Son of God - a Christian viewpoint please?

[Areopagite]

Satori said:

- Mark is probably the oldest at maybe AD70 and he may have been the interpreter of Peter. Mark's Gospel is probably an independant composition.

It would seem that manuscript fragments 7Q6, 7Q5, and 7Q15 (of Mark 4:28, 6:52-53, 12:17), dated A.D. 50, would disagree with such an assesment.

- Mathew and Luke are probably later: AD80 - AD100, although Luke is first mentioned as the author of a Gospel in AD180. Mathew and Luke rely heavily on Mark and some postulated additional composition based on the sayings of Jesus (the 'Q' document).

As I've stated before, the "Q" document hypothesis is bogus since there is absolutely no credibility to its possible existence. Also, Luke would seem to have been written before the Acts of the Apostles, so when the book of Acts was written is an important question in this search. There are many reasons to believe that this was written sometime between A.D. 60 and A.D. 62, such as no information being given about the Jewish War in A.D. 66, no indication of Nero's persecution of the Christians in the late 60's, no indication of the death of James in A.D. 62 (which Josephus records in his Antiquities), the Temple is written of as though it still existed, etc. This would logically place the Gospel of Luke around the same date or earlier.

- John appears to be an even later 'evolution' of the Gospels altogether, steeped in even more doctrinal philosophy, maybe from around AD110-AD120.

This is perhaps the most disturbing of datings I must admit. To begin with, to write it then would make John quite old, wouldn't it? John couldn't have written his gospel in the second century since, as with all the gospels, eyewitnesses are available to scrutinize the author's account. Since John mentions the five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda which didn't exist in the second century. Also, the "John Rylands fragment" of John's gospel is dated as 114 A.D. Since the fragment was discovered in Egypt, it would be highly unlikely for the gospel to be written in the second century and for the gospel to have circulated to that tiny town on the other side of the Mediterranean by that time. Also, the discovery at Qumran has caused several scholors to date John before A.D. 70. The reason that some 'scholars' wish to date John so late is that they don't like what John writes.

- All the Gospels appear to be written mainly as a doctrinal transmission rather than a historic work and may have undergone modification from AD70 until AD400 when they were 'formalised'. Certainly we lost a lot of stuff that may have been a useful reference on Jesus at that time.

Again, another unverifiable accusation with no real historical evidence to back it up with.

- The Gospels as they reach us today need to be taken in the context of a doctrinal transmission of early Christian philosophy intended primarily for a Roman audience. Their entire construction - parables, words of wisdom, supernaturalisation of the miracles etc. - lends itself to being that sort of work rather than a chiefly historical one, so we have to try and see through that to get any true historical concept of Jesus.

If it's intended primarily for a Roman audience, then there's some stumbling blocks that you might need to remove for your theory. One is the resurrection. The pagan concept of the resurrection is not the same as the Christian one, as N.T. Wright chronicles. Also, many other concepts in the gospels are based out of Judaism, not Roman paganism.

Yes, it's clear that Jesus is making a subtle challenge at Kingship, claiming to be God's representative on Earth - or the Son of God - in the same way that many kings of the era did (Romans, Egyptians etc.). This would, of course, have ruffled a some feathers and provides another good reason not to go shouting from the rooftops.

Again, you seem to be confusing Judaism with other religions. The Romans and the Egyptians were quite receptive to the concept of someone being the son of a god. The Jews were not, especially considering the Mosaic law's decree against blasphemy.

Assuming His 'second coming' is true for one moment, how well He is received will depend largely upon how convincing He can be. We would need to be left in no doubt that He was Jesus and was the Son of God, otherwise he'd just be classed as another crackpot.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. The world will know who allows things to happen during the tribulation.

In terms of Revelations and 'second comings' from an allegorical point of view, I think we're on a knife edge. We may pull together before we destroy ourselves and we may not: I wouldn't like to take a bet on it at the moment.

Revelation doesn't discuss the earth being destroyed by mankind, but by God.

[Satori]

Areopagite said:

It would seem that manuscript fragments 7Q6, 7Q5, and 7Q15 (of Mark 4:28, 6:52-53, 12:17), dated A.D. 50, would disagree with such an assesment.

7Q5 is about 1/2 inch square and I believe there's only one complete word visible that can be discerned for definite.

How do you tie that in with Mark? If you're going by O'Callaghan and Theide's hypothesis, I'd suggest you examine the sheer amount of conjecture they apply.

Personally, I'd like to believe it was Mark (the closer we get to Christ the better from an historical standpoint), but it's just not convincing.

I agree with the general dating you gave, however. The Qumran community disbanded in 68AD, so it must be before that.

As far as I can tell, all other speculation about documents from the 7th cave being early Gospel literature are based on similar assumptions. I think the best we can hope for is that they're fragments of documents that in some way influenced the Gospels, but even that's speculative.

As I've stated before, the "Q" document hypothesis is bogus since there is absolutely no credibility to its possible existence.

No, there isn't, but Mathew and Luke must have got there information from somewhere and 'Q' is just a generic term for wherever that was. It may be a document or it may be an oral tradition. Biblical scholars often label verses from Mathew and Luke as 'Q' to distingush them as being taken together and differing from those of Mark.

Also, Luke would seem to have been written before the Acts of the Apostles, so when the book of Acts was written is an important question in this search. There are many reasons to believe that this was written sometime between A.D. 60 and A.D. 62, such as no information being given about the Jewish War in A.D. 66, no indication of Nero's persecution of the Christians in the late 60's, no indication of the death of James in A.D. 62 (which Josephus records in his Antiquities), the Temple is written of as though it still existed, etc. This would logically place the Gospel of Luke around the same date or earlier.

Well those could be reasons to assume an earlier date for Luke, but if they weren't intended as historical documents in the first place then they wouldn't include such historical references would they?

I not totally familiar with the dating on Acts, but I'll look up what information I have about it when I get a chance.

This is perhaps the most disturbing of datings I must admit. To begin with, to write it then would make John quite old, wouldn't it?

Who do you assume John was?

John couldn't have written his gospel in the second century since, as with all the gospels, eyewitnesses are available to scrutinize the author's account. Since John mentions the five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda which didn't exist in the second century. Also, the "John Rylands fragment" of John's gospel is dated as 114 A.D. Since the fragment was discovered in Egypt, it would be highly unlikely for the gospel to be written in the second century and for the gospel to have circulated to that tiny town on the other side of the Mediterranean by that time. Also, the discovery at Qumran has caused several scholors to date John before A.D. 70. The reason that some 'scholars' wish to date John so late is that they don't like what John writes.

Well personally what he writes doesn't bother me all that much, but then again I'm a 'non-literalist' when it comes to the Gospels so it probably wouldn't.

The Rylands fragment does indeed appear to be from John, but the dating of it has yet to be confirmed. It's quite a significant dating too as it would be the earliest codex ever discovered if the current, finger-in-the-air estimate is correct.

I'm not sure how it relates to the dating of the entire Gospel of John as the larger proportion of scholars feel it was written in stages. I guess it's possible that some of it was written around the time of the other Gospels which would, in some ways, make more sense to me.

Again, another unverifiable accusation with no real historical evidence to back it up with.

Well we did lose a lot of stuff, some of which we've rediscovered in the last 100 years.

If it's intended primarily for a Roman audience, then there's some stumbling blocks that you might need to remove for your theory. One is the resurrection. The pagan concept of the resurrection is not the same as the Christian one, as N.T. Wright chronicles. Also, many other concepts in the gospels are based out of Judaism, not Roman paganism.

It reads like it's been written for a Roman audience though. Sometimes the Gospels seem to get too deep into the minutae of Judaic tradition for it to be written for a Jewish audience. There'd be no need to explain that stuff to the Jews as they'd know it anyway, but the Romans might need it to understand the meanings of the stories correctly.

What is so different about the Pagan and Christian themes? Granted the take may be slightly different, but the central theme is very similar.

Again, you seem to be confusing Judaism with other religions. The Romans and the Egyptians were quite receptive to the concept of someone being the son of a god. The Jews were not, especially considering the Mosaic law's decree against blasphemy.

I don't disagree (and I can assure you I wasn't confusing the religions).

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. The world will know who allows things to happen during the tribulation.

Or not, as the case may be.

Revelation doesn't discuss the earth being destroyed by mankind, but by God.

That'd be the God of Love, right? Hmm.

Anyway, interesting post - thanks.

[bobarian]

Satori -

Just a few things.

I think that if the gospels did not claim to offer the message that they did - that they are a direct revelation of God Himself - they would not be criticized nearly so severely. If they were just literature, like Shakespeare, they would simply be assumed to be factual and true because of the sheer amount of manuscripts available and the small amount of variance between them. In history, many of the dates that have been established are found through quite circumspect means. If there is a historical assertion dating from somewhere near the time period about a historical document then that assertion is assumed to be fact. There is no reason to disbelieve it - it obviously wasn't written to fool us who live thousands of years after. I mean, the sheer amount of agreement in the early church on where the books came from should be a far more weighty piece of evidence than the earliest date of the manuscripts. The early church had access to far more resources than we do - and if they made the decision that John wrote John etc., I'm fine with it because I find their word more historically probable than scholars debating in the 20th century using fragments of manuscripts.



But seriously, if the gospels didn't make the claims they did, there would be little fuss about them. I mean, I certainly don't hear people complaining about Plato's Dialogues even though the amount of historical evidence about them is slim to none (although what does exist is fascinating.) So what I think should be done is that one approaches the Bible merely as literature - and then if it holds up as literature, then it can be taken to the next level - revelation.



Approaching the Bible with the assumption that what it says is true is critical, in my opinion, to understanding the text. My problem with liberal scholars such as Elaine Pagels is that they approach Biblical texts with already preconceived biases about how they were politically constructed documents that served an agenda of special interests. I've never heard of a book constructed in that way, and certainly not one of such literary import like the Bible. Nobody reads Mao's red book anymore.

Quite frankly, if the writer of the gospel says, "I saw this happen," and he says it in a factual manner and with all intent to establishy credibility, I have no less reason to believe him than to believe a reporter on TV. Certainly, for both people, their reputations are hanging on the line.

With the Messiah,

I really don't think its an issue of whether Jesus claimed to be God. You agree, I think. If Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath, then he could only be God. If He forgave sins, then He could only be God. If He said He pre-existed Abraham, then He could only be God. If He called God Abba, then He could only be God.

Otherwise, I think as C.S. Lewis quite rationally concludes,
He was either deluded, trying to delude or a raving lunatic.

Don't worry - if Christ returns, you'll know it. As C.S. Lewis says, quite unfortunately, by that time it will be too late to change your mind.

Have you ever read Lewis? Fantastic writer.

[Satori]

bobarian said:

I think that if the gospels did not claim to offer the message that they did - that they are a direct revelation of God Himself - they would not be criticized nearly so severely.

Yes, of course. Their claim to be the direct revelation of God and their influence on the world are why they receive such strict analysis.

If they were just literature, like Shakespeare, they would simply be assumed to be factual and true because of the sheer amount of manuscripts available and the small amount of variance between them. In history, many of the dates that have been established are found through quite circumspect means. If there is a historical assertion dating from somewhere near the time period about a historical document then that assertion is assumed to be fact. There is no reason to disbelieve it - it obviously wasn't written to fool us who live thousands of years after.

I pretty much agree with that too. As our analytical tools and experience improve we can zoom in on more probable dates for these things. One shouldn't just take the first date suggested and then forget about it.

I mean, the sheer amount of agreement in the early church on where the books came from should be a far more weighty piece of evidence than the earliest date of the manuscripts.

It's one piece of evidence, but one also has to look at the motives of the early church and ask oneself whether they were in the business of preserving historical accuracy or promoting doctrinal policy.

The early church had access to far more resources than we do - and if they made the decision that John wrote John etc.,

Well that's not really a good reason to simply accept something. It would simply imply that we have to accept all literature as being true simply because some people close to it at the time say it was. I'm not sure that's the best way to proceed.

It is evidence, of course, but it has to be taken alongside other evidence in order to make an informed decision.

John (the Apostle) may have had something to do with his Gospel at some point but one is led to question exactly how much. He is decribed in Acts as an 'uneducated, common man', but the Gospel of John - being perhaps the most sophisticated of all the Gospels - doesn't seem to reflect that such an individual is behind it (at least, not totally).

I'm fine with it because I find their word more historically probable than scholars debating in the 20th century using fragments of manuscripts.

I think that's a very naive point of view Bob.

But seriously, if the gospels didn't make the claims they did, there would be little fuss about them. I mean, I certainly don't hear people complaining about Plato's Dialogues even though the amount of historical evidence about them is slim to none (although what does exist is fascinating.)

I agree.

So what I think should be done is that one approaches the Bible merely as literature - and then if it holds up as literature, then it can be taken to the next level - revelation.

I can't quite see how revelation follows just because a document holds up as literature, but I agree that the Bible should be approached as literature and, I think, it is. Yes, there are plenty of people out there studying it with agendas to satisfy, but there are plenty more studying it objectively.

Approaching the Bible with the assumption that what it says is true is critical, in my opinion, to understanding the text.

What? Do you mean approaching it as if it's a 100% accurate, factual, eye-witness account of Jesus' life?

Or do you mean approaching is as if it's a doctrinal thesis based on the life of Jesus, probably containing a mixture of truth and allegory?

I'm assuming (even) you mean the latter - and I'd agree with that - but there are unfortunately many people who believe the former.

My problem with liberal scholars such as Elaine Pagels is that they approach Biblical texts with already preconceived biases about how they were politically constructed documents that served an agenda of special interests.

It's hard to approach the Bible without preconceived ideas (do you?), but I think there are enough people studying it from so many different initial standpoints to balance it out.

Quite frankly, if the writer of the gospel says, "I saw this happen,"

But they don't say that. If one things clear, it's that the Gospel writers are unlikely to be eyewitnesses themselves.

Furthermore, the entire writing style of the Gospels just doesn't seem to indicate that it's intended as a historical record. That doesn't need technical analysis, just simply reading it tells one that.

It reads like a doctrinal thesis, written specifically for getting the 'message' rather than the 'history' of Jesus across. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - many things are written that way - it's just that we have to bear that in mind when analysing it from an historic perspective.

I really don't think its an issue of whether Jesus claimed to be God.

Not to me it's not because, if He did make that claim, I don't believe Him!

You agree, I think. If Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath, then he could only be God.

No.

If He forgave sins, then He could only be God.

No.

If He said He pre-existed Abraham, then He could only be God.

He didn't, and no I don't agree.

If He called God Abba, then He could only be God.

No.

Otherwise, I think as C.S. Lewis quite rationally concludes,
He was either deluded, trying to delude or a raving lunatic.

Perhaps He was one of those things - it's hard to tell from the limited, truly historical information we have.

Don't worry - if Christ returns, you'll know it. As C.S. Lewis says, quite unfortunately, by that time it will be too late to change your mind.

Ah, the loving God of Abraham again - nice to know He doesn't hold a grudge!

Have you ever read Lewis? Fantastic writer.

No, I admit I haven't (not his Christian writing, anyway).

[Areopagite]

Satori said:

7Q5 is about 1/2 inch square and I believe there's only one complete word visible that can be discerned for definite.

How do you tie that in with Mark? If you're going by O'Callaghan and Theide's hypothesis, I'd suggest you examine the sheer amount of conjecture they apply.

Personally, I'd like to believe it was Mark (the closer we get to Christ the better from an historical standpoint), but it's just not convincing.

I agree with the general dating you gave, however. The Qumran community disbanded in 68AD, so it must be before that.

As far as I can tell, all other speculation about documents from the 7th cave being early Gospel literature are based on similar assumptions. I think the best we can hope for is that they're fragments of documents that in some way influenced the Gospels, but even that's speculative.

Yeah, I am going by their hypothesis. I believe their hypothesis.

No, there isn't, but Mathew and Luke must have got there information from somewhere and 'Q' is just a generic term for wherever that was. It may be a document or it may be an oral tradition. Biblical scholars often label verses from Mathew and Luke as 'Q' to distingush them as being taken together and differing from those of Mark.

Yeah, they got their information from somewhere. Matthew, being a witness, got it from Jesus himself, I'd bet . Luke, "having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order" (1:3), writes his account according to his investigation and the gospel which was delievered to him (not to mention the Holy Spirit's inspiration). Also, Q has never been suggested as an oral tradition. The hypothesis asserts that a written document consisting of these sources existed. All traditions, creeds, and early church writings, however, never mention the existence of the "Q" document, but instead insist on the seperate eyewitness accounts composed by the four gospel writers. Once again, there is no historical evidence for the existence of the Quelle document. If we want to talk about conjecture, the "Q" document hypothesis is filled with it, and is propped by the antisupernaturalist biases of people like Elaine Pagels and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. Also, I have a little distaste at your sweeping generalization that Bible scholars often label certain verses as 'Q' to distinguish them since many Bible scholars do not do so since they flatly reject the Q document hypothesis. As a student of the Bible, I know that I certainly do not write little Q's in my Bible so that I can identify these so-called "Q" sayings.

Well those could be reasons to assume an earlier date for Luke, but if they weren't intended as historical documents in the first place then they wouldn't include such historical references would they?

I would suggest that you take the time to read the book of Acts again in order that you might realize the importance that all of those events would have been and why Luke would, most definitely, have written about them.

Who do you assume John was?

An apostle of Jesus Christ, not Methuselah? I'm not sure that I understand your question.

The Rylands fragment does indeed appear to be from John, but the dating of it has yet to be confirmed. It's quite a significant dating too as it would be the earliest codex ever discovered if the current, finger-in-the-air estimate is correct.

Who should confirm it then? When will it be confirmed? It would be a significant dating, but the Magdalene fragment would be pretty significant too, since that would place the gospel of Matthew between A.D. 50 and A.D. 60.

I'm not sure how it relates to the dating of the entire Gospel of John as the larger proportion of scholars feel it was written in stages. I guess it's possible that some of it was written around the time of the other Gospels which would, in some ways, make more sense to me.

I must admit that I haven't heard too much of this hypothesis before, which leads me to believe that its probably not "a larger proportion of scholars", but I may be wrong

Well we did lose a lot of stuff, some of which we've rediscovered in the last 100 years.

True, but I might add that an arguement from silence isn't usually too scholastic.

It reads like it's been written for a Roman audience though. Sometimes the Gospels seem to get too deep into the minutae of Judaic tradition for it to be written for a Jewish audience. There'd be no need to explain that stuff to the Jews as they'd know it anyway, but the Romans might need it to understand the meanings of the stories correctly.

I agree that they do go into a lot of Jewish tradition. I think that they were written for both a Jewish and a Gentile audience. Essentially, the purpose of the gospels was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ to the entire world ("to the Jew first and also to the Greek").

What is so different about the Pagan and Christian themes? Granted the take may be slightly different, but the central theme is very similar.

Again, I'd suggest you read N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" instead of just taking my word for it. But in it, Wright chronicles the Greek and Roman beliefs about resurrection and life after death. The concept of resurrection, as we know it, was totally different for them. Thus, the bodily return of Jesus Christ from the dead was quite a shocking proposition to the hellenistic world since they believed that such a resurrection was impossible.

That'd be the God of Love, right? Hmm.

Yeah, that would be the Holy and Just God of Love, by the way. Let me post something I read in Romans today:

"for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26)

God is Just and requires Holiness. But He is loving (the justifier) because of the sending of God's Son, Jesus.

[Areopagite]

Satori said:

It's one piece of evidence, but one also has to look at the motives of the early church and ask oneself whether they were in the business of preserving historical accuracy or promoting doctrinal policy.

Haha, have you ever considered that Christian doctrine could have been preserved along with historical accuracy, Satori? You limit it to being one or the other, when it could be both.

Well that's not really a good reason to simply accept something. It would simply imply that we have to accept all literature as being true simply because some people close to it at the time say it was. I'm not sure that's the best way to proceed.

Again, there's no reason to assume that the early church lied, especially since there is a good amount of historical evidence that confirms what they said, and not enough evidence that denies their claims, just lots of hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, and biases.

John (the Apostle) may have had something to do with his Gospel at some point but one is led to question exactly how much. He is decribed in Acts as an 'uneducated, common man', but the Gospel of John - being perhaps the most sophisticated of all the Gospels - doesn't seem to reflect that such an individual is behind it (at least, not totally).

He may have been an uneducated, common man, but that doesn't make him unintelligent and unable to discern what it was that he witnessed. Also, I'll suggest, again, that the Holy Spirit's place in all of this has been entirely left out of the conversation, however "unscientific" that may be.

I think that's a very naive point of view Bob.

Although, IMHO, it would seem to be a very discerning view, Satori, since it takes into account the antisupernatural biases that many so-called "scholars" hold today.

What? Do you mean approaching it as if it's a 100% accurate, factual, eye-witness account of Jesus' life?

Or do you mean approaching is as if it's a doctrinal thesis based on the life of Jesus, probably containing a mixture of truth and allegory?

I'm assuming (even) you mean the latter - and I'd agree with that - but there are unfortunately many people who believe the former.

Well, as for me, I guess I believe the former, unfortunately

But they don't say that. If one things clear, it's that the Gospel writers are unlikely to be eyewitnesses themselves.

Furthermore, the entire writing style of the Gospels just doesn't seem to indicate that it's intended as a historical record. That doesn't need technical analysis, just simply reading it tells one that.

Again, another thing that we're going to continue to disagree about, Satori. I would assert that the writers are actual eyewitnesses. Also, what Luke writes in the beginning seems to indicate a rather historical note to what he writes.

No.
No.
He didn't, and no I don't agree.
No.

To your many listings of the word "no", I'd like to ask who could forgive sins, who could be beyond the bounds of time, who else could be Lord of the Sabbath in your opinion.

Perhaps He was one of those things - it's hard to tell from the limited, truly historical information we have.

Again, not a true statement. Just because you choose to not listen to the historical information we have about Jesus doesn't mean it's not there.[/quote]

[Satori]

Areopagite said:

Yeah, I am going by their hypothesis. I believe their hypothesis.

If you feel that they can tell from a 1/2 inch square fragment that has the word 'kaiv' on it that it's from an early copy of a Gospel, then that's up to you. I guess it's no more bizarre than believing in the supernatural.

Yeah, they got their information from somewhere. Matthew, being a witness, got it from Jesus himself, I'd bet .

Mathew is most unlikely to have been an eye witness. Please prove this.

Luke, "having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order" (1:3), writes his account according to his investigation and the gospel which was delievered to him (not to mention the Holy Spirit's inspiration).

Delivered to him by whom?

Also, Q has never been suggested as an oral tradition. The hypothesis asserts that a written document consisting of these sources existed. All traditions, creeds, and early church writings, however, never mention the existence of the "Q" document, but instead insist on the seperate eyewitness accounts composed by the four gospel writers. Once again, there is no historical evidence for the existence of the Quelle document. If we want to talk about conjecture, the "Q" document hypothesis is filled with it, and is propped by the antisupernaturalist biases of people like Elaine Pagels and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. Also, I have a little distaste at your sweeping generalization that Bible scholars often label certain verses as 'Q' to distinguish them since many Bible scholars do not do so since they flatly reject the Q document hypothesis. As a student of the Bible, I know that I certainly do not write little Q's in my Bible so that I can identify these so-called "Q" sayings.

You completely fail to understand what I'm saying regarding 'Q' (how? - it's not hard!) so I give up trying to tell you.

Let's just say that I believe it's fairly likely that a Q document of some sort did exist, despite your irrational fears of it (would it make any difference to you if a Q document was ever found? I doubt it - you'd simply disbelieve it if you didn't like it).

I would suggest that you take the time to read the book of Acts again in order that you might realize the importance that all of those events would have been and why Luke would, most definitely, have written about them.

It's a while since I've read Acts so that's a fair point. By contrast I'd recommend you read some real Biblical analysis and historical assessments to broaden your views; maybe try something by Martin Goodman, Geza Vermes or Burton Mack.

An apostle of Jesus Christ

Unlikely.

Who should confirm it then? When will it be confirmed? It would be a significant dating, but the Magdalene fragment would be pretty significant too, since that would place the gospel of Matthew between A.D. 50 and A.D. 60.

I agree that the datings would be significant and further, more accurate datings will emerge as all these fragments continue to be analysed.

I must admit that I haven't heard too much of this hypothesis before, which leads me to believe that its probably not "a larger proportion of scholars", but I may be wrong

Yep, I think you are.

True, but I might add that an arguement from silence isn't usually too scholastic.

I don't think anyone is arguing from silence.

Again, I'd suggest you read N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" instead of just taking my word for it. But in it, Wright chronicles the Greek and Roman beliefs about resurrection and life after death. The concept of resurrection, as we know it, was totally different for them. Thus, the bodily return of Jesus Christ from the dead was quite a shocking proposition to the hellenistic world since they believed that such a resurrection was impossible.

Yes, and they were right.

Yeah, that would be the Holy and Just God of Love, by the way. Let me post something I read in Romans today:

"for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26)

Hmm, you haven't convinced me that this is a God of Love we're talking about rather than a jealous tyrant that will damn anyone who doesn't tow the line.

God is Just and requires Holiness. But He is loving (the justifier) because of the sending of God's Son, Jesus.

Ah, well it's all okay then!

Haha, have you ever considered that Christian doctrine could have been preserved along with historical accuracy, Satori? You limit it to being one or the other, when it could be both.

I don't limit myself. I believe it is a bit of both, it's just that it's harder to extract historical facts from a doctrinal thesis than it would be from something intended as a historical document at the outset.

Again, there's no reason to assume that the early church lied, especially since there is a good amount of historical evidence that confirms what they said, and not enough evidence that denies their claims, just lots of hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, and biases.

That sounds like a good description of Christian Conservativism.

He may have been an uneducated, common man, but that doesn't make him unintelligent and unable to discern what it was that he witnessed. Also, I'll suggest, again, that the Holy Spirit's place in all of this has been entirely left out of the conversation, however "unscientific" that may be.

Yes, because the Bible is the work of Man, not the work of some figment of the imagination.

Although, IMHO, it would seem to be a very discerning view, Satori, since it takes into account the antisupernatural biases that many so-called "scholars" hold today.

Good, we need less 'supernatural biases'. It's time that we, as a race, grew out of them.

Well, as for me, I guess I believe the former, unfortunately

So you believe that the NT is a literalist account of Jesus' life from which every passage of teaching should be taken literally rather than allegorically do you?

Again, another thing that we're going to continue to disagree about, Satori. I would assert that the writers are actual eyewitnesses. Also, what Luke writes in the beginning seems to indicate a rather historical note to what he writes.

Luke wasn't an eyewitness - he says so himself: "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning."

I find it unlikely that any of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses; the Gospels simply aren't told as if from the point of view of an eyewitness.

To your many listings of the word "no", I'd like to ask who could forgive sins, who could be beyond the bounds of time, who else could be Lord of the Sabbath in your opinion.

Anybody could claim those things.

Again, not a true statement. Just because you choose to not listen to the historical information we have about Jesus doesn't mean it's not there.

<sigh>

[Satori]

If this post proves anything at all it's that it's virtually impossibly to discuss 'real' analysis of the Bible with Conservative Christians.

Most of the Christians I do successfully discuss this sort of thing with have a much more realistic view of the Bible. Yes, they believe in Christ the Saviour and Son of God, and many even believe that the Bible was 'inspired', but they can see that it was 'inspired' as a teaching mechanism rather than an historical document; they can see that the roots of their belief in Jesus are based on a personal relationship with Him rather than a literalist view of Biblical teachings.

They are not threatened by Biblical analysis from scholars and, in fact, welcome it. They don't see a contradiction between faith and science. Then again, they don't hold the extreme views of things like Six Day Creationism.

I guess the Conservative Christian would think they're 'copping out' and they'd see the Conservative Christian as 'radical'.

Takes all sorts, eh?

[Shiggy]

Hear, hear.

[bobarian]

Right, you completely agree with Conservative Christians. They only like to listen to people who agree with their biases


Seriously -

Could perhaps the past 1500 years of church history be any indication of why we're not really all that worried about "modern" scholarship? Perhaps also the fact that there are evangelical scholars galore? And perhaps they are far more convincing?

I am utterly convinced that underneath most of the "critical" analysis is an attempt to subvert real theistic Christianity to a human-centered Christianity where all that needs to be done is build hospitals and be nice to your friends.

If God really came up with a system that worked, I would expect many people to think it very controversial. But the simple fact is that understanding the bible literally does work. In fact, it doesn't work any other way - and neither does Christianity. Either accept Christianity, and the Bible, or neither.

[Satori]

Could perhaps the past 1500 years of church history be any indication of why we're not really all that worried about "modern" scholarship?

I can't see why anyone would see modern (or any) scholarship as 'worrying'. Personally, I don't think living by 1500 year old values is always appropriate, but if they work for you then who am I to tell you to do otherwise?

Seriously Bob - putting all the fun of heated debate aside for the moment - I respect your (and anyone else's) right to believe whatever you choose, providing that nobody gets hurt as a result of you believing what you do. I think everybody has that right. I don't have to agree with you (and I normally don't!) in order to respect your rights of faith.

Perhaps also the fact that there are evangelical scholars galore? And perhaps they are far more convincing?

Well they haven't convinced me!

Personally I find the best scholars to read are those without any axe to grind; those that neither have a Christian nor an anti-Christian agenda.

I am utterly convinced that underneath most of the "critical" analysis is an attempt to subvert real theistic Christianity to a human-centered Christianity where all that needs to be done is build hospitals and be nice to your friends.

I think that's a bit of a generalisation. There most certainly are critical analysts whose sole purpose seems to be to debunk Christianity; likewise, there are scholars whose sole purpose seems to be to support Christian fundamentalism and debunk any criticism. But they're fairly easy to see through and there are plenty of good analysts 'in the middle', who seem to have no agenda either way except to try and uncover the truth.

If God really came up with a system that worked, I would expect many people to think it very controversial.

Well if there was a God and He came up with a system that worked I'm sure it would be controversial. I have yet to see such a system (or, indeed, such a God).

But the simple fact is that understanding the bible literally does work.

I'm sure it does at many levels.

In fact, it doesn't work any other way - and neither does Christianity. Either accept Christianity, and the Bible, or neither.

Well it depends what you mean by 'accept'. There are those that accept Christianity and accept the Bible as being the doctrine of Christianity, yet they are open to the idea that much of the Bible is paradoxical. For them that doesn't detract from their Christianity, it reinforces it.

I'm afraid for me Biblical studies is just an interest these days. I have similar interests in other historical matters too (Egyptology and Medieval Britain being another couple I'm quite interested in), but none of those provide the same debating fun as the Bible and Christianity does!

I looked at a lot of religions in my younger days and really found that I couldn't align myself with any of the Abrahamic religions - instinctively I felt they were wrong at the core. I then spent many years without any religious affiliation at all - I'd probably have been classed as agnostic/borderline athiest.

Buddhism just seemed to happen to me. I found that it somehow matched a lot of what I thought and it just felt totally right.

All these religious names are just labels though - we're all just ripples in the stream, part of the whole and none of it's worth getting uptight about.