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 
Hi William, I don’t see it as my responsibility to argue against what you believe, but when you misrepresent what I believe, I feel I would like to put the record straight.
Are you familiar with that old game when the same action is described in different words when applied to oneself and to others? For example: “I am a brilliant conversationalist, you talk to much, she is a gossip!”
I think you are guilty of the same thing here. See if you can spot it.
I apportion my belief to the evidence, you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe.
So, would you rather we blindly followed some predetermined dogma, or followed where we believe the evidence leads?
And here we get another type of distortion. I have discussed New Testament history with quite a few people here. I have read, and am able to quote, some of the major scholars in the field, scholars who on others’ admission represent the broad consensus or middle ground. I can demonstrate the validity of these statements. And rather than “pick and choose” scholars, I have modified my beliefs where required to fit what the scholars have concluded/
But some of the sceptics here and elsewhere don’t wish to accept what the best experts say, so they misrepresent their views, denigrate them, accuse them of being biased, and without shame choose to follow non-scholars and fringe scholars presenting views that the consensus of scholarship has shown to be mistaken. And when I continue to present the consensus people say they don’t want to discuss any more, accuse me of being condescending or worse. All this from people who will assure you on other occasions that they are rational evidence-based people.
Again, this reflects very badly on the claimed rationalism of atheism and scepticism, and repeating the distortion hinders understanding and pleasant discussion. So, what approach are you going to adopt?
Here, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you ask questions which the scholars have already answered, and in a way opposite to the implications of your statements. (Of course they don’t agree about the details, but in broad terms they agree.)
So I want to offer you a challenge. Can you please offer the evidence for the scepticism you display here? Such evidence can be of two kinds, I suggest, either (1) the views of a number of leading scholars together with an indication of why they are considered leading scholars and how we can know their view is generally shared, or (2) an evidence-based argument as to why the leading scholars are wrong on this occasion and you are right.
William, you and I have had our disagreements, but we have always treated each other fairly. Here I believe you have been unfair and inaccurate. What do you say?
LikeLike
This sounds right to me Nate, but have you noticed:
1. It says nothing about the truth of christian belief (i.e. first you’ve got to show that our reasons to believe aren’t true).
In fact it probably adds a little to the evidence for its truth. Philosophers have developed different views of how we build up a body of knowledge. One is Foundationalism, where we build the truth of a proposition on the foundation of more basic truths. It’s what we all normally do, but it has one glaring weakness – if you ask where the basic foundational truths come from, it is hard philosophically to find anything. In the end, we must start with some assumptions or basic beliefs for which we have no proof.
Another way of knowing truth is Coherentism, where each truth depends not an a more basic or foundational truth, but on the whole set of beliefs forming a coherent system. You are effectively pointing out that christian belief may well satisfy this criterion.
2. Your statement can equally well be applied to atheism. After all, we are all human.
None of that proves very much, but I just thought I would point it out. 🙂
LikeLike
One thing that is missing in all such discussions is good old fashioned common sense.
Have you noticed?
Like how come no early writer ever mentions Christians going to Calvary to pay their respects until after that lying sack of S*** discovered the tomb?
They were scared. For 350 years?
Right…go read Acts..
Therefore to justify a belief such as Christianity proponents will go to unbelievable lengths (literally in some cases ) to explain this dogma based faith.
The ordinary questions are skipped over.
Why did no contemporary writer mention Jesus. Not One.
The usual answer; because he was insignificant. etc etc.
Really? I always thought he was touted as god and strode the earth performing miracles.
Even Paul is oddly silent on this issue.
Oh, the early Christians already knew this stuff.
Really? They all knew this stuff. These Christians spread out across the whole damn empire knew ALL about the miracle working god man? They weren’t even curious about any of this stuff?
Lol…only an absolute inculcated moron would buy this rubbish.
And unfortunately, they do. Don’t they?
LikeLike
”So I want to offer you a challenge. Can you please offer the evidence for the skepticism you display here? Such evidence can be of two kinds, I suggest, either
(1) the views of a number of leading scholars together with an indication of why they are considered leading scholars and how we can know their view is generally shared,”
How many scholars will you accept before you reconsider you standpoint?
Please be specific. One , two or a higher percentage than the current consensus?
What qualifications will satisfy your criteria for ”scholar”
More degrees?
”or (2) an evidence-based argument as to why the leading scholars are wrong on this occasion and you are right.”
WHAT evidence do your experts have? They, like ALL scholars, only have the bible to work with.
And the total silence that echoes through history from all non biblical or non christian sources.
Why do you refer to Ehrman and then dismiss him when it comes to the resurrection and the divinity?
Herzog and Finkelstein are experts and you don’t accede to their expert findings concerning the Exodus and Moses, do you?
You don’t agree with Kenyon and her findings.
And you have stated there findings have no bearing on your faith. No bearing on Yashu’a.
Yes, quite. Marcion said the same thing…and the church made him a heretic.
People should be made aware of what you are, Unklee and that is simply a hypocrite of the most basest kind.
LikeLike
”I actually think I hold up okay to Ark’s comments most of the time, even if he thinks I’m a complete loon for believing what I do.”
Of course I believe you are a complete loon. So what?
LikeLike
@ Wiilliam.
Here you go. Something you can discuss with unklee when it comes to ‘experts’
Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD, and Kurt Noll, associate professor of religion at Brandon University, are both on record as historicity agnostics. That’s two.
[See: A.J. Droge, “Jesus and Ned Lud[d]: What’s in a Name?” CAESAR: A Journal for the Critical Study of Religion and Human Values 3.1 [2009]: 23-25; Kurt Noll, “Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus,” “Is this not the Carpenter?” The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, ed. Thomas Thompson and Thomas Verenna [2012]: 233-66.]
And if we discard the irrelevant criteria of “currently employed at a university” and “has exactly the specific degree I want” as dirty dodges (which allow Ehrman to pretend retired professors of considerable renown don’t count, as well as other fully qualified experts) then we must add four more:
Thomas Thompson, professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen (now emeritus) [The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (2005)] and Thomas Brodie, director of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland (now emeritus) [Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Memoir of a Discovery (2012)] and Robert Price (who has two Ph.D.’s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies) and myself (with a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, and whose book On the Historicity of Jesus defending basic Jesus mythicism will soon be published by a major peer reviewed academic press [news I’ll be blogging shortly]).
That’s six qualified experts and two peer reviewed books by a major biblical studies press.
Maybe these aren’t the type of experts unklee was thinking of?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4096
LikeLike
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/07/can-christian-scholars-be-objective-2/#comments
A must read post everyone ought to read.
This is how the evangelical Christians think.
LikeLike
Thanks Ark !
Want to experience God ? Put on the God Helmet. Interesting scientific experiment.
LikeLike
@ kcchief. and the God Helmet.
Well, well, well. God spoke to me. Oh really?
Booya, in your face, Unklee!
LikeLike
For those who love to beat their chest over scientific processes that god helmet doesn’t stand up at all. Just a quick 5 mins worth of googling turned up way more doubts than claims to validity.
LikeLike
@Matt
Not beating my chest. I thought it was an interesting video and decided to share it. Though I have been guilty of it myself, I am trying not to use Google as a “Scorekeeper to the Truth” There are always going to be cases where 1 view if diligent enough can find more sources to support their view than an apposing one. Might does not always make right. I think the various Christian Inquisitions proved this.
LikeLike
@Matt I suppose you are referring to this comment from the wikipedia page, “The only attempt at replication published in the scientific literature reported a failure to reproduce Persinger’s effects and the authors proposed that the suggestibility of participants, improper blinding of participants or idiosyncratic methodology could explain Persinger’s results.”
“suggestibility of participants, improper blinding of participants or idiosyncratic methodology”
My goodness ! Most religions would surely be guilty of this as well !
LikeLike
UnkleE, I dont mean to be unfair, but can allow that at times I probably am. I do not think that I was inaccurate though.
I do think I have not clearly posited my own position perhaps, and without a lengthy reply will try to clarify things, at least a bit.
I’m not too concerned with scholars. I’ve read some, but havent taken notes and dont care to get into a debate on what the “leading scholars” say or think about the bible. I’m not saying it’s pointless – not at all – I’ve already said that I read some of what they have to say as well.
Instead of placing so much on the scholars, i try to look at what the bible says for itself. And this is why I say you pick and choose; and let me offer just one example. The OT. You can toss out anything you dont like in the OT because you say you follow the NT not the OT. That’s picking and choosing.
And I’m not trying to be rude or condescending about it, although i may be guilty of being blunt. The NT has even jesus citing the OT. Numerous other NT passages say the OT should be followed or at least read, understood and considered to come to christ. to then say that the OT problems dont exist for you because you only follow the NT just doesnt make sense to me.
a scholar could tell me the sky is purple with black polka dots, but i wouldnt believe him because I can plainly see it’s blue.
I can read just as well as the scholars can. Sure, many may have a more thorough education in the given subject matter, but if their commentary is opposite to what I read, then i dont take it. And If I were to accept the scholars when they say that the bible means something other than what it says for itself, that brings on the question “why couldnt god ensure his word was easier for the lay person to understand?”
and I dont quite follow your request for me to offer evidence of my skepticism. usually one is skeptical due to lack of evidence (evidence in support of the bible’s divine claims.) and circumstantial, wishy washy, or even made up “evidence” people give for the bible just doesnt do it for me – and I bet wouldnt do it for you if it came down to any other religion.
LikeLike
HI William. I didn’t think you were rude, or anything like that – you are always courteous. I just felt you (1) misunderstood and misrepresented what many christians think, and (2) you made statements that didn’t reflect the best evidence. I thought both were worth challenging.
This sounds fine, but I suggest it is inadequate for two reasons:
1. If you just “look at what the bible says for itself”, you find that it tells some stories by people who claim to have been around at the time or talked to those who were. To question that claim, which is a quite reasonable thing to do, we need to make an assessment – a rational and critical activity that requires us to understand the culture, language, literature and history of the time. Most of us don’t have the knowledge to do that. If we are going to be rational and evidence-based, we will find out this information from those who do know.
But it is evident that many christians and many atheists and sceptics do not do this. Instead they either come to conclusions out of their own extremely limited knowledge, or they find someone with more learning than them but who has the same preconceived opinions.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if someone argues about facts and evidence on the internet without getting the best information, their comments are poorly based.
2. But the comments I questioned you about were not just based on reading the Bible, but were comments about historical evidence: “detailed historical accounts …. multiple eyewitness accounts” Clearly the New Testament claims to have multiple historical eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. To discuss whether this is historically true or not requires considerable historical knowledge – which you seem not to find as important as I do.
So I can only say again, I find it ironic that so many sceptics, on this blog and elsewhere on the internet, criticise christians for believing contrary to the evidence, and then do exactly the same, while I as a christian do a lot of reading to understand the evidence.
But I think I have said that enough now on this blog, and it is time to move on. You are not interested (apparently) in defending those statements, and I am not interested in beating my head against a brick wall. Let us quit this discussion as friends rather than anything else. Thank you for your continued courtesy, and best wishes.
LikeLike
unkleE, it seems as though you tend to ignore Ark here on this blog and that is a matter for another time. I did read the article he provided a link to and found it to be disturbing when it comes to the Scholars you might use to suppose your position. If there is any truth to this article about Christian Scholars signing a “Purpose Statement” with their employer namely a University, would that not trouble you ? In case you haven’t read the article here is the link.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/07/can-christian-scholars-be-objective-2/#comments
I showed this article to another Christian Apologist and he didn’t seem to find anything wrong with this. He said there are plenty of liberal institutions where liberal scholars can go . If they are going to affiliate themselves with a truly Christian University , they should act like it.
I would sincerely be interested in your comments.
LikeLike
Hi kcchief1, I was planning to sort of disappear into the sunset on this discussion, but I will have a go at answering your question, which I think is a fair one.
I have always said there is a range of scholars, in their assumptions, their prior beliefs and the methods they use. So there are scholars who work for christian universities, sign doctrinal statements and work from a christian apologetic viewpoint. This obviously may inhibit what they can say – but not always to the same degree. I have blogged about some scholars who have fallen foul of their college’s doctrinal statements, but there are others who do not appear to be under any threat (i.e. adherence to the statement is not rigorously enforced).
Where I know it, I do not generally quote from these scholars, except if I am trying to compile a large list.
But there are also scholars at the other end of the spectrum. They may not have a formal sceptical statement to sign, but they nevertheless come from that constituency. We can call them “sceptical apologists” and they bring their prejudices to the discussion just as surely as the christian apologists do. I have read some of these but I generally don’t quote them either.
Also at this end of the spectrum are non-scholars – people with an axe to grind but lacking formal qualifications in the field, not working at a respected university or publishing in peer-reviewed journals, the normal criteria to be a respected scholar in academia.
So what’s an open-minded person to do? The answer is quite clear. We find the scholars that do have good formal qualifications, who do work in respected universities and publish in peer-reviewed journals, and thus are respected by their peers. These aren’t hard to find, though people will always have preferences.
These are the scholars I quote from most of the time. And to be even more fair-minded, I make sure I quote from scholars from different beliefs (though this shouldn’t make a difference in academic study, it clearly must to some degree). So you find I quote from people like Wright, Evans & Bauckham (christian), Vermes (Jewish), Sanders (agnostic) and Grant, Casey and Ehrman (atheist). Of course there are many other scholars who are well-recognised experts, but I just don’t happen to have bought books by them or have found them in my local library or on the internet.
Now here’s the crunch. I bend over backwards to find out how to be fair and to be even-handed. But the list Ark has given does not do this. One of his 6 “scholars” is not yet fully qualified, 3 are Old Testament scholars, not NT (and he was discussing history and Jesus), so only two are NT scholars. Neither of these is well respected by their peers any more, one is retired and one works at a very doubtful university (I wouldn’t mention this except your question mentioned the quality of the university). So out of the 6, at most 2 meet the requirements of being an expert scholar, and neither of these pass the tests of being even handed and respected by their peers. These facts make it clear how weak his argument is. In contrast, I could give scores of respected scholars to support what I say.
You don’t have to believe what I say here – an hour’s Googling will demonstrate the truth of what I say. I can give you references, but I think it better that you find out for yourself.
In the field of evolutionary biology there are qualified scholars who oppose evolution, but we don’t take much notice of them in favour of the vast majority. Likewise in global warming we follow the vast majority, not the minority of warming sceptics. I cannot see why we wouldn’t do the same in NT history.
This doesn’t mean we all have to be christians. As I pointed out, not all the scholars are. It is quite possible to be an atheist, or a deist, and accept the consensus of scholarship. Obviously I think the evidence is best explained by Jesus being divine, but you don’t have to conclude that. But while sceptics refuse to face the evidence, it makes it look like they are afraid of the evidence.
I hope that answers your question. Best wishes.
LikeLike
unkleE, thank you for taking the time to share your views. BTW you keep referring to Vermes as a Jew and he was truly Jewish by race. He was however a practicing Catholic Christian and Priest for a while. How do you explain his views of the NT and of Jesus ? He certainly felt Jesus was a Jewish Holy Man but not divine. He also felt Jesus was a man of the Jews and had nothing to do with Gentiles. Any references to Jesus and Gentiles in the NT were edited by the NT Authors according to Vermes. Vermes claims that Christianity was so far removed from Jesus’ teachings that Christians need to rethink the fundamentals of their faith. How does one of the most respected Scholars of all times come to these conclusions ?
I have read several books by James D.G. Dunn who i think you would agree is also a well respected scholar. He too questions the birth stories of Jesus as being historical.
I have also read works by Raymond E Brown which he is also a noted and well respected NT Scholar . He too questions stories in the NT as being historical.
As I told Matt here in an earlier post, I have been guilty of but try not to use Google as a Scorekeeper to the Truth. Like you , I read a lot of books from Scholars who are as noted and respected as yours and yet they seem to raise serious questions regarding some of the NT.
I didn’t decide to read works by Vermes, Dunn, or Brown because I had a preconceived notion. I didn’t even know who they were until I started reading their books.
You told William earlier , “1. If you just “look at what the bible says for itself”, you find that it tells some stories by people who claim to have been around at the time or talked to those who were. To question that claim, which is a quite reasonable thing to do, we need to make an assessment – a rational and critical activity that requires us to understand the culture, language, literature and history of the time. Most of us don’t have the knowledge to do that. If we are going to be rational and evidence-based, we will find out this information from those who do know.”
I think I have provided 3 people who would know as much about the NT as anyone else and yet they have questions about its historicity.
We don’t know their minds any more than we know the minds of the scholars you like to quote.
The point I’m trying to make is the NT is full of questions. I don’t care about best evidence because even though my sources number just 3 , I feel their evidence weighs as much as all those who see the NT differently. My point is even the best scholars in the world have questions just like William, Ark, Nate, me and a lot of people who claim to be Christians.
Jesus as a human holy man. I have no argument either way. He either existed or a culmination of stories used to create him existed. Divine is another problem. You surely can’t fault us for not believing when his own race for the most part has never considered him divine for 2,000 years.
In closing Raymond E Brown said, “God has not revealed to human beings details about how the world began or how it will end, and failing to recognize that, one is likely to misread the first book and the last book in the Bible.
Thanks for your time
LikeLike
I’m sorry I left out Nan and Josh and all of the other good people on this blog in my closing comments. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Ken, I think everything you say agrees with what I have been saying.
1. Yes, Vermes grew up IN central Europe as catholic family, but I understand he reverted to Judaism when he came to UK, and self-identified as a Jew.
2. Yes the scholars all disagree over many things, but what I have consistently claimed is that the vast bulk of scholars conclude that Jesus did indeed exist as a historical person, and that the gospels tell us useful historical information about him. They differ as to how much of the gospels are reliable history, and most believe the birth stories are at most embellished and likely legendary or non-literal. But most would endorse at least a minimal list of facts as outlined by Sanders – see the quote at the end of this page, and many argue for much more (e.g. Wright, Casey, Grant).
3. Yes, Vermes, Dunn and Brown are respected scholars (“were” in two cases).
4. “Vermes claims that Christianity was so far removed from Jesus’ teachings that Christians need to rethink the fundamentals of their faith.” Yes, he made this claim. Many agree with him, many do not. He would probably be towards the sceptical end of that question. But we have not been talking about early christian belief, but Jesus and whether the gospels tell us about him.
5. “yet they have questions about its historicity” They all have questions, that is what historical analysis is all about. The question isn’t whether the NT is inerrant and we need have no doubts about it, but whether it contains useful historical information, which they all agree that it does. Having questions is very different to rejecting their conclusions.
6. “You surely can’t fault us for not believing when his own race for the most part has never considered him divine for 2,000 years.” I have never faulted anyone for not believing he was divine. That isn’t the question we are discussing. The question is whether he existed and we can know historical information about him, and the scholars almost unanimously agree that we can. I have “faulted” people for not accepting that as a basis for further discussion.
7. The key is for you to consider the claims that I am making. I am not a fundamentalist nor an inerrantist. But I think you are responding as if I am. I have made fairly modest historical claims, based on the scholars. If you and others could agree on that, then we could have a discussion on what we may conclude from that. The problem is that we haven’t been able to get even that far, which in the makes further discussion a bit pointless.
So that’s why I think it best to fade out a bit. But I appreciate your questions and hope you can feel clear about what I and the scholars are saying, and not saying. Best wishes.
LikeLike
There were some Jewish Rabbis who submitted 3 questions in writing to the Vatican in 1995. The Vatican then referred them to Raymond E Brown and basically said whatever he has to say about your questions is good enough for the Vatican. It is a very interesting read !
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm
We shouldn’t feel so bad about having questions .
LikeLike
Thanks uncleE,
In your last reply you said,” The key is for you to consider the claims that I am making. I am not a fundamentalist nor an inerrantist. But I think you are responding as if I am. I have made fairly modest historical claims, based on the scholars. ”
You did say earlier,”It is quite possible to be an atheist, or a deist, and accept the consensus of scholarship. Obviously I think the evidence is best explained by Jesus being divine”
I don’t consider this as you put it a “Modest claim”
The best to you !
LikeLike
My historical claims have been modest – I clearly qualified that statement. You have not addressed what I actually said. I have consistently said that only after we agree on the history can we discuss beliefs. But I think we are heading towards another of those times when I get you offside, so let’s stop here shall we? Best wishes.
LikeLike
The criteria unklee uses for scholarly acceptance includes being peer reviewed.
Well, to put certain matters in perspective, the archaeology report on the ‘Nazareth Farm,’ was never peer reviewed and the site of the supposed house claimed to be from the time of ‘Jesus’ was covered up and built upon.
This, though, was considered evidence enough for unklee to jump on the bandwagon and state the ‘experts’ were right.
On his post Nazareth revisited, this view was challenged by a chap called Bernard and after endless to-ing and fro-ing unklee stuck to his guns and refused to acknowledge that his claims re Nazareth were not based on ‘peer review’ evidence and, it was quite obvious, in fact, that there was NO evidence to suggest that Nazareth existed at the time of ‘Jesus’.
There is a LOT of money tied up in tourism though. Now THAT is a good enough incentive to blur the lines a bit, wouldn;t you say?
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/nazareth-re-visited/
This is what is colloquially called, having your ass handed to you,and anyone with a shred of integrity would acknowledge this and move on.
Richard Carrier has enough degrees to be considered an expert and is peer reviewed. he considers the biblical Jesus likely did not exist. There are others.
Considering Carrier’s academic qualifications, I would side with him any day of the week.
Unklee would rather not bother..
The most heartening aspect of the whole debacle is that genuine scholars move forward all the time in search of the truth concerning such matters.
Those who staunchly defend the bible and its weird and not so wonderful tales are continuously forced to re evaluate its text to make it fit their culturally inculcated beliefs.
As William remarked, he doesn’t need an expert to tell him when the bible is a crock.
Neither do I. Nor should anyone.
I KNOW a donkey cannot talk and a human cannot walk on water.
Archaeologists of the likes of Finkelstein and Herzog have, through tirelessly striving to uncover the truth, demonstrated beyond doubt that much of the Old Testament is nothing but fiction.
Allbright failed to demonstrate the veracity of biblical archaeology. And that was what he set out to do. Even his students came to recognise he was unable to fit the facts with the fiction.
The Christian and Muslim response is usually flat denial or that Moses and the Exodus and other Patriarch have no bearing on their faith.
I ask you, in all honesty, how ridiculous is this attitude?
When people are prepared to admit to all the shenanigans of the early church,the likely truth is there was nothing that Jesus taught, simply because the biblical Jesus is almost certain to have been a narrative construct which, with a divinely inspired book in hand, became the perfect vehicle for the Roman empire to do with myth what it failed to do with the sword – namely conquer the globe.
All things considered I believe they did a pretty good job, don’t you?
Once upon a time……
LikeLike
UnkleE, I get you in part. What historical evidences are you referring to exactly, though? If you’re referring to names of places, and names of a few people that are backed up by history, then okay, fine. I can accept that. Just as I can accept that Homer also falls into that category.
But I haven’t found sufficient evidence to back up the miraculous claims, or the divine claims. I havent seen anything in secular documentation to adequately explain why literal and blatant contradictions exist in the bible.
These are the things I am referring to. And that is why I do not place too much emphasis on scholars, although I do seek them out on occasion. They can only speculate so much – as can we. At some point it all boils down to what is factually there.
The fact that secular history seems to support a historical figure named jesus is not the same as supporting the biblical claims of his divine origins – no more than the discovery of Troy supports Homer’s claims of Achilles’ divine aid in his bout with Hector.
I can get taking portions of this book or that book and tossing other out. I do it all the time. If I find one part of a story to be profoundly wise or meaningful, i tend to hang on to it even if the rest of the story is rubbish. I do this with the bible as well, now. Yet, I cannot hold any of those books or stories as divine.
And I do not get selective adherence when it comes to the bible as a religious guide from the divine. “This part is divinely inspired, but this part isn’t” is too flimsy. It already admits that at least some of the bible is flawed and of human origins, which opens the doors to the rest of it. Maybe you’re wrong in tossing out the genocidal parts of the OT, maybe it’s the NT parts that are the flawed works of man? How could you know?
It’s just a book. The book even claims to be written by man. And many of this book’s internal problems could have been easily, easily avoided, and written in such away as to negate any discussion on internal consistency, or the lack thereof.
But you’re aware of this.
LikeLike
One question I would ask, and anyone may answer it if they are able:
There were many ‘gospels’ in circulation during the first and second century and only when Marcion appeared on the scene did the Church feel the urgency to formulate a distinctive canon.
Now these other gospels were known as pseudepigrapha.
As we know the gospels in the bible were not written by eyewitnesses, not written by the anyone who’s name can be attributed to those attached to the gospels, then how did the church arrive at the conclusion that the gospels to be included in the canon were NOT
also pseudepigrapha?
When you consider the litany of ridiculous and blatantly false claims within the text, why would anyone able to read and savvy enough to reason even consider that these spurious texts were anything but nonsense?
So how did the church fathers go about selecting these particular texts and pronounce them ‘genuine’?
Any takers?
LikeLike