem, which is in
> bondage. Sarah, the free woman, represents "Jerusalem which is
> above", which is free, and which is the mother of us all. The
> allegory is not saying we are all "sprung from Sarah" or some thing,
> it's saying that Sarah and Hagar are an allegory for the covenants,
> one that we used to be under, and the other that we currently are
> under. And there is NO connection to verse 4 in the section about
> Hagar and Sarah.
Your opinion - I think there is. It's the same chapter, the same thought, and
Paul writes in verse 26 that he regards the heavenly Jerusalem ("Jerusalem which
is above") as the "mother of us all". So, again, this is showing that the
epistle writers did believe "spiritual" birth and descent were possible in some
way.
> Again, the chapters and verses are not part of the
> original letter. Just because they are in the same chapter doesn't
> mean they are logically connected thoughts. And reading the chapter,
> it's by no means certain that "made of a woman" in verse 4 is not
> related to the analogy that involves the 2 women in verse 24.
The connection is undoubtedly there. There's a whole string of thought running
through chapter 4 - it begins around 4:3 with Paul saying they were under the
law "when we were children", then goes on in verse 26 to say that the heavenly
Jerusalem, representing the new covenant, is their new mother in some sense, and
therefore they are no longer under the law, but are free (verse 31).
[...]
Maybe I missed something, but I think you just said that Jesus is still in some
sense descended from Judah even though he's in Heaven now and no longer bears
any relation to mortal flesh or genetics. If that's possible - if he can still
be descended from Judah in a "spiritual" sense - then could it also be possible
for the epistle writers to take things one step further and say Jesus was
"sprung from Judah" without the necessity of a mortal birth at all?
> > What you should want to know is, is there evidence that
> > other ancient writers (both Christians and not) also thought of the world as
> > operating in this way, heaven the mirror image and primary archetype of
earth? I
> > would argue that there is.
> >
> > Doherty, for instance, quotes a fourth-century writer named Julian the
Apostate
> > who writes of the savior god Attis as existing in a heavenly realm where
"the
> > substance which is subject to change mingles with the passionless revolving
> > sphere of the fifth substance," a world that is not "matter itself, but the
> > lowest non-material cause which subsists prior to matter," the "connecting
link"
> > between forms set in matter and forms that transcend matter. Again, while
this
> > is a worldview difficult for a twenty-first-century mind to grasp, the
concept
> > *did* exist in the ancient world.
>
> Well, if I am supposed to take a paragraph written by a guy called
> "Julian the APOSTATE",
What's the problem with that? Do you think no one who wasn't a Christian can
ever help us interpret the mindset of someone else who was a Christian? Julian
was a Roman emperor, the half-brother of Constantine the Great, and was trained
in Christian tradition and theology.
> a worshipper of Attis,
I'm not sure Julian was a worshipper of Attis, but never mind that. What if he
was? That might make him an even more useful source for us; as I said, even
early Christian writers acknowledged the similarities of the mysteries to their
own beliefs.
> a paragraph which is so bizarre as to not make any sense,
This is purely subjective - based on nothing more than your opinion that the New
Testament makes sense and this passage doesn't, an opinion which in turn arises
from a preconceived faith commitment.
> and was written 200-300 years after Paul,
This is the one potentially valid criticism you raise, I think. I'd cite
something closer if I could, but unfortunately, a lot of ancient documents have
not survived, and we're stuck trying to piece together the bits that remain -
what else can we do? However, I have cited some other older sources,
contemporary to the early Pauline Christians, such as Philo of Alexandria or the
Ascension of Isaiah.
> as in some way being a useful example of how to interpret Paul's
> mindset, I'm afraid I must decline.
>
> The other problem is, you're trying to say "this mindset was present
> at the time, therefore, that must be the mindset Paul was operating
> from."
No, I'm not trying to say that. But if I can show that this mindset was "in the
air" at the time, then any similarities we find between it and Paul become
potentially much more significant.
> But obviously this is an unwarranted conclusion. There are
> obviously lots of bizarre things that people think these days, too,
> but just because someone writes something with a similarity to
> something that those people think, doesn't mean that the writer is
> working from the mindset of the bizarre belief-holder. It's the same
> with the Epistle writers. The mere contemporary presence of mystery
> religion people doesn't prvoe for us that Paul et al were a part of
> that school. On the contrary, they seem to want to distance
> themselves from beliefs that are not anchored in reality.
Again, pure subjectivity on your part to say this.
> At any rate, this post has been brutally long, and again, my
> apologies. Hopefully, it lays out a more comprehensive case for my
> side of the argument. Again, I welcome your comments, but regrettably
> can't promise that I'll be able to give a full and detailed response
> to further dialogue (nor would I expect you to reply to every point
> I've raised here...)
I've done my best to do so, despite time constraints. I hope this post has been
informative, and maybe even persuasive (though I'm certainly not expecting you
to change your mind as a result of reading it). It's been educational writing
it, and if you want to continue this discussion in reduced form, I'd be
amenable.
Sarah Whippman
non-believer's argument for the existence of a historical Jesus.
In message <us94s74...@corp.supernews.com>, Adam Marczyk
<ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> writes
[...]
>> > > Rather, it would
>> > > be my contention (and Earl Doherty's) that the Jesus of the
>> > >epistles was a
>> > > spiritual figure, a descending-ascending redeemer whose sacrificial
>crucifixion
>> > > and resurrection took place in a heavenly sphere, and it's only because
>we've
>> > > learned to read the epistles with "Gospel-colored glasses" that we've
>missed
>> > > this.
What's interesting is that I actually pretty much agree with this point,
and yet I still draw the opposite conclusion to Doherty. I think that
the evidence is that there _was_ originally a historical Yeshua ben
Yosef who traveled, preached, and claimed to be the Messiah.
Yes, I agree that the Jesus Paul had in mind was a being he thought of
in spiritual, mystical terms derived from pagan influences of his time.
But that still leaves us needing to explain the other, completely
contradictory, strand of the Jesus story that shows up in the Synoptic
Gospels - the Jewish Messianic claimant with the band of traditional,
practicing Jewish followers. Doherty's conclusion is that both these
strands of the story are fictitious, that there was never _any_ genuine
Jesus behind them. However, I think an alternative and rather more
plausible theory is that the Jewish Jesus in the Synoptics actually was
real, and the many other details (including quite a bit of the stuff
written in the Synoptics) were the myths that were grafted on later.
I originally got this theory from Maccoby (`The Mythmaker', `Paul and
Hellenism'), and I've found it to be by far the most plausible one I've
come across. Although Doherty provides a good alternative theory, I
think that not only does Maccoby's theory stand up very well to the
criticisms Doherty makes of the traditional view of Jesus, but some
passages in the gospels can actually be rather better explained in terms
of an original factual Jesus than in terms of one that was totally
fictional.
What I want to do here is go through and show how I think this theory
stands up well to all the points you've raised. If I have time, I'll
also try to post some positive reasons why I find Maccoby's theory to be
preferable to a theory that there never was a historical Jesus. I'll
start out by giving a quick outline of this theory, just so you know
where I'm coming from in the discussion, and then discuss your post in
light of it.
According to Maccoby, the situation at the time the epistles were
written is that there were two completely different movements of
Jesus-followers, who believed completely different things. The first
group, in Jerusalem, was led by the group who had followed him during
his life. This was a group of practicing Jews whose Messianic beliefs
(like their other beliefs) were fully in line with Jewish tradition.
When they talked about Jesus as Messiah, they never meant it in any
strange or mystical sense, but simply in the sense that any Jew would
understand the term - a king of David's line who would rule over Israel
in the upcoming Messianic age.
The one rather unusual belief this group held was the belief that God
had raised Jesus miraculously from the dead to enable him to return and
continue his mission as Messiah, something they expected to happen
imminently. This belief enabled their movement to keep going after the
death of their founder instead of collapsing as other Messianic
movements had in the same circumstances. However, they weren't a new
religion in any sense, but simply a sect of practicing Jews whose
beliefs were fully in line with mainstream Judaism.
The other Jesus-movement was the one led by Paul and carrying out
missionary activity to Jews and Gentiles outside Jerusalem. Paul, a
lover of pagan religions, had seized on the concept of a killed and
resurrected Son of God and interpreted this in the way it might have
been understood by pagan religions rather than the way that the Jews
understood the concept. By doing so, he had come up with a new and
rather bizarre blend of pagan religions, Gnostic thought, and Jewish
history, that interpreted Jesus's death and supposed resurrection
according to a pagan theology of salvation and redemption through blood
sacrifice.
This belief system would have been utterly heretical to the Jewish
religion, but it suited Paul just fine, and off he went to preach it to
communities outside Jerusalem. For historical reasons, this is the
belief that survived and grew into Christianity as we know it today.
However, several traditions about the actual historical Jesus survived
as well, and were incorporated into the final story, along with various
other details which were added in as the story developed.
[...]
> I think numerous things about Paul's letters make a lot
>*better* sense if you assume his Jesus was spiritual and had never been on
>earth.
I think that while Paul was focused on the idea of a spiritual Jesus, it
doesn't follow that he actually believed that there never had been a
physical Jesus. It's probably more accurate to say that the whole issue
of Jesus's physical life was simply _irrelevant_ to him. (Check out
Galatians 1:15 - 2:1. This man really wasn't interested in hearing what
other people had to say on the whole subject of Jesus, was he?)
I think that he was aware that somewhere in the recent past this man had
been born and lived on earth, and wouldn't have denied that if directly
asked, but he was much more interested in the spiritual interpretation
that he'd found for the crucifixion.
> Romans 13:3-4, which I've mentioned before, is one of my favorite
>examples. To assume he could express himself in this way with the Gospel story
>in the forefront of his mind inevitably leads to contradiction.
Which simply shows that the story wasn't at the forefront of his mind.
That doesn't show that he was utterly unaware of its existence or that
he believed it never happened.
<snip>
>I think your chain of logic is missing a link. Yes, the OT unquestionably did
>anticipate a human messiah (and I would argue the prophetic verses that
>speak of
>the Messiah in such terms undoubtedly did make it much easier for Paul's
>spiritual Jesus to be turned into a human, when that happened) - but that
>doesn't mean Paul necessarily believed this. The Messiah he envisioned, I would
>argue, was a drastic break from Jewish expectations.
If Paul's Jesus was totally spiritual, not based on any sort of real
life being, then why did he attach the title `Messiah' to him in the
first place? As you point out, the term actually meant something
completely different. It's not totally impossible that Paul could have
picked a term that was important within Judaism to refer to a spiritual
concept he'd come up with, but it's a bit odd.
>We have precedent for this: Jesus himself, who (even if he was a
>flesh-and-blood
>human) in no way fit Jewish messianic expectations. In fact, he violated almost
>all of them. The Jews' messiah was supposed to be a conquering military hero,
>like the great kings of the Old Testament, who would subdue their enemies and
>usher in the era of God's kingdom on earth. As Philip Yancey writes in "The
>Jesus I Never Knew": "Devout Jews, bred on stories of a power Jehovah, saw
>little to be admired in this god who died in weakness and in shame. As Justin
>Martyr's 'Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon' shows, Jesus' death on a cross made a
>decisive case against his Messiahship for the Jews...."
Yes, but you're not taking into account the effect of the belief in
Jesus's resurrection. If Jesus's followers believed that he had
risen/would rise from the dead, their hopes that he was the Messiah
didn't have to end with his death, as had been the case for previous
would-be Messiahs. They could go on believing that he'd turn up again
and _then_ do the conquering military hero bit. Their belief in his
resurrection gave his original followers (the Jerusalem church) a way to
keep the hopes of his Messiahship alive too.
>So we already have a Christian messiah who's not at all what the Jews expected
>or believed in. It's not that much of a leap for me to argue that Paul violated
>their expectations a bit further and made his messiah entirely spiritual.
I'm pretty confused here as to the order in which you think events
happened. You're saying that there was some sort of `Christian messiah'
idea around even before Paul came up with the whole idea of a spiritual
messiah, but that this was also a fictitious character? I don't see
quite how what you say here can fit with the idea of Jesus being totally
fictitious, which I thought (from having traced back your original post
on talk.origins) is the position you hold to. Could you clarify what
you mean, here?
<snip>
>If you feel that way, then please tell us who these "Twelve" were - and if you
>were planning to say the disciples, keep in mind that at this point in the
>story, there *weren't* twelve; there were eleven. Judas was dead. (According to
>Acts, he wasn't replaced until after the ascension, which doesn't come until
>after the events you say this 1 Corinthians creed is referring to.)
If, that is, the whole story of the betrayal and death actually happened
in the first place. Given the various implausibilities in the story, I
think this is one part of the tale that I certainly would classify as a
later myth, brought in because the story needed a bad guy. So it
doesn't surprise me at all that Paul doesn't seem to have heard of
Judas's defection - that story hadn't been invented yet, that's all.
(Actually, I'd also agree with Jeff's point here - if the disciples were
traditionally referred to as `the Twelve', they might well retain that
title even if only eleven of them remained. But that's by-the-by.)
<snip>
>> >>As I have pointed out and surely will do so again, no epistle ever
>> places
>> >>Christ's death and resurrection in any earthly setting, in any
>> earthly time >>or place. You could search the corpus of epistles in
>> vain for a single
>> >> mention of
>> >>"Calvary", "Golgotha", "Jerusalem", or any other place names related
>> to the
>> >>gospels' passion story. Indeed, Paul and the other epistle writers,
>> >>throughout
>> >>the first century, show not a speck of interest in any of the places
>> today
>> >>venerated by Christians as holy sites. Earl Doherty says it better
>> than I >>could:
>>
>> http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/siltop20.htm
>>
>> (Scroll down to #20.)
All this is really saying is that the Jesus-followers of the time didn't
show the same obsession as cultures since then with physical remnants or
holy places. Effectively, Doherty seems to be reading back attitudes
from other cultures and countries into first-century Palestine. This
strikes me as rather a large assumption on his part, and I'm not at all
sure it's warranted.
<snip>
>> >> > But there are a few very startling epistle verses that most
>> people
>> >> > aren't
>> > >> aware of - verses that either lack knowledge of some very significant
>gospel
>> >> > event, or verses that deny the possibility of a historical
>> founder figure
>> >> > entirely.
>> > >
>> >> > A few examples:
>>
>> [snip Romans 8:26 -- as I said, I don't have a great answer]
Was the teaching of one prayer really that significant an event in
Jesus's life? It's perfectly possible that Paul wouldn't have heard of
it (indeed, given his utter disinterest in Jesus's physical life, it's
very likely). Even if he had, he might well still find it spiritually
unsatisfying and feel that he couldn't properly get his feelings across
merely by reciting the words of a particular prayer.
>> >> > -Romans 11:3 where Paul mournfully says the Jews have "killed the
>> >>>prophets," but fails to mention their ultimate atrocity of killing
>> the Son >>>of God himself.
Well, they didn't, did they? The Romans did.
You're looking at the event through the superimposed interpretations
that have been added in since. All the gospels are quite clear that the
Romans were the people who actually had Jesus put to death (and, of
course, there's also the fact that the Romans, not the Jews, were the
ones who used crucifixion for the death penalty). However, all the
gospels _also_ seem very keen to gloss over that fact as much as they
can.
The Synoptics all have a story of a trial before the Sanhedrin who
decide he should be put to death for blasphemy. This story, however,
contradicts not only John's version (a much less official interview with
the High Priest only) but also quite a lot of what's known about the
Pharisees and Sanhedrin law. I can explain why I think so if you're
interested, but that's a bit of a complicated sidetrack, so I won't get
into it in this post. For now, I'll just say that I think there are
very good reasons to regard the whole story of the Sanhedrin trial - and
the releasing of Barabbas - as later embellishments.
It's not hard to see why that would have happened - the gospels were
written by Gentiles, writing for a Gentile audience, at a time when the
Jews were a weak, vilified people and a handy scapegoat but the Romans
were people that you really didn't want to risk offending. The authors
(and/or others who embellished the stories along the way) probably
weren't even thinking in terms of active deception - it may well have
seemed easy and natural to Gentile church members of the time to assume
the burden of guilt must fall on the Jews, and the stories of the trial
would be shaped by that assumption as they were passed on and written
down.
John's version of an unofficial interview with the High Priest, followed
by the
handing over of Jesus to Pilate, sounds much more plausible. It may
very well be that this actually did happen, and was embroidered into a
full-scale Sanhedrin trial by the other gospel authors to emphasise the
supposed Jewish involvement (and hence de-emphasise the actual Roman
involvement). For the sake of this argument, let's say that that was
what actually did happen. If so, Paul would presumably have heard of
it, since he'd formerly worked for the Sadducees.
However, the Sadducees were a relatively small sect of Judaism who
weren't considered particularly representative of the whole, and
arresting someone is not the same as actually putting them to death.
Paul wouldn't have been looking at those events through the blinkers of
the later gospel addendums plus two thousand years worth of `Jews as
Christ-killers' accusations. Without those preconceptions, there's no
reason to conclude that it would have even occurred to him to interpret
the events as `the Jews killing Jesus'.
<snip>
>Right now I should say something I'll probably have to repeat later: *If* this
>was the only example of this kind of bizarre silence to be found in the
>epistles, you'd be right. But it's not, not by a long shot. This kind of thing
>happens over and over. The epistle writers never say anything about
>Jesus' birth
>or parents, even when they're specifically discussing mothers and sons and the
>inheritance of the divine promise.
Why would they? (I'm not sure which verses you're referring to here, so
I can't judge.)
> They never mention a single one of Jesus'
>miracles (his resurrection being the obvious exception), even when they talk
>about how faith can heal the sick or protect one from demonic powers.
You seem to be working from an assumption that the truth of the
historical Jesus is an `all-or-nothing' thing - that the story is either
true or false in its entirety. I don't see any reason at all to go with
that assumption and ignore the third possibility - that some of the
stories actually are about a historical Jesus, but mythical details were
added on by the time the stories had reached the gospel stage.
Some of the stories about Jesus certainly do sound fictional, for
various reasons, and I've already commented on two of those (the Judas
story and the story of the Sanhedrin trial). There seems no reason not
to believe the same thing about the miracle stories. I can perfectly
well envisage those sorts of stories getting added to a story about a
real-life Jesus over the following few decades as the story spread.
>They never
>place his death and resurrection - they never specifically place his
>*life* - in
>any earthly place or any earthly time; none of them ever mention any of
>the holy
>places from the gospel story, even when they write that all they care about is
>to know and share in Jesus' sufferings.
I'm not sure who you mean by `they', here. Most of the Epistles are by
Paul (nominally at least) and, AIUI, many of the others are thought by
scholars to be later fakes and thus irrelevant to the question of what
people believed about Jesus at the time. (I know that that's also true
of some of the ones that are thought to be by Paul, but that's beside my
point here.)
Effectively, this means that you're drawing the bulk of your conclusions
from what a single person believed about Jesus in the years immediately
after his death. Do you know of any passages from non-Pauline epistles,
thought by scholars to be authentic, in which the author writes that all
he cares about is to know and share in Jesus's sufferings?
> They never mention that Jesus had
>appointed disciples, even when they're arguing about who is a legitimate
>follower of his and who has authority to speak in his name.
Again, who are `they' here? The only one I actually know of who argued
this is Paul (it's entirely possible that I've missed something - I
really don't know the epistles that well, I've got to admit). Since
Paul not only wasn't an appointed disciple but didn't even _know_ Jesus
during his life, I'd say he had every motivation to keep very quiet on
the subject of whether Jesus's appointed disciples had more authority
than other people to speak in his name.
> They never mention
>Jesus' teachings on the OT law, even when they're debating whether it's still
>valid or not.
Probably because Jesus never claimed it wasn't. Even the gospels don't
go as far as directly claiming he did (though Mark attempts to read that
interpretation into a line which doesn't actually say any such thing).
The whole idea that Jesus might have tried to do away with Jewish law is
contradicted completely by Acts 10, which would be utter nonsense if
Jesus actually _had_ taught his followers to do away with the food laws.
> They very frequently (around 200 times in the NT corpus by Earl
>Doherty's count) quote teachings about love, mercy, forgiveness, etc., that are
>extremely similar to Jesus' gospel pronouncements - but never, not
>once, do they
>specifically attribute any of them to him, not even with a simple "as Jesus
>himself said".
And again, I think you're working from your preconceptions about Jesus's
life here. Stop me if I'm wrong, because I do realise I'm putting words
in your mouth, and I know how I hate it when people do that to me - but
I think that the reason you see it that way is because you're so used to
the widely-held concept of Jesus as great moral teacher, who came out
with all these wonderful new ideas about morality that nobody had ever
had before.
In fact, from what we know of Jewish teachings at the time, what Jesus
was teaching was pretty much in line with Jewish thought. There was
nothing new or original about it - he was just teaching traditional
Jewish morality and legality. Why should the gospel writers bother
attributing these ideas to him particularly, when they'd been expressed
by others before and would no doubt be expressed by others in the
future?
>For each of these instances considered individually, you might well argue that
>this epistle writer on this specific occasion simply decided not to
>specifically
>mention Jesus, even if such a mention would be natural and compelling. But the
>more of these instances there are, the more strained this explanation becomes.
>As Earl Doherty says, it's like flipping a coin. If you get a few heads in a
>row - two, or five, or eight - it's not that big a deal. If you get 200
>heads in
>a row, something is wrong, and some other explanation needs to be sought. This
>overall pattern is the context of my argument. I'm not just lining up isolated
>silences; I'm arguing that each one is one piece of a larger puzzle.
Well, I've given several possible general explanations above which
strike me as plausible. If there are specific examples which you feel
aren't covered by anything I've said, by all means hit me with 'em, and
I'll see what I think.
Again, ironically, I think you're the one looking through
`gospel-coloured glasses' here.
We're all used to the picture of Jesus that you're as the patient
Suffering Servant, obedient until death. But this, as you said, is the
gospel image - the way the gospels, decades after his death and in light
of the new theological interpretations that had grown up around the
event, presented things. This picture is entirely dependent on the
traditional interpretation of his death - the belief that he
deliberately went to his death as part of a grand plan, despite having
miraculous powers that he could have used to get out of it at any time.
Strip away that superimposed theology, and what are you left with? A
man who was arrested and killed by armed men who outnumbered him. He
didn't exactly have much choice in the matter, did he? It really wasn't
as if he could say `Bah, I've had enough of this. Let's call time out.'
In such a situation, `patience' and `obedience' are meaningless terms.
Of course, the same is also true of Job - he wasn't given any choice in
the matter either. So, obviously, whatever James means by `patience'
here is something different from the concept we've been thinking of. I
would say that the salient feature of the Job story is that, at the end,
Job turned back to God and followed him faithfully once again, in spite
of all the suffering he had been through. Therefore, this must be what
James was enjoining Jesus's followers to do.
Looked at that way, I don't find it difficult to see why Job made a
better example than Jesus. Job, at the end, submits to God's will,
repenting of his doubts and questioning, and roundly declares his belief
in God: `I know that thou canst do all things and that no purpose of
thine can be thwarted.' OK, so it's not the all-time greatest ever
declaration of faith, but it sure beats the hell out of `My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?'
Besides, the story of Job ends with him finally being rewarded for his
faith. Although James's followers would have believed that Jesus was
_eventually_ going to return as the Messianic King, that still wouldn't
have had quite the impact of a story in which a faithful man was _shown_
to eventually receive his reward. I'd say the story of Job made James's
points better all around.
>> >-Hebrews 12:15-16 - a silence that should be beyond belief. The
>> author of
>> >Hebrews is trying to provide an example of a "root of bitterness"
>> growing in >the community, a man falling from the grace of God and
>> causing suffering for >many. Who could be a more obvious example than
>> the gospel figure of Judas,
>> >the archetypal traitor who, jealous and deceitful, sold the Son of
>> God to an >unjust and torturous death for thirty pieces of silver? But
>> no - the best he >can do is the OT figure of Esau.
So, obviously, he was writing before the Judas story had been invented,
and hence hadn't had a chance to read about the `gospel figure of
Judas'. ;-)
><...>
>
>> >> > -2 Corinthians 5:5-7, in which Paul says Christians "walk by
>> faith, not by
>> >> > sight", and who says that God has rewarded his true followers by
>> sending the
>> >> > Holy Spirit (not the Son) down to them.
[...]
>> >I would also point out that you neglected to mention verse 5:7, "For
>> we walk >by faith, not by sight." Weren't Jesus' handpicked disciples
>> still alive
>> >when Paul wrote this? Weren't there people who saw him with their own
>> eyes,
>> > who heard him preach with their own ears, who felt the hem of his garment,
>> > who were eyewitness to his miracles? These people *do* "walk by sight,"
>> >don't they? I would argue that Paul is expressing himself as if
>> Jesus' very
>> > existence were a matter of faith.
>>
>> First, were any of the disciples at Corinth? If not, then Paul is
>> writing to those who haven't physically seen Christ.
>
>The "we" refers to Christians in general.
Have you any basis for that interpretation? It seems to me to be an
assumption on your part, and I don't see any reason at all to read it
that way. If the `we' is read as Paul referring to himself and the
Corinthians, this is not only just as natural a reading, but makes far
more sense. In that case, as Jeff says, the `we' in question _hadn't_
physically seen Jesus, and were indeed walking `by faith, not by sight'.
> Given that, at the time of this
>letter's writing, there still should have been people alive who had physically
>seen Jesus, it would have been somewhat inappropriate at best for Paul to
>denigrate them and instead emphasize faith over sight.
Yup. So? You think that would have stopped him? ;-)
[...]
>Romans 8:24: "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope
>at all. Who hopes for what he already has?"
Again, same thing - he's writing to people who haven't seen Jesus, and
isn't particularly concerned about the ones who have.
>1 Peter 1:8-9: "These (trials) have come so that your faith... may be proved
>genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is
>revealed.
>Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him
>now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious
>joy..."
I know that the authenticity of 1 Peter is considered highly
questionable, so I don't think any conclusions can really be drawn from
that. It could easily have been written for a later audience, by
someone other than the original Peter.
>> >> > -Ephesians 3:4-5 in which Paul says knowledge of Jesus comes only
>> through
>> >> > revelation of the Holy Spirit.
[...]
>> >But even using your translation, my point remains. Read verses 5-6.
>> What has
>> >been revealed by the Holy Spirit? That the Gentiles should be
>> partakers of >the new covenant also. Fine. But you haven't solved the
>> problem here. Didn't >Jesus himself teach this?
If he was a practicing Jew - the position I'm defending - then no, it's
a fair guess that he didn't, because he wouldn't have been teaching
_any_ sort of new covenant. That belief is Paul's. I think the gospel
passages you've cited as claiming that belief were actually beliefs of
Paul's, projected back to Jesus, in just the same way as Paul's `quotes'
about the Last Supper. (BTW, your `Mark' reference isn't even from the
original Mark - it's from the tacked-on ending that was added later, so
it's really poor proof of anything apart from what people believed a
century or two afterwards.)
>> > Wasn't he the one who said salvation was now open
>> > to all? Again, why do these verses only represent that knowledge as
>> >having >
>come through a revelation of the Spirit?
Jewish theology has always taught that salvation is open to all. Paul
seems to be ignoring their theology completely here in favour of his
own.
<snip>
>> >> > -Hebrews 8:4, the "smoking gun", which says of Jesus: "Now, if he
>> had been on
>> >> > earth..." and goes on to explain why a Jesus on earth would have
>> had nothing to
>> >> > do - namely, because the role of offering sacrifices here was
>> already filled by
>> > >> the priests, and only in a Platonic higher world could Jesus make a
>better and
>> >> > more perfect sacrifice for sin.
Now, this one is very interesting indeed! Yes, that does seem to have
been written by someone who doesn't think of Jesus as an earthly being
at all. I don't know if you can conclude from that that Paul didn't
think so, though - isn't Hebrews one of the ones whose authorship is
considered dubious? (OK, I could be wrong about that.)
The other possibility I'd consider is that by this time Paul, after
years of preaching his theology with almost no contact with the
followers of the original Jesus, is getting carried away with it to the
point where he actually loses track, himself, of the fact that Jesus
_was_ on earth. I don't find it a particular stretch to imagine this
happening - after all, Paul seems to have had almost no interest in the
earthly Jesus as compared to his heavenly Jesus.
<snip>
>> How could it be "evident"
>> that a spiritual redeemer, who never set foot on earth, was "sprung"
>> from a particular tribe?
>
>Because the Old Testament prophecies said he would be, and any
>candidate claimed
>to be the messiah, spiritual or not, had to fulfill those prophecies.
Any candidate who claimed to be the Messiah had to fulfil the much more
important prophecies of being king during the Messianic Age, something
Jesus manifestly hadn't done. I think that anyone who could overlook
_that_ particular problem could also overlook the relatively more minor
detail that he hadn't been born of a particular tribe, so this argument
doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. Besides, Paul's preaching was
primarily to Gentiles, not Jews.
<snip>
I realise that this post has been aimed entirely at showing why I feel
that a historical Jesus is a _possibility_, not a certainty. At best,
and even if you do accept the arguments here, it might show that either
this theory or Doherty's are valid - I haven't given any actual reasons
to prefer this theory to Doherty's. I'm hoping to do that in a
subsequent post, but I think I'll post this one for now. I look forward
to your comments (`you' meaning Adam or Jeff, or anyone else for that
matter), if you have time.
Adam, I noticed you raised a few new points in your latest post to Jeff
(which I've read through only partly, as yet). I may or may not get
round to going through and answering those as well. So if there are any
points that you particularly feel need an answer and don't feel I've
answered here, by all means ask about those specifically.
All the best,
Sarah
Sarah Whippman
Warrender <jwar...@aol.com> writes
<much snippage - just wanted to clarify one point)
>You agreed with me in your post that I was right when I said that your
>argument basically amounted to a critique of Paul's rhetoric: ie, "I
>think Paul should have argued this way; he didn't; therefore, he was
>unaware of Jesus". You agreed that I was right that this is not
>evidence of absence, but then you argue that, ah, it isn't just in one
>or two places that Paul doesn't make an argument that Adam would have
>liked him to make, but in fact, it's in hundreds, therefore, Paul was
>unaware of Jesus. Now, obviously, repeating a fallacious argument a
>few hundred times does not make it rigorous.
You're confusing arguments with pieces of evidence.
Arguments have to stand or fall on their own merits, whereas pieces of
evidence can legitimately be pieced together as parts of a larger whole.
If an argument doesn't stand up in and of itself, that's that - as you
say, you can't legitimately take a few hundred arguments that don't
stand up in and of themselves, put them all together, and expect the
totality somehow to count as a compelling argument. But you _can_
legitimately take isolated pieces of evidence that wouldn't be enough to
stand up in and of themselves, piece them together, and end up with a
convincing case.
All the best,
Sarah
Jeff Warrender
Thanks for a well thought out reply. I've been working on a detailed
reply for the last couple of weeks, but my computer just died on me
this past week, so all my work is temporarily in limbo! I'm not sure
when (or if) it will be fixed, so I may get a full response out to you
someday, but let me just sketch out a response in broad strokes. This
may actually be appropriate to the point we're at anyway; I think
we've both stated our main cases, and from here on in, we'll just be
quibbling over details. So, perhaps you should consider this a
"closing argument", and you can make a similar one as a follow up, if
you want.
I think there are a few crucial issues that remain before us, but the
most important one continues to be whether Jesus, as believed by the
Epistle writers, was a man who walked the earth, or a spiritual
figure. I demonstrated in my last response that it is beyond dispute
that Jesus was flesh, as indicated by 4 of the 6 epistle writers.
However, you countered that this was a "spiritual, non-physical
flesh", and I think that you had two main supports for this. The
first was the Greek tense employed by the writers for the word "flesh"
(this was an argument that you said you borrowed from another liberal
scholar, which, of course, gets my hackles up...) You also said that
a view existed at the time of a 7-layered heaven with the lower realms
inhabited by demon spirirts, who are semi-corporeal, and it was to
this realm that Jesus descended.
As pertains to the Greek, I think there is a very important piece of
info you're neglecting. 1 John describes how Jesus came in the flesh,
and how "we have handled [him] with our hands". But John also wrote a
Gospel! (which actually predates his epistle, according to some) As
such, John undoubtably believed in a real, historical Jesus. And if
he believed that, and yet referred to Jesus' flesh using this peculiar
Greek form, we can't use the Greek as evidence that the writers didn't
affirm a historical Jesus. (you objected to my reference to "we have
handled" Jesus as being a Gospel-based interpretation on my part. But
that seems warranted, given that John wrote a Gospel, and given that
the language of the 1st chapter of his Gospel is virtually identical).
You have admitted that much of your argument rests on the fact that
"mystical ideas were 'in the air' at the time, so similarities between
the Epistles and the mystical schools become more significant." First
of all, this is nonsense. As I said, there are Hindu, or Muslim, or
Mormon ideas that are "in the air" right now, and that would appear to
be similar to some Christian writers. That doesn't prove that those
ideas are influencing the Christian, nor, indeed, does it prove a
similarity between the underlying belief systems; as I said,
sometimes, there is a commonality of language that makes different
ideas *sound* similar. Second, how well do we know what ideas were
"in the air" at the time? You say, with respect to Hindu beliefs that
seem similar to Christianity, "someone is influencing someone else."
Ok, fine. But how do you know which way it goes? Just because
Hinduism is older than Christianity, that doesn't mean that they've
always had those similar beliefs. As you know, tradition teaches that
Thomas, after Christ's death, went to India and evangelized that
country. Perhaps the people there assimilated the stories he told
about Christ with beliefs they already held. And I strongly suspect
that something similar is at work with the mystery religions. An
example that I've heard is that it's commonly said that Christianity
borrowed from Mithraism, but in fact, what we know about Mithraism
comes from sources *later* than Christ. So just because Mithraism
existed prior to Christ, it's not inconceivable that the Mithraists
modified their beliefs in some way after Christ's story was
circulated. In other words, I don't think you've proven which way the
influence goes.
So, what are we to make of the "layered heaven" view? Well, I showed
that the Epistles also talked about how Jesus was crucified. You
didn't really answer this, you simply said "ah...but he was crucified
in heaven, not earth!" Additionally, we have the epistles teaching
that Christ is descended ("sprung from" or "the seed of") Abraham,
Judah, Jesse, and David. You attempt to rationalize this away with
Galatians 4, saying that "spiritual descent" was a common mode of
thought. But this verse does nothing to help you. Paul is explicitly
making an allegory, and using two mothers as a basis for an analogy.
That doesn't mean that he says that "descent is allegorical". It's
the same as if I said "life is like a box of chocolates." You
shouldn't subsequently assume that every time I say "my life is so
sweet", that I'm mentally appending "because I basically live in a
Whitman's sampler." In other words, you can't extrapolate what is
explicitly an analogy into a concept that isn't supported anywhere
else in the texts.
So, we have a flesh-and-blood man who is descended from 4 Jewish
patriachs, and who was crucified. Given that these are letters that
were sent to lots of people in lots of places (and given that the
purpose of writing a letter is to be understood), again I ask you,
what do you think would have been the most obvious interpretation for
the people who read these? That Jesus was a man in the conventional
sense, a descendent of patriarchs in the conventional sense, and
crucified like a Roman criminal? Or that he was crucified in some
mystical realm? The mystical realm stuff was a view of mystery
schools, which were by definition very secretive. Would the broad
audience of these epistles likely understand these accounts in such
terms? Wouldn't they more naturally understand the writers to be
talking about Roman crucifiction, and biological descent? Does a
Greek tense (sprang from) and an idea that was "in the air" at the
time really constitute legitimate grounds to disregard 2000 years of
church teachings?
Let's look at a few more specific details. First, you said that 1 Cor
15:45 is 'devastating' to my case. At any rate, you only consider 1
Cor 15:45 to be "devastating" because, not surprisingly, you have once
again failed to appreciate it in the context of what Paul is talking
about. The first part of 1 Cor 15 talks about Jesus' life and
resurrection. The second parts refutes those who say "there is no
resurrection from the dead." The third part begins with the question,
in verse 35, "Someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what
kind of body do they come?' " And from here to the end of the
Chapter, Paul is explicitly dealing with the resurrection body. You
argued that he fails to distinguish the resurrection body as being
possessed after His resurrection, however, that's not completely
accurate; as we know, Paul indicates elsewhere his belief that Christ
was flesh, and yet here, he's talking about a purely "spiritual" body,
so there's some distinction. And in verst 36, he says "what you sow
does not come to life unless it dies", so he does imply that death is
a "transitional" event. I agree, it's a bit complicated, but I
wouldn't go so far as to say it's inconsistent with my view.
Next, on the subject of Gospel details in the Epistles, again, I
understand that you don't think I can use unstated allusions as
evidence for my case. But I think this raises a question that has
been debated ad nauseum on talk.atheism, namely, on whom does the
burden of proof rest? I would suggest that you are the one who is
making the controversial claim here; you're trying to overthrow 2000
years of Christian scholarship! However, I also admit that I'm the
one who "started" the debate by challenging your initial remarks
(although those remarks, in and of themselves, could be construed as
an assertion on your part). At any rate, I don't want to get into
"who has to prove what", but one thing I do object to is for you to
constantly say "you have to prove this, you have to prove that",
whereas you totally exempt yourself from similar rules in lots of
places. I think that the bottom line, for me, is that while perhaps I
haven't "proven" to you that the epistle writers say, explicitly,
"there was a historical Jesus" (because they don't), the epistles are
nevertheless *consistent* with that view, and moreover, that view
provides the most sensible framework in which to interpret the
epistles.
Let's talk about one or two details. First, who killed Jesus? 1
Thess 2 unequivocally says it was the Jews. However, you prefer not
to attribute that verse to Paul, because (a) it refers (or so you say)
to an event that happened after Paul's death in the past tense and (b)
it is critical of the Jews. (b) is obviously of no substance. For
you to claim to get inside Paul's head is not in the least compelling.
I already explained why this is consistent with the views Paul
expresses elsewhere (you didn't answer my points, prefering to rest on
the opinion of "scholars"; sounds like a dodge to me, but that's just
my opinion). (a), I explained, could be a predictive prophecy. True,
it's in the past tense, but so are many predictive prophecies; Check
out Isaiah 53, clearly a Messianic prophecy, yet written in the past
tense.
As for 1 Cor 2:8, I'll set that one aside, because it's not crucial,
but let me just say that I don't agree that the only way to interpret
"the rulers of this world" is as demonic spirits. True, Satan is
referred to as "the prince of this world", but 1 Cor 2:8 could just as
easily be talking about Pilate & Herod and the Sanhedrin, all of whom
were "rulers" (Gk 'archon') in a meaningful sense. At any rate, this
verse is consistent with both of our views, so no need for us to argue
it further.
How about 1 Tim 6:13, which makes an analogy based on Christ's trial
before Pilate? This verse, of course, positively excludes your
interpretation, but your response will be, (whether you know it now,
or whether you have to go get Earl Doherty's opinion) that "the
Pastoral Epistles weren't written by Paul." Again, incredibly
convenient. But do you have any reasons for making this claim? And
if your thesis rests on something like "they don't seem to be Paul's
style", I'm afraid I simply won't accept that. I'd be skeptical of
such a claim from a textual critic. You are not a textual critic, and
I don't see any evidence that you know Paul's writings so well that
you could adequately say "he didn't write these."
Finally, the book of Hebrews. I am amazed that you can say "Hebrews 2
doesn't talk about Christ being a flesh-and-blood man". Verse 11 says
"He who sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are of one". It says
that He partook of flesh and blood. That he didn't take on the nature
of angels, BUT that he took on the seed of Abraham. You somehow
interpret this to mean "he became a demon spirit." Let me treat you
to a logical fallacy called the abusive ad hominem: ARE YOU NUTS????
How in the WORLD can this chapter be construed to be talking about
demon spirits? Take any single verse in isolation, and you can maybe
massage that meaning out of it, but the combination of verses 9,11,12,
15, 16, 17, and 18, seem to only make sense under the view "Jesus was
a man". It is way too tortuous to claim that this means "Jesus was a
demon spirit." One of the main difficulties is that the traditional
interpretation holds that demons are fallen angels, ie, that they DO
have "the nature of angels." I don't know of anything that says that
these demon spirits could be considered "the seed of Abraham", or to
be identical with flesh and blood people, which is clearly what the
chapter is talking about Christ's being.
Also on the subject of Hebrews, you continue to misuse 9:23 as
evidence for your case. This verse is saying that a better sacrifice
than the blood of bulls and goats was required to cleanse the
tabernacle. But again, it doesn't ever say that it's the "heavenly
nature" of Christ's sacrifice that made it perfect, or that the
sacrifice took place in heaven. In fact, verse 14 says that He
offered himself "without spot", which means, "without sin". (See 4:15
for evidence that Christ was without sin) And that, to me, seems to be
what is implied by Christ's being a more "perfect" sacrifice than
goats and bulls. So once again, you have not ever introduced a verse
that says "Christ was sacrificed in a heavenly sphere by demonic
spirits". Some verses directly contradict such an interpretation,
though you prefer to put those off to later interpolations. Some
verses make much more sense interpreted traditionally, as I've shown.
I think there's another crucial premise on which your argument rests,
and that is that the Gospels were written very late, after the fall of
Jerusalem.
> First, I'm arguing that the gospels were originally written as
> instructive allegories, not intended to represent literal history, so
> no one would have been saying those things.
> Second, the weight of scholarly opinion holds that the
> gospels weren't even written until at least the year 70, after the
> disastrous Jewish War in which Jerusalem was burned to the ground
> and three-quarters of the population of Palestine was killed or
> scattered;
Ok, first off, the 'weight of scholarly opinion' holds no such thing.
Some scholars do say this, others say that there's no reason to date
any NT writing later than 70 AD. We both know which scholars we
prefer, but it's disingenuous for you to appeal to authority here when
you know full well that "your" scholars are not "all" scholars, nor
even "most" scholars.
But looking at arguments themselves, I presented a simple reason that
Acts was probably written before 65 AD. Since Luke and Acts are a 2
volume work, Luke was probably written before that. And since I'll
bet that you'd hold that Luke used Mark's gospel as a source, then
Mark's gospel was even earlier than that -- possibly as early as 60 AD
or before.
But, this is right around the time that the epistles were being
written. Are you really going to say that every point where the
epistles and gospels seem to agree, that its' just a case of Mark
going through the epistles and fabricating "historical Jesus" stories
based loosely on epistle "events"? How did he accomplish that?
Furthermore, CS Lewis makes a case against your view. He argues that
the Gospels contain minutely articulated details, like the scene where
Jesus sits down and doodles when He is asked to judge the woman caught
in adultery. As Lewis says, "nothing comes of this; no doctrine has
ever been based on it." And as he says, the art of adding little
details to make a story "seem" historical is a thoroughly modern art.
This was not something that was done in the first centruy. Surely,
then, the best explanation is that the writer included this little
detail because he *saw* it happen?
Finally, I reject the idea that people could have "forgotten" that
these stories were "just pretend." Are you saying that in 5 years,
there's a nuclear war, and the US is turned upside down. Then someone
digs out an old Rambo movie and starts saying "this guy was not a
fictional character, but a real person! Let's all emulate him?" In
other words, that people could confuse something they knew to be
"pretend" to suddenly be "real"? I think that relies too heavily on
the "ancient people were stupid" line of thinking. Based on the stuff
that ancient people were capable of, I'm not at all satisfied that
they were as much dumber than we are as some people want to believe
them to be.
Anyway, there was a lot more content in your post that I haven't
responded to, and may never respond to. This has simply been an
overview of where I think the status of the overall argument currently
lies. I haven't said much more about the "positive silences", and
probably don't have much more to say on those, other than specific
nitpicks; overall, I think I've made my points there, for better or
for worse.
All right, at the very least, this is a lot shorter than my other
posts have been, so perhaps it's an improvement in that sense. Talk
to you soon.
Best,
Jeff
Sarah Whippman
Warrender <jwar...@aol.com> writes
>Adam,
>
>Thanks for a well thought out reply. I've been working on a detailed
>reply for the last couple of weeks, but my computer just died on me
>this past week, so all my work is temporarily in limbo!
Oh, bad luck! Hope you didn't lose anything crucial.
There are two specific points in this post that I want to address:
>Let's talk about one or two details. First, who killed Jesus? 1
>Thess 2 unequivocally says it was the Jews. However, you prefer not
>to attribute that verse to Paul, because (a) it refers (or so you say)
>to an event that happened after Paul's death in the past tense
[...]
> (a), I explained, could be a predictive prophecy. True,
>it's in the past tense, but so are many predictive prophecies; Check
>out Isaiah 53, clearly a Messianic prophecy, yet written in the past
>tense.
This isn't, in fact, `clearly' a Messianic prophecy. This passage has
also been interpreted as referring to King Hezekiah, Isaiah himself, and
the entire history of the Jewish nation. Either of the last two
explanations (and possibly the first, for that matter - I'm not sure
about the dating of Hezekiah relative to Isaiah) would mean that only
the second part of the passage is actually a prophecy, and that the
first part is a description of things that have already happened. This
would quite naturally explain both the past tense and the change in
tense part way through.
You say that there are predictive prophecies, plural, in the past tense
- what other ones did you have in mind, and do you know of _any_ that
clearly are prophecies (and not just reinterpreted as such after the
fact, when they seemed to fit events that had happened)? I must say
I'll be quite surprised if there are any, simply because I don't see how
you _could_ be sure that a past-tense description was clearly intended
as a prophecy unless the prophet said it was, which prophets don't
usually do. Still, I'll be interested in whatever examples you've got.
Overall, though, it's not just the tense. This statement is slipped in
as part of the conversation in a way that doesn't sound like a prophecy.
Paul doesn't seem to have been someone to hide his light under a bushel
when it came to prophesying. When he thought he had a message directly
from God, he said so. Wouldn't he have done the same this time - made
it clear that this was something that came from revelation?
I think, at the very least, there is a fair bit of doubt over whether
this is Paul's authentic work or a later interpolation. This makes it
impossible to use it to prove anything about what Paul thought.
<snip>
>Furthermore, CS Lewis makes a case against your view. He argues that
>the Gospels contain minutely articulated details, like the scene where
>Jesus sits down and doodles when He is asked to judge the woman caught
>in adultery. As Lewis says, "nothing comes of this; no doctrine has
>ever been based on it." And as he says, the art of adding little
>details to make a story "seem" historical is a thoroughly modern art.
>This was not something that was done in the first centruy. Surely,
>then, the best explanation is that the writer included this little
>detail because he *saw* it happen?
It's interesting that you should have picked this particular example,
because there are actually several good reasons why this is very likely
_not_ a genuine story about Jesus's life.
Firstly, it's unlikely to be genuine on textual grounds. Since this
passage shows up only in later manuscripts of John, not earlier ones, I
understand it's generally felt by scholars to be a later interpolation.
Secondly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about the Jewish law at
that time. AIUI, the death penalty wasn't in practice used at that
time, having been hedged about with conditions to the point where it was
impossible to apply (not only did you have to be caught in the act of
the crime by two Torah-observant male Jews, but one of them had to have
explained to you before why the act you were planning was wrong
according to Torah). It's therefore highly unlikely that a woman would
actually have been in a situation where she was liable for the death
penalty for adultery, but both Jesus and the Pharisees seem to ignore
this.
It's also not clear what the Pharisees would have hoped to gain from
this encounter in terms of legal advantage. The story reports that they
wanted evidence against him that they could use in a court of law. What
would they have got, by this method, that would have been helpful to
them? If Jesus was really either so foolish or so reckless as to give a
group of hostile Pharisees an answer that preached so openly against the
law as to merit his being brought to court, surely he'd already be
saying such things without them needing to go to the trouble of setting
up this little entrapment scenario?
Thirdly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about human nature. If
a group of people have collectively decided that another person is
worthy of punishment, then you might potentially be able to talk them
out of it by giving them reasons why what the person did isn't really so
bad, or why there are mitigating factors, or by appealing to the better
natures of the group. But the one approach that really isn't likely to
work is telling the group that they should leave this person alone
because they're all sinners as well. The usual human response to this
is a fervent explanation of all the ways in which the accused person's
sins are so much worse than anything that the people in the group have
done. ;-)
Of course, this was a different culture, and we can't always assume
people from another culture are going to react the same way as people
from this one. However, I'd say this particular human trait is
ingrained enough that I'd really be pretty surprised if people in
first-century Palestine were that different from us in this respect. I
just can't see an entire group of people responding to such a statement
by falling silent and fading shamefacedly away.
No, I don't know why John put in the detail about Jesus writing in the
sand. But it strikes me as quite possible that it was related to some
part of the story or local that has since been lost. At any rate, it
strikes me as a lot easier to explain than the problems I've raised
above. So I think this story is likely to be a later, fictitious,
addition and not something that actually happened.
All the best,
Sarah
Jeff Warrender
> In message <cb609cb8.02112...@posting.google.com>, Jeff
> Warrender <jwar...@aol.com> writes
> >Adam,
> >
> >Thanks for a well thought out reply. I've been working on a detailed
> >reply for the last couple of weeks, but my computer just died on me
> >this past week, so all my work is temporarily in limbo!
>
> Oh, bad luck! Hope you didn't lose anything crucial.
>
> There are two specific points in this post that I want to address:
>
> >Let's talk about one or two details. First, who killed Jesus? 1
> >Thess 2 unequivocally says it was the Jews. However, you prefer not
> >to attribute that verse to Paul, because (a) it refers (or so you say)
> >to an event that happened after Paul's death in the past tense
> [...]
> > (a), I explained, could be a predictive prophecy. True,
> >it's in the past tense, but so are many predictive prophecies; Check
> >out Isaiah 53, clearly a Messianic prophecy, yet written in the past
> >tense.
>
> This isn't, in fact, `clearly' a Messianic prophecy. This passage has
> also been interpreted as referring to King Hezekiah, Isaiah himself, and
> the entire history of the Jewish nation.
By whom?
>Either of the last two
> explanations (and possibly the first, for that matter - I'm not sure
> about the dating of Hezekiah relative to Isaiah)
They were contemporaries. See 2 Kings 20.
> would mean that only
> the second part of the passage is actually a prophecy, and that the
> first part is a description of things that have already happened. This
> would quite naturally explain both the past tense and the change in
> tense part way through.
>
It may explain the tense, but not really the contents. First, verse 8
says that he was cut out of the land of the living as a result of the
chastisement that he bore. That rules out Hez, who recovered from his
sickness. Verse 5 says "he was wounded for OUR transgressions"
(emphasis mine), and it's hard to see how Isaiah, an Israelite, could
speak of Israel in the 3rd person as suffering for "our"
transgressions. And I think that it also makes an interpretation of
this as describing Isaiah himself also suspect. Again, the text talks
about someone who was killed, which Isaiah couldn't have been if he is
writing. It also doesn't actually describe events in Isaiah's life,
if I'm not mistaken (I could be).
I think that furthermore, the close match between Isaiah 53 and the
life of Christ indicate that the best interpretation of this passage
is as a predictive prophecy of the Messiah. Peter's language recalls
this in 1 Pet 2:21-25.
> You say that there are predictive prophecies, plural, in the past tense
> - what other ones did you have in mind, and do you know of _any_ that
> clearly are prophecies (and not just reinterpreted as such after the
> fact, when they seemed to fit events that had happened)?
Well, obviously, we have different standards for what is "clearly a
prophecy". There are many passages in the Psalms, for example, that
speak in the past or present tense, that are generally recognized as
being Messianic. This is something that you brought up in another
post that I had meant to comment on, but the issue that comes into
play here is the interpretive filter that one uses when reading the
Bible. Yours says that Christians regard passages as prophecies only
when they seemed to fit events that had happened. But Christians, on
the other hand, recognize that Jesus provides the connection that
pulls the entire Old Testament together; He is what the entire OT is
"about." Although I hate to keep doing this, I can't help but appeal
to CS Lewis yet again. He compares Jesus (in a sense) to a newly
discovered "lost" chapter to a book. If someone said to you, "here is
the 'lost' chapter, and it brings out the true meaning of the entire
book," then the test you would apply would be, does it do that? Does
the content of the original book make more sense when incorporated
into the material of the lost chapter? Does the lost chapter make it
easier to understand the old book, or does it constantly present
difficulties? Christians would say unequivocally that the latter is
the case. The build-up to the Messiah, and, specifically, to Jesus,
is, to me, the best way to make sense of the Old Testament.
> I must say
> I'll be quite surprised if there are any, simply because I don't see how
> you _could_ be sure that a past-tense description was clearly intended
> as a prophecy unless the prophet said it was, which prophets don't
> usually do. Still, I'll be interested in whatever examples you've got.
>
> Overall, though, it's not just the tense. This statement is slipped in
> as part of the conversation in a way that doesn't sound like a prophecy.
> Paul doesn't seem to have been someone to hide his light under a bushel
> when it came to prophesying. When he thought he had a message directly
> from God, he said so. Wouldn't he have done the same this time - made
> it clear that this was something that came from revelation?
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't like the whole argument that "Paul
wouldn't have said this about the Jews", as I've said. I think that
"Paul would have announced with a trumpet sound a prophecy" is a
similar, but less egregious example of the same thing. One commentary
I read on this passage said that Paul places the event in the past
tense because, in a sense, the wrath that is coming upon the Jews is
"eschatalogical", but is already beginning.
I think that we could debate this point further, but up to now, my
whole point is simply that Adam's "reasons" for rejecting this as
Pauline are:
(1) It speaks unfavorably of the Jews, and Paul wouldn't do that (big
assumption)
(2) It refers to the destruction of the Jerusalem (maybe, but not
proven by Adam) in the past tense, which could only happen if the
destruction was in the past (unless it's a prophecy, which the tense
alone doesn't prove that it isn't)
(3) Scholars like Earl Doherty say so (obviously not compelling)
So, I don't think I need to prove that this is a prophecy; up to now,
I simply haven't seen grounds yet to reject this clause as being
Pauline in origin. I can see why Adam and Doherty so desperately want
to, as it badly torpedoes their case for a non-historical Jesus. But
the reasons Adam has advanced aren't good enough. You may not agree
with me that it could be a prophecy; well and good. But neither have
you really attempted to show that it can't be Pauline, and that's
really the crucial point here.
> I think, at the very least, there is a fair bit of doubt over whether
> this is Paul's authentic work or a later interpolation. This makes it
> impossible to use it to prove anything about what Paul thought.
>
Well, there is doubt among people, if Adam is correct that some
scholars reject Paul's authorship of this clause. But their reasoning
is, as I've tried to show, unsound. And as I said elsewhere, this
whole clause actually makes a lot of sense given that Paul was writing
to Jews in Thessolonica, who had been persecuted by other Jews as
recorded in Acts, which I've already argued was written pre-70 AD.
Furthermore, it's not clear to me where the interpolation is alleged
to start and end. Surely the whole letter isn't a forgery.
> <snip>
>
> >Furthermore, CS Lewis makes a case against your view. He argues that
> >the Gospels contain minutely articulated details, like the scene where
> >Jesus sits down and doodles when He is asked to judge the woman caught
> >in adultery. As Lewis says, "nothing comes of this; no doctrine has
> >ever been based on it." And as he says, the art of adding little
> >details to make a story "seem" historical is a thoroughly modern art.
> >This was not something that was done in the first centruy. Surely,
> >then, the best explanation is that the writer included this little
> >detail because he *saw* it happen?
>
> It's interesting that you should have picked this particular example,
> because there are actually several good reasons why this is very likely
> _not_ a genuine story about Jesus's life.
>
> Firstly, it's unlikely to be genuine on textual grounds. Since this
> passage shows up only in later manuscripts of John, not earlier ones, I
> understand it's generally felt by scholars to be a later interpolation.
>
This is really the only legitimate grounds that you've raised, as far
as I can see. I'll have to look into which MS's it appears in and
which it doesn't. But this is just one story among many which involve
little embellishments (Incidentally, did you realize that it was the
doodling, and not the story as a whole, that I was referring to?) like
the doodling; events that are not used for the purpose of doctrinal
teaching (as Adam alleges the Gospels were written to do), but to give
an enhanced reality of the story. And as Lewis says, this just wasn't
done in ancient literature. The Gospel accounts are way too
"historical", but contain far too few details, to be legendary, and
they include far too much articulation of minutiae to be simply used
as pedagogical allegories.
> Secondly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about the Jewish law at
> that time. AIUI, the death penalty wasn't in practice used at that
> time, having been hedged about with conditions to the point where it was
> impossible to apply (not only did you have to be caught in the act of
> the crime by two Torah-observant male Jews, but one of them had to have
> explained to you before why the act you were planning was wrong
> according to Torah). It's therefore highly unlikely that a woman would
> actually have been in a situation where she was liable for the death
> penalty for adultery, but both Jesus and the Pharisees seem to ignore
> this.
>
> It's also not clear what the Pharisees would have hoped to gain from
> this encounter in terms of legal advantage. The story reports that they
> wanted evidence against him that they could use in a court of law. What
> would they have got, by this method, that would have been helpful to
> them? If Jesus was really either so foolish or so reckless as to give a
> group of hostile Pharisees an answer that preached so openly against the
> law as to merit his being brought to court, surely he'd already be
> saying such things without them needing to go to the trouble of setting
> up this little entrapment scenario?
Do the Gospels say that He did? My impression with this episode was
that the Pharisees were trying to trap Him, to force Him to
specifically, explictly, reject the Law of Moses, or to consent to the
killing of the woman, which seemed to be at odds with the message He
was preaching. ie, to contradict Moses, or to contradict Himself.
Jesus' response illustrated to the Pharisees that they really didn't
have any interest in upholding the Law with respect to this woman;
they were hypocritically using this woman as a pretext to test Jesus.
Whether Jesus frequently flaunted violating the Mosaic Law, I'm not
sure. Certainly, He made it clear that some of the Levitical
practices were no longer in effect. But the reason He did this was
not to arbitrarily set aside the law, but rather, because He was the
fulfillment to which many of the old practices pointed.
>
> Thirdly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about human nature. If
> a group of people have collectively decided that another person is
> worthy of punishment, then you might potentially be able to talk them
> out of it by giving them reasons why what the person did isn't really so
> bad, or why there are mitigating factors, or by appealing to the better
> natures of the group. But the one approach that really isn't likely to
> work is telling the group that they should leave this person alone
> because they're all sinners as well. The usual human response to this
> is a fervent explanation of all the ways in which the accused person's
> sins are so much worse than anything that the people in the group have
> done. ;-)
On the other hand, this Man was purportedly God in the flesh. Who
knows what kind of impression such a man would make on people? Who
knows what they would or would not have done when confronted by Him,
"human nature" as you understand it notwithstanding? The Gospels do
suggest that He made quite an impression on people.
>
> Of course, this was a different culture, and we can't always assume
> people from another culture are going to react the same way as people
> from this one. However, I'd say this particular human trait is
> ingrained enough that I'd really be pretty surprised if people in
> first-century Palestine were that different from us in this respect. I
> just can't see an entire group of people responding to such a statement
> by falling silent and fading shamefacedly away.
>
> No, I don't know why John put in the detail about Jesus writing in the
> sand. But it strikes me as quite possible that it was related to some
> part of the story or local that has since been lost. At any rate, it
> strikes me as a lot easier to explain than the problems I've raised
> above. So I think this story is likely to be a later, fictitious,
> addition and not something that actually happened.
>
Fair enough, as pertains to this story. But my point in introducing
it was not so much to argue for its veracity (although, obviously, I
do think it really happened) as to dispute Adam's contention that the
Gospels were originally written with the understanding that the
stories were fictional fabrications meant for teaching and
instruction.
>
> All the best,
>
> Sarah
Sarah Whippman
Warrender <jwar...@aol.com> writes
>Sarah Whippman <Nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<PAtQssFj...@samael.demon.co.uk>...
[...]
>> > (a), I explained, could be a predictive prophecy. True,
>> >it's in the past tense, but so are many predictive prophecies; Check
>> >out Isaiah 53, clearly a Messianic prophecy, yet written in the past
>> >tense.
>>
>> This isn't, in fact, `clearly' a Messianic prophecy. This passage has
>> also been interpreted as referring to King Hezekiah, Isaiah himself, and
>> the entire history of the Jewish nation.
>
>By whom?
Jews.
>>Either of the last two
>> explanations (and possibly the first, for that matter - I'm not sure
>> about the dating of Hezekiah relative to Isaiah)
>
>They were contemporaries. See 2 Kings 20.
Cheers! That's three for three, then. (Having said that, I've only
ever seen the Hezekiah interpretation mentioned once or twice, and I
only put it in for the sake of completeness - I really doubt if many
Jews would accept this one.)
>> would mean that only
>> the second part of the passage is actually a prophecy, and that the
>> first part is a description of things that have already happened. This
>> would quite naturally explain both the past tense and the change in
>> tense part way through.
>>
>It may explain the tense, but not really the contents. First, verse 8
>says that he was cut out of the land of the living as a result of the
>chastisement that he bore. That rules out Hez, who recovered from his
>sickness.
Apparently this can be used metaphorically. It's true that it doesn't
fit a literal interpretation, but then verse 10 doesn't fit a literal
interpretation of Jesus's life, either, so we have to allow some poetic
licence whichever interpretation is used.
> Verse 5 says "he was wounded for OUR transgressions"
>(emphasis mine), and it's hard to see how Isaiah, an Israelite, could
>speak of Israel in the 3rd person as suffering for "our"
>transgressions.
Well, this didn't strike me as a big problem - Isaiah often refers to
Israel in the singular as God's servant, and I don't think it's too big
a stretch from that to refer to Israel as a separate third-person
entity. However, I was reading a bit about this on-line and found an
interesting interpretation which I think actually works even better. If
you look at the chapter in context, it follows directly on from a verse
about kings understanding what they have not been told. The
interpretation, therefore, is that the kings referred to are Gentiles
and all of Isaiah 53 is Isaiah reporting what these Gentile kings will
say of Israel, in the future. I must say, this produces a smoother
interpretation than anything else I've yet heard.
> And I think that it also makes an interpretation of
>this as describing Isaiah himself also suspect. Again, the text talks
>about someone who was killed, which Isaiah couldn't have been if he is
>writing. It also doesn't actually describe events in Isaiah's life,
>if I'm not mistaken (I could be).
I don't know if it does or not, but then we also don't know if it
describes events in Jesus's life - there are no reports of him being
ugly or deformed (52:14, 53:2) or having longstanding pains and
afflictions (apparently the correct translation of 53:5).
>I think that furthermore, the close match between Isaiah 53 and the
>life of Christ indicate that the best interpretation of this passage
>is as a predictive prophecy of the Messiah.
There's nothing at all in it to indicate that it refers to the Messiah,
so you're relying here not just on interpreting it as a predictive
prophecy of Jesus's life but on the fact that you already believe that
Jesus was the Messiah - which is a whole separate issue, obviously.
As to the subject of whether it's referring to Jesus, that
interpretation leaves us struggling with how `he shall see his seed, he
shall prolong his days' fits in, and how Jesus can be described as
having done no violence when he's reported as using violence to drive
the money-changers out of the temple. Whichever interpretation is used,
there are bits that clearly have to be interpreted metaphorically and
that don't quite fit.
Personally, I think the interpretation as referring to Israel is the one
that fits most smoothly. However, my main point was that it really
isn't as obvious as you might think that it refers to Jesus.
>
>> You say that there are predictive prophecies, plural, in the past tense
>> - what other ones did you have in mind, and do you know of _any_ that
>> clearly are prophecies (and not just reinterpreted as such after the
>> fact, when they seemed to fit events that had happened)?
>
>Well, obviously, we have different standards for what is "clearly a
>prophecy". There are many passages in the Psalms, for example, that
>speak in the past or present tense, that are generally recognized as
>being Messianic. This is something that you brought up in another
>post that I had meant to comment on, but the issue that comes into
>play here is the interpretive filter that one uses when reading the
>Bible. Yours says that Christians regard passages as prophecies only
>when they seemed to fit events that had happened. But Christians, on
>the other hand, recognize that Jesus provides the connection that
>pulls the entire Old Testament together; He is what the entire OT is
>"about."
Which sounds to me like a different way of saying the same thing. What
you're effectively saying here (which may or may not be how you're
meaning it, but it's how it's sounding) is that yes, you are doing what
I'm saying (regarding passages as prophecies only when they seem to fit
events that have happened), but it's a legitimate way to do things
because Jesus _was_ the Messiah/divine/a saving sacrifice, etc., and
therefore the passages that correspond or seem to correspond to his life
_are_ prophecies. The problem with this approach, of course, is that it
relies entirely on whether Jesus can be shown to be what you believe him
to be.
> Although I hate to keep doing this, I can't help but appeal
>to CS Lewis yet again.
Hey, go right ahead and appeal. I like what I've read of C. S. Lewis, I
just disagree with a lot of what he says.
> He compares Jesus (in a sense) to a newly
>discovered "lost" chapter to a book. If someone said to you, "here is
>the 'lost' chapter, and it brings out the true meaning of the entire
>book," then the test you would apply would be, does it do that? Does
>the content of the original book make more sense when incorporated
>into the material of the lost chapter? Does the lost chapter make it
>easier to understand the old book, or does it constantly present
>difficulties? Christians would say unequivocally that the latter is
>the case. The build-up to the Messiah, and, specifically, to Jesus,
>is, to me, the best way to make sense of the Old Testament.
And, on this point, we disagree. I've read the passages that are
supposedly previously unrecognised prophecies of Jesus's life - the ones
like Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, Isaiah 7:14 - and thought about how they'd
look to a Jew prior to Jesus's time, reading those prophecies with no
knowledge of Jesus's life. I've thought about whether there's there
anything in those passages that would have led someone to say `Aha, this
must be a prophecy of ..... [whatever Christians claim it's a prophecy
of]'. The unequivocal conclusion I've had to reach is `No'.
Those passages all make perfect sense when read in the context that
they're written in. There is nothing about them that I can see that
would make someone reading through those scriptures at the time say
`Hang on, this bit doesn't add up! We must be missing some crucial
information here that would make sense of it.' Or `This is obviously a
prophecy of..... [event later happening in Jesus's life]. Unless you're
someone who already possesses particular beliefs about Jesus's life,
death, and mission, there is simply nothing whatsoever that would point
to the interpretation later put on these biblical passages or that would
even, in many cases, make them stand out as being of any particular
significance.
What's more, many of the later Christian claims flat-out contradict the
teachings of Judaism and the OT. We've got the Tenakh (OT) drumming it
into the Jews over and over again that their job is to keep the law,
that this responsibility is upon them forever. We've got Solomon and
the prophets teaching their people that the route to forgiveness is
through repentance and turning back to the law, and sacrifices really
aren't all that important compared to those things. And then, suddenly,
after those consistent themes throughout the Tenakh, we've got
Christianity teaching a completely different theology.
So, no, I don't think it makes any sense at all for the NT to be the
final, missing chapter of the existing Jewish scriptures.
[...]
>So, I don't think I need to prove that this is a prophecy; up to now,
>I simply haven't seen grounds yet to reject this clause as being
>Pauline in origin. I can see why Adam and Doherty so desperately want
>to, as it badly torpedoes their case for a non-historical Jesus. But
>the reasons Adam has advanced aren't good enough. You may not agree
>with me that it could be a prophecy; well and good. But neither have
>you really attempted to show that it can't be Pauline, and that's
>really the crucial point here.
And with this, I disagree completely. Surely as long as there's a
reasonable doubt that it could be Pauline, we shouldn't be taking it as
evidence of what he believed?
Suppose someone you know from outside the Internet posts here telling me
`You should denounce Jeff as an anti-Semite, because I've heard him say
that all Jews are evil'. I can't actually prove you haven't made this
statement, but it does strike me that there's some doubt about whether
you made it. Should I denounce you as an anti-Semite? Or should I say
`Since I don't know that he said any such thing, I'm going to give him
the benefit of the doubt'? I sure as hell hope people base their
judgements of my beliefs on things I've actually said and not on things
they think I _might_ have said!
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Furthermore, CS Lewis makes a case against your view. He argues that
>> >the Gospels contain minutely articulated details, like the scene where
>> >Jesus sits down and doodles when He is asked to judge the woman caught
>> >in adultery.
[...]
>> It's interesting that you should have picked this particular example,
>> because there are actually several good reasons why this is very likely
>> _not_ a genuine story about Jesus's life.
>>
>> Firstly, it's unlikely to be genuine on textual grounds. Since this
>> passage shows up only in later manuscripts of John, not earlier ones, I
>> understand it's generally felt by scholars to be a later interpolation.
>>
>This is really the only legitimate grounds that you've raised, as far
>as I can see.
[...]
>> Secondly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about the Jewish law at
>> that time. AIUI, the death penalty wasn't in practice used at that
>> time, having been hedged about with conditions to the point where it was
>> impossible to apply (not only did you have to be caught in the act of
>> the crime by two Torah-observant male Jews, but one of them had to have
>> explained to you before why the act you were planning was wrong
>> according to Torah). It's therefore highly unlikely that a woman would
>> actually have been in a situation where she was liable for the death
>> penalty for adultery, but both Jesus and the Pharisees seem to ignore
>> this.
>>
>> It's also not clear what the Pharisees would have hoped to gain from
>> this encounter in terms of legal advantage. The story reports that they
>> wanted evidence against him that they could use in a court of law. What
>> would they have got, by this method, that would have been helpful to
>> them? If Jesus was really either so foolish or so reckless as to give a
>> group of hostile Pharisees an answer that preached so openly against the
>> law as to merit his being brought to court, surely he'd already be
>> saying such things without them needing to go to the trouble of setting
>> up this little entrapment scenario?
>
>Do the Gospels say that He did?
My point is that regardless of whether he did or he didn't, it doesn't
make a lot of sense. If he wasn't already preaching against the law,
why would the Pharisees bring such a case before him anyway? They
wouldn't have any reason to expect him to react in such a way. If he
was, why wouldn't they either have used the things they'd already heard
him say as evidence or waited until he said enough such things that they
_did_ have clear evidence against him? The thing is, it doesn't make a
lot of sense for them to think that a really obvious `entrapment'
scenario like this one was going to solve anything, because anyone with
one whit of sense could realise what they were up to and avoid it.
> My impression with this episode was
>that the Pharisees were trying to trap Him, to force Him to
>specifically, explictly, reject the Law of Moses, or to consent to the
>killing of the woman, which seemed to be at odds with the message He
>was preaching. ie, to contradict Moses, or to contradict Himself.
Which wouldn't make any sense, since he didn't have to do either. See
what I said above about the conditions on the death penalty. The
obvious route for him to take would have been first to ask if there were
two witnesses (without which no conviction would have been possible
anyway) and then to question them separately on smaller and smaller
details, trying to catch them out. That was the accepted legal way of
avoiding the death penalty in a case where it would otherwise be
applied. Given that Jesus would have had this obvious option open to
him, why would the Pharisees have expected this to do them any good at
all?
[...]
>Whether Jesus frequently flaunted violating the Mosaic Law, I'm not
>sure. Certainly, He made it clear that some of the Levitical
>practices were no longer in effect.
He didn't, actually, though that, again, is a separate topic.
[...]
>> Thirdly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about human nature. If
>> a group of people have collectively decided that another person is
>> worthy of punishment, then you might potentially be able to talk them
>> out of it by giving them reasons why what the person did isn't really so
>> bad, or why there are mitigating factors, or by appealing to the better
>> natures of the group. But the one approach that really isn't likely to
>> work is telling the group that they should leave this person alone
>> because they're all sinners as well. The usual human response to this
>> is a fervent explanation of all the ways in which the accused person's
>> sins are so much worse than anything that the people in the group have
>> done. ;-)
>
>On the other hand, this Man was purportedly God in the flesh.
`Purportedly' being the operative word here, I think. I know that you
and I are pretty much going to have to agree to differ on that one, but
given that this is a thread about whether Jesus existed at all, is it
really the best place to bring in assumptions about the whole separate
question of whether or not he was God in the flesh? After all, that's
hardly a given, regardless of whether or not he existed.
[...]
>> No, I don't know why John put in the detail about Jesus writing in the
>> sand. But it strikes me as quite possible that it was related to some
>> part of the story or local that has since been lost. At any rate, it
>> strikes me as a lot easier to explain than the problems I've raised
>> above. So I think this story is likely to be a later, fictitious,
>> addition and not something that actually happened.
>>
>Fair enough, as pertains to this story. But my point in introducing
>it was not so much to argue for its veracity (although, obviously, I
>do think it really happened) as to dispute Adam's contention that the
>Gospels were originally written with the understanding that the
>stories were fictional fabrications meant for teaching and
>instruction.
I know. But my point was, this particular example rather defeats your
point. You've claimed that the extra detail in the story shows that
it's likely to have actually happened. In view of the evidence that it
didn't happen, I think what this actually does show is that the presence
of these sorts of details may in fact not be a very good guide to
whether a particular story happened or not.
All the best,
Sarah
Jeff Warrender
addressing whether Paul was the writer of 1 Thess 2:15. Adam said
"no", because (a) (he claims) it refers to an event that happened
after Paul's death, and (b) (he claims) it is anti-Semitic, and (he
further claims) that Paul wouldn't have said such things.
> [...]
> >> > (a), I explained, could be a predictive prophecy. True,
> >> >it's in the past tense, but so are many predictive prophecies; Check
> >> >out Isaiah 53, clearly a Messianic prophecy, yet written in the past
> >> >tense.
> >>
> >> This isn't, in fact, `clearly' a Messianic prophecy. This passage has
> >> also been interpreted as referring to King Hezekiah, Isaiah himself, and
> >> the entire history of the Jewish nation.
> >
> >By whom?
>
> Jews.
>
Well, you can see why they'd say that, wouldn't you? How about the
Jews prior to Christ? What were their thoughts on this passage?
> >>Either of the last two
> >> explanations (and possibly the first, for that matter - I'm not sure
> >> about the dating of Hezekiah relative to Isaiah)
> >
> >They were contemporaries. See 2 Kings 20.
>
> Cheers! That's three for three, then. (Having said that, I've only
> ever seen the Hezekiah interpretation mentioned once or twice, and I
> only put it in for the sake of completeness - I really doubt if many
> Jews would accept this one.)
>
> >> would mean that only
> >> the second part of the passage is actually a prophecy, and that the
> >> first part is a description of things that have already happened. This
> >> would quite naturally explain both the past tense and the change in
> >> tense part way through.
> >>
> >It may explain the tense, but not really the contents. First, verse 8
> >says that he was cut out of the land of the living as a result of the
> >chastisement that he bore. That rules out Hez, who recovered from his
> >sickness.
>
> Apparently this can be used metaphorically. It's true that it doesn't
> fit a literal interpretation, but then verse 10 doesn't fit a literal
> interpretation of Jesus's life, either, so we have to allow some poetic
> licence whichever interpretation is used.
>
Ok, but come on, Sarah. This passage obviously isn't talking about
Hezekiah. Do we really need to consider that option seriously?
> > Verse 5 says "he was wounded for OUR transgressions"
> >(emphasis mine), and it's hard to see how Isaiah, an Israelite, could
> >speak of Israel in the 3rd person as suffering for "our"
> >transgressions.
>
> Well, this didn't strike me as a big problem - Isaiah often refers to
> Israel in the singular as God's servant, and I don't think it's too big
> a stretch from that to refer to Israel as a separate third-person
> entity.
He refers to Israel in the 2nd person singular repeatedly; does he
ever refer to Israel in the 3rd person masculine singular? If I'm not
mistaken, references to Israel are usually feminine when they are 3rd
person, although maybe I'm thinking of Jerusalem. Either way, your
"it's not too big a stretch" is kind of a hedge phrase here. Is it
more of a stretch than the more straightforward interpretation that
this passage is in fact just refering to a specific man, who will be
coming at some time in the future?
There are some specific phrases that rule out the "Israel"
interpretation. Consider the end of verse 9: "there was no deceit in
his mouth." Can this be speaking of Israel? Not bloody likely!
Here's just one verse: Hosea 11:12 says "Ephraim compasseth me about
with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth
with God, and is faithful with the saints." To say that Israel is
"without deceit" and had "done no violence" is even more absurd than
saying Christ did no violence (which, as I show below, isn't actually
absurd at all).
> However, I was reading a bit about this on-line and found an
> interesting interpretation which I think actually works even better. If
> you look at the chapter in context, it follows directly on from a verse
> about kings understanding what they have not been told. The
> interpretation, therefore, is that the kings referred to are Gentiles
> and all of Isaiah 53 is Isaiah reporting what these Gentile kings will
> say of Israel, in the future. I must say, this produces a smoother
> interpretation than anything else I've yet heard.
Naturally, I disagree. Being honest, I'll admit that I've always read
Isaiah 53 as a messianic passage. But, after considering your
opinions presented here, I think it's still the best fit. It seems
most obvious that this is talking about one specific man; even if it's
all metaphor, it doesn't really work for a nation, and at any rate,
the metaphors don't work well for Israel. Would you be equally honest
to admit that if this is indeed a messianic prophecy, then someone
(like the Jews) who don't acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah would want
to sweep that under the rug by offering "alternative" prophecies,
given the remarkable fit between this passage and the life of Jesus?
>
> > And I think that it also makes an interpretation of
> >this as describing Isaiah himself also suspect. Again, the text talks
> >about someone who was killed, which Isaiah couldn't have been if he is
> >writing. It also doesn't actually describe events in Isaiah's life,
> >if I'm not mistaken (I could be).
>
> I don't know if it does or not, but then we also don't know if it
> describes events in Jesus's life - there are no reports of him being
> ugly or deformed (52:14, 53:2)
Sure, but flogging and crucifixion could probably accomplish the 52:14
effect, right? As for 53:2, it doesn't say he was ugly, simply that
he wasn't beautiful. It's kind of the "Aragorn" effect -- "all that
is gold does not glitter." Not surprising, since Aragorn is at a lot
of points a type of Christ. Ironically, so is Gandalf, Sam, Frodo,
Galadriel, and others, at various points. That's why Tolkien is great.
Where some writers have to have one figure who's immediately
recognizable as Christ, Tolkien allowed each of his characters to
reflect different aspects of Christ. And that's how the real world
works, as well.
> or having longstanding pains and
> afflictions (apparently the correct translation of 53:5).
Apparently? No way! Check out www.blueletterbible.com, you can get
the meaning of any of the Hebrew words in this verse. Which refer to
"longstanding" anything?
>
> >I think that furthermore, the close match between Isaiah 53 and the
> >life of Christ indicate that the best interpretation of this passage
> >is as a predictive prophecy of the Messiah.
>
> There's nothing at all in it to indicate that it refers to the Messiah,
> so you're relying here not just on interpreting it as a predictive
> prophecy of Jesus's life but on the fact that you already believe that
> Jesus was the Messiah - which is a whole separate issue, obviously.
>
But by this, you're saying that a predictive prophecy can only be one
if it's fully understood in advance. I'm saying, in contrast, that it
can be predictive as long as it is *given* in advance. I don't see a
problem with us looking back in hindsight and saying "ah...so THAT'S
what he was talking about." God frequently does things in ways we
wouldn't expect. I have admitted above that I believe it to be
Messianic largely because I already believe in Jesus as the Messianic
fulfillment of the prophecy. Given the alternatives, Hez, Israel, or
Isaiah, I think that "the Messiah" is clearly the preferred referant
of this passage, and if that's the case, Jesus is clearly the Messiah
the passage is talking about. (assuming, of course, that the Gospel
accounts are somewhat accurate; the possibility of Jesus
"accidentally" or even "consciously" manipulating events to "appear"
to be the Messiah are absurd. The possibility of the Gospel writers
fabricating accounts to "make it look like" Jesus was the Messiah is
not absurd, but I do think it is not a valid explanation, as I've
attempted to explain at a few points...)
> As to the subject of whether it's referring to Jesus, that
> interpretation leaves us struggling with how `he shall see his seed, he
> shall prolong his days' fits in,
The "see his seed", I agree, must be metaphorical. The "prolong his
days" may need to be, but since we know that from the verses
immediately preceeding that he was "cut off from the land of the
living" and "made his grave", there is obviously a paradox in anyone
subsequently "prolonging his days". Excepting, of course, that said
person was miraculously resurrected...
> and how Jesus can be described as
> having done no violence when he's reported as using violence to drive
> the money-changers out of the temple.
Did He use violence? Or did He use rage? I think Jesus definitely
flipped out on them. I don't necessarily agree that there's any
reason to believe that He struck any of them. At any rate, if He did,
it would be an act of judgement, which could perhaps be differend from
the "violence" that is being described by 53:9. Is a woman who shoots
an attacker in self-defense "violent"? Is the state "violent" to
execute a criminal? (actually, that one is maybe debatable). So
either way, I don't think this clause is problematic.
> Whichever interpretation is used,
> there are bits that clearly have to be interpreted metaphorically and
> that don't quite fit.
I don't know about "don't quite fit". Isaiah 53 fits remarkably well
with what we know about Jesus from the Gospels, with the exception of
"see his seed", which must be metaphorical, but which, of course, is
ok; prophecies don't all have to be literal. At any rate, it fits
that considerably better than Israel, for which, not only do we have
to assume that Isaiah uses language that he never uses elsewhere to
describe Israel, but further, that he does so in a way that is so
metaphorically as to not even appear to apply in many clauses.
>
> Personally, I think the interpretation as referring to Israel is the one
> that fits most smoothly. However, my main point was that it really
> isn't as obvious as you might think that it refers to Jesus.
>
But your new "preferred interpretation", that it is "what the Gentile
kings will say about Israel", indicates that it's still a prophecy,
even though it is written in the past tense, and that way MY main
point. Prophecies can appear written in the past tense. Thanks!
Sort of. I'm saying the things that are clearly prophecies had better
refer to him. There may be other passages that make a lot more sense
if interpreted with a posteriori knowledge of Christ. In other words,
Christ is the thread that ties all of the Old Testament together. And
since we know that the OT predates Christ in its entirety, any passage
that describes his life, as we understand it from the Gospels
(provided they are reliable), can reasonably be considered a prophecy,
whether or not it was completely understood to be so by the Jews.
> > Although I hate to keep doing this, I can't help but appeal
> >to CS Lewis yet again.
>
> Hey, go right ahead and appeal. I like what I've read of C. S. Lewis, I
> just disagree with a lot of what he says.
>
> > He compares Jesus (in a sense) to a newly
> >discovered "lost" chapter to a book. If someone said to you, "here is
> >the 'lost' chapter, and it brings out the true meaning of the entire
> >book," then the test you would apply would be, does it do that? Does
> >the content of the original book make more sense when incorporated
> >into the material of the lost chapter? Does the lost chapter make it
> >easier to understand the old book, or does it constantly present
> >difficulties? Christians would say unequivocally that the latter is
> >the case. The build-up to the Messiah, and, specifically, to Jesus,
> >is, to me, the best way to make sense of the Old Testament.
>
> And, on this point, we disagree. I've read the passages that are
> supposedly previously unrecognised prophecies of Jesus's life - the ones
> like Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, Isaiah 7:14 - and thought about how they'd
> look to a Jew prior to Jesus's time, reading those prophecies with no
> knowledge of Jesus's life. I've thought about whether there's there
> anything in those passages that would have led someone to say `Aha, this
> must be a prophecy of ..... [whatever Christians claim it's a prophecy
> of]'. The unequivocal conclusion I've had to reach is `No'.
Ok, there's an interesting thing to note. Let's look at Psalms 22,
eg. Would a Jew have understood this to be a "prophecy"? Maybe not.
It could just be that this reflects how David was feeling at the time;
he felt that God had forsaken him. BUT, when Christ was nailed to the
cross and exclaimed the same thing, we now gain some perspective on
WHY David's Psalm was included in the canon of Holy Scripture; the
sufferings he experienced, and the response he had to them, prefigured
Christ.
So it isn't so much that a prophecy would have to be understood in
advance to constitute a prophetic occurence; indeed, there's a certain
sense in which some prophecies can only be understood in hindsight, or
at least, by those who will see its fulfillment.
The question this raises is, did God just make David suffer so that he
would write words that would prophesy about the coming Messiah? My
answer to that is, no, of course not. But the reality is, that
circumstances were such that David did suffer, yet God allowed this to
happen because out of the trials he experienced would come beautiful
poetry, and out of that poetry would come timeless truth about the one
of whom David was a type -- the promised Messiah.
>
> Those passages all make perfect sense when read in the context that
> they're written in. There is nothing about them that I can see that
> would make someone reading through those scriptures at the time say
> `Hang on, this bit doesn't add up! We must be missing some crucial
> information here that would make sense of it.'
But I didn't say that the work couldn't appear to be self-contained in
its own right, just as an unfinished symphonic work can appear to be
complete. The true test is, when I add in a lost and purportedly
central "movement" to the symphony, does it fit in with the rest of
the symphony? Does it pull the themes of the other movements
together? Does it make the overall symphony more harmonious, or more
internally confused?
What I'm arguing here is that the passages you're referring to do
that. There is a thing called "double prophecy" in the OT, where a
prophecy is talking about 2 different things. An example is in Daniel
... (I forget the chapter), where one prophecy is seen to refer both
to Antiochus Epiphanes AND the eschatalogical Antichrist. This is a
fairly common thing in the OT, if I'm not mistaken.
> Or `This is obviously a
> prophecy of..... [event later happening in Jesus's life]. Unless you're
> someone who already possesses particular beliefs about Jesus's life,
> death, and mission, there is simply nothing whatsoever that would point
> to the interpretation later put on these biblical passages or that would
> even, in many cases, make them stand out as being of any particular
> significance.
But if they were of no significance, why were they considered to be
sacred Scripture? Perhaps the reason is that their significance could
only be appreciated when that to which they (perhaps secretly)
described was fully revealed. The question was not whether someone
would have known that Psalms 22 was talking about the crucifixion of
the Messiah. The question is whether someone, after witnessing the
crucifixion, would have gone back to Psalms 22, seen what it
described, and said, "wow! That is definitely related to what I've
just witnessed (or heard about)."
>
> What's more, many of the later Christian claims flat-out contradict the
> teachings of Judaism and the OT.
Which ones?
> We've got the Tenakh (OT) drumming it
> into the Jews over and over again that their job is to keep the law,
> that this responsibility is upon them forever.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to be specific here. I know
it's a bit of a pain, but you say it happens over and over, so there
must be a few passages at least that you have in mind.
> We've got Solomon and
> the prophets teaching their people that the route to forgiveness is
> through repentance and turning back to the law, and sacrifices really
> aren't all that important compared to those things.
Same thing here. Can you provide references?
At any rate, saying that repentence is more important than sacrifice
is still consistent with NT soteriology, isn't it? After all, it
isn't Christ's sacrifice alone that benefits us; it's the heart of
repentence that we have that makes us aware of our need for the
sacrifice, and the faith to accept that the sacrifice has happened and
is to our benefit. Without seeing what verses you have in mind, I
can't tell whether there's a problem.
> And then, suddenly,
> after those consistent themes throughout the Tenakh, we've got
> Christianity teaching a completely different theology.
>
I don't think I agree with this. What do you think the difference is
between OT and NT theology? If you mean the Trinity, I agree that
this is more easily seen in the NT than the OT (although one can be
aware that God is a plural being from the OT; Gen 1, or the various
appearances by the "Angel of the Lord", who speaks as God in the First
Person (cf Gen 16), something other angels
don't do (cf Daniel 9). Also note that I said that God is a plural
being, not that there are multiple Gods ) If you mean as pertains to
salvation (the word for this is "soteriology"), what do you think is
different from the OT to the NT? In my understanding, the NT simply
clarifies and corrects some of the misunderstandings that people had
based on the OT. In other words, I agree that the Jews misunderstood
the scriptures; I don't agree that the Scriptures themselves are
responsible for their confusion.
> So, no, I don't think it makes any sense at all for the NT to be the
> final, missing chapter of the existing Jewish scriptures.
>
> [...]
> >So, I don't think I need to prove that this is a prophecy; up to now,
> >I simply haven't seen grounds yet to reject this clause as being
> >Pauline in origin. I can see why Adam and Doherty so desperately want
> >to, as it badly torpedoes their case for a non-historical Jesus. But
> >the reasons Adam has advanced aren't good enough. You may not agree
> >with me that it could be a prophecy; well and good. But neither have
> >you really attempted to show that it can't be Pauline, and that's
> >really the crucial point here.
>
> And with this, I disagree completely. Surely as long as there's a
> reasonable doubt that it could be Pauline, we shouldn't be taking it as
> evidence of what he believed?
>
> Suppose someone you know from outside the Internet posts here telling me
> `You should denounce Jeff as an anti-Semite, because I've heard him say
> that all Jews are evil'. I can't actually prove you haven't made this
> statement, but it does strike me that there's some doubt about whether
> you made it. Should I denounce you as an anti-Semite? Or should I say
> `Since I don't know that he said any such thing, I'm going to give him
> the benefit of the doubt'? I sure as hell hope people base their
> judgements of my beliefs on things I've actually said and not on things
> they think I _might_ have said!
>
This is a bad analogy. A better analogy here would be, "here's a long
essay by Jeff, most of which we recognize as being unmistakably his
writing. There is one sentence here that is anti-Semitic. Since we
don't have Jeff on record anywhere else as being anti-Semitic, this
sentence must be due to someone else."
Another thing to note is that Paul's statements aren't really
anti-Semitic. Can one be angry at one's fellows and yet not hate
them? I've argued previously that it's not unreasonable to think so,
particularly considering the persecution Paul experienced from the
Jews, and that experienced by the Thessolonicans. I refer you to my
earlier post for more on this subject.
The bottom line is, to say that this is an interpolation simply
because "Paul wouldn't say this", especially in light of the fact that
we don't possess "the exhaustive life, work, and theology" of Paul,
but only a few short letters which are limited in scope and objective,
seems like an awfully presumptuous thing to do. You are free to
reject the clause, but the arguments that Adam has presented thus far
are not really compelling.
Well, since we're playing the "wild speculation game", let me
counter-speculate that the Pharisees had coached two witnesses, and
were ready to use them if Jesus invoked such a requirement; maybe He
even did, and it just isn't recorded.
On the other hand, maybe the Pharisees weren't as clear-headed as you,
and didn't think things through as thoroughly as you have. Weren't
you the one who said that people shouldn't be given too much credit to
act rationally? Why not the Pharisees, as well? Just because they
formulated a "bad plan" doesn't make the episode false. And just
because Jesus attacked their plan at a different point than you would
have, also doesn't make it false. Right?
Look, I think there are a few reasons why one would perhaps not
believe a biblical passage as being true:
1. Other historical information directly contradicts it.
ie, we have independent, conclusive knowledge that this account did
not, in fact, happen.
2. The writer was not an eyewitness, and didn't use eyewitness
sources; or, the writer wrote his book a very long time after the
event; or, the writer's authorship is unclear.
All of these make us suspicious of the writer's credibility.
1 and 2, I think, would be good reasons not to believe Gospel
accounts. They do not apply to any of the NT accounts that we have.
As such, we go to grounds 3 and 4:
3. The events have not independently been confirmed by: archaelogy,
independent sources, etc...
This is somewhat speculative. Archaelogy is a dynamic science, and
new stuff is being overturned all the time, when it's even there to be
found to begin with--not all artifacts survive the test of time.
There are some things that we are sure happened historically for which
we nevertheless lack "archaelogical" information.
4. The story seems to have people behaving contrary to what we know
about people at the time.
This gives us statements like John Dominic Crossan's, who said that
the Garden Tomb is an impossibility, since Roman Crucifixion victims
were thrown in Mass Graves; therefore, Jesus is buried in a mass grave
somewhere.
Your argument is not strikingly different from that. People wouldn't
behave this way. People wouldn't do this or that. It's wildly
speculative.
Let me give an analogy. Let's say that many historical records are
lost, and 2000 years from now, there is a "myth" that in 2001, some
terrorists flew a plane into two buildings. Now, those people would
probably say "that contradicts what we know of human nature; how could
anyone kill so many people and themselves in the process? We don't
know anyone who would do that. Also, it contradicts what we know of
terrorists at the time period. The info we have says that when they
hijacked planes, they tried to get money, or to threaten passangers in
exchange for release of other terrorists or something. But they never
did something so crazy as to use the planes as missles!" In fact,
that kind of thinking would have worked for us as of 7 am Sept 11
morning. And yet, we were wrong. And so would the "historians" of
the future.
It's the same kind of thing here. It's an entirely speculative
grounds for why this episode "couldn't" have happened. I don't think
it's sufficiently overwhelming in its logic to rule out the more
straightforward approach, that this is simply an eyewitness account.
And to that, we are still left with the little filigrees like "Jesus
doodled in the ground", which, by your own logic, couldn't be the work
of a 1st century writer, since the art of adding little embellishments
to make a fictional narrative sound "real" just didn't exist in the
first century (nor, according to Lewis, who was a literary critic,
until the 18th century)
Note: by "your logic" I mean the idea that we can use our knowledge
of the beliefs and practices of the 1st century folks to assess the
veracity of an event.
>
> [...]
> >Whether Jesus frequently flaunted violating the Mosaic Law, I'm not
> >sure. Certainly, He made it clear that some of the Levitical
> >practices were no longer in effect.
>
> He didn't, actually, though that, again, is a separate topic.
>
> [...]
> >> Thirdly, it's unlikely in terms of what we know about human nature. If
> >> a group of people have collectively decided that another person is
> >> worthy of punishment, then you might potentially be able to talk them
> >> out of it by giving them reasons why what the person did isn't really so
> >> bad, or why there are mitigating factors, or by appealing to the better
> >> natures of the group. But the one approach that really isn't likely to
> >> work is telling the group that they should leave this person alone
> >> because they're all sinners as well. The usual human response to this
> >> is a fervent explanation of all the ways in which the accused person's
> >> sins are so much worse than anything that the people in the group have
> >> done. ;-)
> >
> >On the other hand, this Man was purportedly God in the flesh.
>
> `Purportedly' being the operative word here, I think. I know that you
> and I are pretty much going to have to agree to differ on that one, but
> given that this is a thread about whether Jesus existed at all, is it
> really the best place to bring in assumptions about the whole separate
> question of whether or not he was God in the flesh? After all, that's
> hardly a given, regardless of whether or not he existed.
>
So you can speculate, but I can't? That seems like a double standard!
> [...]
> >> No, I don't know why John put in the detail about Jesus writing in the
> >> sand. But it strikes me as quite possible that it was related to some
> >> part of the story or local that has since been lost. At any rate, it
> >> strikes me as a lot easier to explain than the problems I've raised
> >> above. So I think this story is likely to be a later, fictitious,
> >> addition and not something that actually happened.
> >>
> >Fair enough, as pertains to this story. But my point in introducing
> >it was not so much to argue for its veracity (although, obviously, I
> >do think it really happened) as to dispute Adam's contention that the
> >Gospels were originally written with the understanding that the
> >stories were fictional fabrications meant for teaching and
> >instruction.
>
> I know. But my point was, this particular example rather defeats your
> point.
Only from a certain interpretive framework.
> You've claimed that the extra detail in the story shows that
> it's likely to have actually happened. In view of the evidence that it
> didn't happen,
The only real "evidence" we have of this from you is that this episode
doesn't appear in the earliest MS's. What I will look into is when it
actually does appear, and how long the gap really is. No matter what,
I strongly suspect that it is still WAY shorter than the interval
between the date of composition and the first MS of ANY other ancient
work. As such, what we need to know is not only when was the earliest
MS, but also how many "complete" early MSs we have that predate the
MSs with this passage. If there are quite a few, than this may be a
later addition. If there are only a couple, then maybe the fault is
in fact with those MSs....
Crazyalec
There was a person named Jesus,religion made a concept of him as a
supernatural.
Religious language was created by a bunch of con artists to justify a
business that gets em money and power.
Jeff Warrender
Crazyalec, I haven't ever dialogued with you, and have only read a few
of your posts, but all of the ones I read are basically two or three
lines where you claim that religions are basically a big con, set up
to make a lot of money. Let me pull a common talk.atheism tactic and
ask...what is your evidence for this? Sure, there are some very
public examples of people who have used religion innapropriately to
gain wealth. This, to me, just reflects the fact that there are a lot
of bad people in the world--surely Christians don't have the market
cornered on doing bad things! But how about some evidence that your
remarks accurately describe the average local church. Have you ever
even been to a church? How about regularly attended one? If so, how
old were you when you stopped going? In other words, aren't you
speaking from ignorance here?
Finally, you say that religious language was created by con artists to
get money and power. What evidence do you have that the Christian
religion was invented by folk who subsequently got rich and powerful?
Church tradition, for example, teaches that all of the apostles were
killed for their beliefs. The Gospels describe how Jesus and the
Disciples lived pretty much in poverty. For what reason should I
prefer your wild and unsupported assertions to those accounts?
-Jeff