This post is not going to be in the standard format. Instead of laying out what I think about a particular issue and then possibly getting into a discussion afterward, I really just want to ask a series of questions that I hope readers will answer in the comment section.
My background with Christianity is with a very fundamentalist variety that believes faith, grace, and works are all tightly woven together — each plays a necessary part in salvation. I’m much less familiar with more liberal versions of Christianity, and that’s what I’m hoping to learn more about in this discussion. So here are my questions:
- The New Testament speaks a lot about salvation. What exactly are Christians being saved from?
- In a similar vein, are non-Christians bound for a different fate than Christians? What will the afterlife be like for each?
- What does God/Jesus expect from us? Anything?
- Of what value are works? Is baptism a work? If so, then is faith also a work?
- What’s the relationship between faith, grace, and works?
I’ve numbered these for ease of reference, but please answer any or all of them in whatever way you like. Or if some of them are bad questions, let me know that too. It’s time to witness, folks! 🙂
Finding Truth 
Ark, since there are those today who feel our current scholars have a better understanding of what actually happened the first half of the 1st century, why not let them form a Council and decide today what manuscripts should be used in the 21st century Bible ? Oh, they wouldn’t be able to do this because the earlier councils destroyed any competing documents they could find……..
I find it troubling when any religion who feels threatened by competing thought also feels the need to destroy the same. When I was in Egypt I saw numerous ancient reliefs at temples where the images of the Pharaoh’s and their Gods were defaced by later Christian missionaries in order to eliminate the competition.
I would think if there really was one true religion, the masses would be able to understand it and would flock to it willingly. There shouldn’t be any need for coercion of any kind. Just my opinion.
LikeLike
Ark, according to research I did for my book, in the third century, a group of early church fathers set out to “canonize” the NT. They used the following criteria: was it written by an apostle, was it written in the first century, did it teach apostolic faith, did the writer claim inspiration. They rejected/ignored most intertestamental/pseudepigrapha writings.
Of course, since they had no original manuscripts to work from, there was no way of proving any of their criteria. It was all based on the opinion of these human agents. Nevertheless, based on what they had, they developed a “canonized” version of the NT.
(Of course, I’m sure you know all this.)
What’s interesting is that over the years, additional councils were formed and further discussions and debates were held. Some writings from the third century group were found to be heretical by later reviewers and were removed from the canon. Others were added. In fact, even today, bible scholars question whether certain books in the current bible are sacred text.
And of course, we all know that the Catholic Church (and some Eastern churches) include books that are rejected by Protestants.
So how can anyone depend on the bible to “prove” their beliefs when one considers its history? Not to mention its hodgepodge contents.
LikeLike
A blog entry worth reading. Many of the commenters on Nate’s blog probably already know this, but it never hurts to have it re-emphasized.
http://theethicalwarrior.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/banned-from-the-bible-again/
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing Nan ! I have not read this article before but some similar.
LikeLike
@ Nan.
Yes, Nan, of course I knew all this and I must confess I was being a tad facetious…guilty a charged 🙂
IO believe it took almost four hundred years to arrive at an ‘official’ canon; even Luther must have thrown up his hands at some point and said ,”Oh what the hell, have it your way.”
There were numerous changes, including removing all (supposed) allusions to a homosexual Jesus.
Why anyone should care so much about a fictitious character is beyond me.
Perhaps they began t believe their own PR machine?
Nobody not even the erudite and consensus minded unklee,can use the bible to prove the bible (their beliefs). It is one of the most irritating ( and ridiculous) aspects of the christian argument, and I am glad someone else pointed it out.Thank you.
LikeLike
@kcchief
”There shouldn’t be any need for coercion of any kind. Just my opinion.”
You mean like telling your kids baby Jesus wasn’t born in a manger and stuff?
Ah the nativity of youth…lol.
Blessing: Spirits, Sanctions and Dominoes….or whatever the Pope says.
LikeLike
@Ark
I was equally upset when I was told there was no Santa Claus. 🙂
There is however much historical evidence for St Nicholas
LikeLike
@Ark
You should start a blog on the historical evidence for Santa Claus.
LikeLike
Hi William, I feel like I have answered this before, and I don’t want to keep going over old ground. We need to distinguish between historical “facts” and what people believe.
I have been talking about historical facts – what secular historians conclude. They approach the Gospels like they would any other ancient documents, they don’t (generally) think in terms of “Word of God”, “inerrant” or “inspired”. They apply their methods of historical analysis (whether events and sayings are multiply attested, by other gospels or other writers; whether events ring true culturally and historically; whether there is reason to think the author would have made something up, or certainly wouldn’t have; etc).
From this they come to conclusions – certain sayings and events almost certainly occurred, some probably didn’t, some are uncertain. And they end up with conclusions that I have outlined many times – Jesus did exist, the gospels tell us useful historical information about him, and give us a reasonably reliable outline of his life. This can be seen as a lowest common denominator of things that people of all viewpoints (christian, atheist, Jew, etc) can accept.
Note that this doesn’t necessarily include belief in miracles (most scholars agree that Jesus was known as a healer and exorcist, some don’t make judgments on the reality of that, some believe he was a “natural healer” and some believe he worked genuine miracles); belief in his divinity (again some do believe that, some don’t, but the real discussion is generally about what he believed about himself).
So that is the historical study I have been talking about.
Each of us then makes choices about what we believe about those findings. Some of those here don’t want to accept the findings of the experts, and that seems an anti-evidence view to me. But most people accept the expert’s conclusions and on that basis decide what they believe (as no doubt the experts do also). One person decides that they don’t believe Jesus was divine or worth following, another person decides he is.
Thus a christian such as me basis my belief on the findings of the scholars and then my own conclusions building on those findings – call that faith if you like. And the matters you raise (inspiration, divinity, etc) are all matters of faith, based on the historical evidence.
Does that make it clearer? I hope so.
BTW, I don’t think many christians think “This part is divinely inspired, but this part isn’t” and I certainly don’t. You misunderstand what I, and many others, think about inspiration. We say a painting or film is inspired without meaning it is perfect, just that something good gave impetus to it. It is similar here. I believe God inspired the whole Bible, but it was written by human authors. That means it isn’t necessarily perfect, and it doesn’t all necessarily speak into our situation today, but Gods was nevertheless giving impetus and inspiration to the writers. So I don’t throw any parts of it out, I simply accept that it contains many different genres (history, poetry, letters, prophecy, proverbs, songs, legends or folk tales, etc).
I think the problem for you and others here is that either (1) you have mixed with fundamentalist christians and don’t remind yourselves that there are many non-fundamentalist christians, and/or (2) you read too many sceptical websites that like to use the worst examples of christianity they can. But productive discussion requires considering the beliefs of the person we are discussing with, and using the best examples of our opponents, not the worst.
So I’m sorry to go on so long, but I hope you are clearer now. Thanks, and best wishes.
LikeLike
For the record, I don’t think William ever said that Jesus was completely mythological. I think his entire point centered around not seeing enough evidence to believe the divinity claims, not whether or not Jesus was a real person.
I think this is where you sometimes come off a bit condescending. I don’t think William really misunderstood anything you were saying. It’s true that people like William and myself have mostly mixed with fundamentalist Christians, so that’s the reference we’ll most come back to. But it sometimes seems as though you think we should view your version of Christianity as true Christianity — and while it’s understandable that you would view it that way, there’s not much reason for us to.
Finally, a point about inspiration. If, when you use “inspired,” you are referring to it in the same way that an artist is inspired when he paints, then the writers of the Bible weren’t really inspired by God at all — they were inspired by their faith in their god. There’s a big difference there. It’s the same kind of inspiration that Muslims have when they write about Islam, or the inspiration Christians have when they write about Christianity today. It’s not actually being beamed down directly from God. That’s why guys like me and William (and if I can speak for the others on this blog) have such trouble seeing the Bible as anything more than man-made fan fiction.
LikeLike
@Unklee.
RFLMAO
Oh my goodness.
I think you left your common sense at the door. All that about fundamentalists and non fundamentalists,
Nate was a FUNDAMENTALIST and so were many visitors to this blog, you nitwit.
There is NOTHING you can tell a former christian that visits this site about anything pertaining to this nonsensical faith as they have studied it inside and out – that is why they are no longer christians.
You think your siding with the supposed consensus of scholars regarding the historicity of Jesus
improves your position one iota?
Oh, what a silly man.
Furthermore, as more and more evidence is uncovered and examined that precious consensus you cling to diminishes all the time.
You think that someone like William is unable to discern for himself the truth concerning historicity?
Your need to rely on consensus has demonstrated over time your lack of independent thought on this matter.
And what on earth is the proper form of Christianity?
You think you exemplify a christian of this ilk?
There are tens of thousands that will disagree. And lets’ not forget the millions of people in Asia that would think you are off your rocker for holding such beliefs.
And the hilarious thing, the truly apoplectic part of your whole nonsense belief is the Jews are going to be the final undoing of it.
Silly Person.
LikeLike
Kenneth Humphrey’s site is one the most extensive and thoroughly researched of its kind.
His commentary, though often acerbic is also very enlightening.
I recommend this to everyone who wants to understand the truth as far as can be ascertained behind the nonsense of Christianity.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nailing.html
LikeLike
Let’s go back to the Original Topic Nate posed for us, “What did Jesus teach”
I feel the most important thing Jesus said to his disciples and followers didn’t happen.
“When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” (Matthew 10:23)
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
He didn’t proclaim this just once, but several times. And his disciples proclaimed it even more.
Some of his teachings make no sense unless you realize He truly believed He lived in the “End Times” and his followers believed it too !
Matt 6:25-26 “…Do not be worried about the food and drink you need to stay alive, or about clothes for your body. After all, isn’t life worth more than food? And isn’t the body worth more than clothes? Look at the birds flying around: they do not plant seeds, gather a harvest, and put it in barns; your Father in heaven takes care of them!”
2000 years later the Urgency has worn off and Organized Christianity is still trying to re-sell the story . People do worry about food, drink, and clothes because there is compelling evidence they are going to live to be old. And there is compelling evidence that Jesus’ prediction was wrong. CS Lewis knew Jesus was wrong and there are many scholars who know it too.
I feel the reason there is so much confusion when it comes to the Christian Religion today is this. We aren’t suppose to be here ! There wasn’t suppose to be a New Testament ! There isn’t suppose to be a 2000 yr old religion with its Councils, Inquisitions, etc. Jesus was coming back sometime in the 1st Century and it didn’t happen !
LikeLike
Excellent points, kc! And thanks for the links, Ark.
Personally, I get nervous about anyone that claims to know much of anything about Jesus. We have 4 gospels that were written decades after his death. We know that these stories began as oral traditions. Are some of them based in fact? Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to say for sure, and there are experts that come down on every conceivable side of it. I find that to be a very shaky basis for faith, especially considering the quality of the Bible. I know it must seem tedious that some of us keep going back to the Bible, but it is the source of all this. And it’s a mess.
That said, I do believe everyone that comments here is sincere. Some of us have trouble seeing why UnkleE and Josh believe Christianity is true, and they have trouble understanding why we don’t. But there are a lot of things that go into forming a world view, and it’s possible that none of us has reached true objectivity about any of this. It’s complicated stuff (and it makes me wonder why a god would expect any of us to figure it out in the first place).
LikeLike
Nate-
Good summary. I can get behind pretty much all of that. Your last point, in parenthesis, is a question I often ask as well. I think it’s very tied to the idea of suffering, too. Why would God allow us to suffer, and why would God not make everything crystal clear to everyone? Both of those questions clearly leave us desperate for answers. I don’t know the answer to them. What I do know is that, when I look to the cross, I see God taking on our suffering in order to reconcile us to himself through Jesus. Maybe that’s not enough for some, and I’m aware that’s the case. If that is actually what happened on Calvary, then the arguments that he doesn’t care, doesn’t love us, is unmoved by our suffering, etc go by the wayside, for me. I’d ask God to take away the hate and suffering in this world, he’s promised to do so. I’d ask him to forgive all that I’ve done wrong, he’s done so. I’d ask him to accept me, and others, though we fall short and do not understand, he does. I’m ok with not having all the answers and explanations for God’s actions. I know some aren’t. I do believe that all will, as Paul wrote, be swallowed up in victory. There are a lot of “pieces” that fit together to form that hope, and not all are rational or logical. That’s ok with me. That’s unacceptable to some, and I know that – we should come to all our beliefs and conclusions based on evidence, logic, reason, and sound, objective assessment. I just don’t buy that’s all there is – that’s one of my main differences with some here. Anyway, just thought I’d throw in my last two cents on this thread.
Thanks for the summary, Nate.
LikeLike
@Josh
You see, that reply is loaded with the language of one who has been inculcated.
One that has been brought up on dogma. It really is so distressing.
If you would have no fear investigating an historical figure such as Julius Caesar then use the same fearless approach and investigate the bible and Jesus.
Study as if this was the very first time you had ever encountered the bible.
If you can handle a serious jolt to your sensibilities, then pop over and read a few pages on this site.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nailing.html
LikeLike
@Ark Thanks for the link. It truly leaves nothing left to the imagination.
LikeLike
@kcchief.
Ah, but I am but a messenger…some might say from the Devil, of course, but a messenger none the less. 🙂
LikeLike
@Uncle E: I know you are currently riding off into the sunset, but I’d like to add a few things too.
First, I have very strong doubts about the Jesus mythicist hypothesis (and detailing why would make my comment too long), although I definitely don’t believe doubting it is on par with Holocaust deniers as some would like us to believe. I would also say there is a difference between stating that you know Jesus didn’t exist (close to Ark) versus stating that it may be possible (closer to kcchief1). Other than Ark and KC I don’t remember any others expressing an opinion on this here, but I understand your point that there are a lot of skeptics who seem to go against what is a clear consensus (which seems to be the case for historicity). I could offer caveats on this, but I’ve said enough.
As far as your approach I personally think you are giving it a much better go than the likes of conservative evangelical apologists, and I think it is fair as you say to at least make an effort to understand what scholarly consensus is and try not to go against it unless it seems like their reasons aren’t very solid or not enough scholars have really voiced their opinion to form a “solid” consensus. There are a lot of other caveats here too of course (and I don’t have historicity-vs-mythicism in mind with these caveats): like the question of what percent really is consensus (I’ve heard 95%); the fact that many scholars can say “consensus is such and such” when it either really isn’t or what they are saying is too vague or can be interpreted in several different ways so that it really is not quite clear what the consensus truly is; the fact that scientific consensus is a bit more objective than historical consensus, and historical consensus is a bit more objective than political or religious history…
I think Nate has made very good points about the fact that there are honest reasons to be skeptical about the Christian worldview no matter what form it is in. I wouldn’t expect you to agree that those reasons are good ones, but I am taken aback quite a bit when I read a lot of your comments which portray us as dishonestly skeptical. This is quite annoying to say the least. Go ahead – say I am annoyed because I really know that you are right – I dare you! I am very familiar with those kind of mind games, and frankly they don’t sway me…. and yes, I am sure I have been guilty of a few myself, so my apologies for that.
And by the way, yes, I do understand your liberal point of view. My own “religious” background is quite varied and includes small group interaction for a year or so with UU’s. And yes, I am aware that UU’s are left of you.
LikeLike
Hi Howie, I am indeed riding off into the sunset, so I don’t want to say much, but I shouldn’t ignore such courteous words.
Thanks for your mostly kind comments.
You may be surprised that I think there are several good reasons to be skeptical about the Christian worldview, but (1) I think some of those given (including some discussed on the present topic) are poor, and (2) I think there are more and stronger reasons to believe it.
I’m truly sorry some of my comments made you annoyed, I certainly didn’t want to have that effect. I don’t know which comments they were, but let me clarify that:
(1) I don’t think I ever made general or blanket statement, but rather referred to “some” non-believers.
(2) I think I was referring specifically to those who claim to be evidence-based, and criticise christians for being dogma-based, but then it turns out the opposite is true on historical matters relating to Jesus.
So you may not be included in those comments – I’ll leave that for you to decide. 🙂
Best wishes, and thank you for your ongoing courtesy.
LikeLike
UnkleE, I think you’re a good guy and all, but I think you’re reading way more into the evidence than what’s really there.
Look at it this way. You yourself know that the bible has flaws and errors in it. Since that is the case and you dont deny it, how can you then be so certain that the over-the-top-divine stuff is true? There is no (at least that I am aware of or have you seen you present) historical (or otherwise) evidence to support it.
lots of followers and lots of writers is not good evidence. If it were we’d all be trekies.
LikeLike
Good stuff, William. There are indeed two sides to this story. This is why I strongly believe there is more going on than just an examination of evidence. There are non-believers who have examined the evidence and become believers. There are believers who have examined the evidence and become non-believers. And, there are those from both sides of the aisle who have examined the evidence and it has bolstered the original belief they had. These things would not happen if we assume all are examining the evidence carefully and the evidence was all that was needed in order to convince someone of the truth/falsity of the faith. This also speaks to Ark’s point about inculcation. How does he account for these varying conclusions if people only believe because they’ve been inculcated? Whatever the answer is, that conclusion just can’t be the case. (And, yes I’m typing inculcated as often as I can because I know it’s Ark’s favorite word). We could argue about whether or not all of the people approach the evidence with truly objective minds, but that is all conjecture. It also doesn’t get us anywhere, because we have no way of knowing who approached the evidence objectively and who did not. The fact remains that people on varying sides of belief come to the evidence, some convert based on the evidence, some de-convert, some maintain their original beliefs. So, the question really becomes: Can we truly put all the weight of belief/unbelief on the evidence? I think, based on these facts, that it is impossible for any of us to say that all one needs to do is examine the evidence and they will come away with a “true” understanding. That, I believe, is the one conclusion that cannot be made when you look at the stories of all who have examined the evidence.
LikeLike
One cannot get much from Bible about the teachings of Jesus; Bible was neither authored by Jesus nor dictated by him. Bible presents teachings of Paul. The truthful account of Jesus and Mary are mentioned in Quran.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
Paarsurrey says:
One cannot get much from Bible about the teachings of Jesus; Bible was neither authored by Jesus nor dictated by him. Bible presents teachings of Paul. The truthful account of Jesus and Mary are mentioned in Quran.
LikeLike
Josh, i see where you’re going but i disagree. The evidence is what it is, some people just take more liberty with it than others, some take bigger leaps with it than others, while some are more prone at taking it as it is without (or at least with less) interpretive intellectual dance.
Paarsurrey’s comment fits in nicely to the larger discussion. Every religion has their book and their own view of jesus and god’s will. It all boils down to faith in what another man has claimed – not god himself. I believe this is the biggest point of all. Your faith is that you HOPE the human author’s claims are right. It cannot be in god, for he has neither told you nor shown you anything himself.
LikeLike