Posted on 08/23/2017 4:23:00 AM PDT by Raymond Pamintuan
No, it doesn’t. Those passages refer to the grave—where our physical bodies go. The Hebrew “Sheol,” which is comparable to the NT’s “Hades,” is never elaborated. This is why when rabbis are asked what’s the afterlife like, there’s great disagreement.
It is the Talmud and the writings of later Jewish thinkers like Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Nachmanides, and the Kabbalists that became the primary sources of what the Jewish afterlife is like, not the Old Testament.
My only sort of challenge to his apologetic would be that perhaps he underestimates the power of the oral tradition within the earliest (ie, immediately post-ascension) Christian communities.
I’m not certain that orthodoxy could not have spread very rapidly, and then, of course, given greater systematic treatment by Paul, one of the greatest thinkers of all time.
And part of this oral tradition included the Gospel accounts, and even some (maybe) lost written accounts like “Q”.
I’m just saying....maybe that could have happened that way. The author’s point to me seems to me to be that IF that did not happen, then....there is no natural account of the rise of the NT books which are all different, but deeply coherent.
Let me add in a little thought experiment here which I had with some young people over the last year or so.
You may know that after all the first 7 Harry Potter books (and movies), last summer, there came out a new work, a play...and it deals with Harry as a man. Basically next generation stuff. And it was NOT written by JK Rowling. Rather...it was written by two other authors, both of whom were big fans and who had obviously read deeply the original 7 books. They read these books so deeply...that their creative thoughts centered around creating a next work. And, really quite incredibly, if you think about it...they did it, and JK Rowling totally approved.
The author/creator of Harry Potter...said, “yes. I agree. This is what happens next in Harry’s life. I didn’t create it, I didn’t think of it...but in fact...YES...this is what happens.”
I find that magnificent and intriguing.
Why?
Because it demonstrates how a community of readers (or ....if you think of the life and work of Jesus, or hearers and so long as the apostles were alive, of doers) can so deeply fall in love with a body of writing (ie, a body of Truth), that they absorb it and are able to add to it, as it were....And to add to it with such credibility that everyone who participates in that community KNOWS and AGREES that...YES this is canon. Everyone who loves that work recognizes this truth.
That seems to me to approximate how the canon is formed. All those who partook of teh truth....they simply know it and they are able to recognize it and set falsehood aside. It has nothing to do with power, or any other agenda It only has to do with knowing truth when you see it. And obviously with scripture, it is even “easier”...because of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
But, you might say, you are back to talking about canonization...not the writing of the NT documents.
True...but also...it can’t all be separated neatly like that because as we all know, there were false writings bouncing around simultaneously....just as there could be bogus Harry Potter stories bouncing around the internet.
But somehow, there are authors and readers out there who are able to write down things (in the case of Paul, pastoral epistles, doctrine; in the case of the Gospel writers, the life and teachings of Jesus; in the case of Luke, history, etc.) which they knew and have experienced and which they believe they needed to be written down. And the very act of writing them down and having them read, gives them even more power (just as those who read the new play are that much more invested in the Potter story).
So I would only suggest that maybe the power of the small, but passionately living earliest Christian community would be able to produce the Biblical writings.
Otherwise, how can two guys add to the Harry Potter story? And do so correctly?
(I hope no one is offended by my Harry Potter analogy. In no way am I saying it is like Scripture in an important way. I’m just saying that as a human phenomenon....something fascinating happened when that canonical play came out which seems to me to illuminate the process of canonization from the human perspective).
I think the point the author is making is without considering the supernatural, the New Testament is an impossible accomplishment given it has a single core cosmology.
When I looked at the article’s “The Gospel’s Cosmology” chart, I noticed “2.18 Preached to the spirits in prison between his death and resurrection” - I know this is in reference to 1 Peter 3:18-20 AND NOWHERE ELSE. And yet, the cosmology is incomplete without taking into consideration the three days between Christ’s death and resurrection.
The question becomes, where did Peter get this doctrine? Paul didn’t teach what Christ did between his death and resurrection anywhere. Neither did Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John.
The implications of this is, to be honest, quite stunning! This means no single NT author possessed the “big picture,” but only had portions of the entire cosmology. We need to put ALL NT books together, from all nine authors, to see the single cosmology of the Gospel.
The problem with appealing to an oral tradition does not work because oral transmission of knowledge will only bring you so far - at some point, data needs to be written down to preserve fidelity.
You hit the nail on the head in my opinion by recognizing the existence of other allegedly authoritative books that would’ve confused the first century Christians. This them means the parallel with the Harry Potter books does not work because there is a recognized canon of HP literature that would’ve functioned as the framework for the fan fiction - BUT this is NOT the case with the first century Christians. The 27 NT books weren’t finalized for centuries AFTER the last book was written, and they would’ve been swamped amongst the hundreds of fraudulent and ante-Gnostic writings like the Nag Hammadi Library.
Thus, there wouldn’t be any official “canon” of literature that could’ve been used to create the later books of the NT.
The more I think about this issue, the more convinced I am that this appears to be a bulletproof evidence that the New Testament is divinely inspired.
Do you realize how much quotation of the OT there is in the NT.
“My God, My God why have you forsaken me.” Even that I outcry on the cross is a quote from the OT and it wasn’t by accident.
How was the NT message tested? It was tested for truth with the OT.
Luk 24:46 And He said, “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah would suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day.
Luk 24:47 It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of His name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’
Tell me what is new in the NT.
hundreds of doctrinal concepts centered on just one person, Jesus Christ.
The central message of the whole Bible is
REPENT and turn to God.
Luk 24:46 And He said, “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah would suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day.
Luk 24:47 It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of His name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’
It is human nature to want to look at differences, to categorize so that we can control things.
When one looks at the common things, the whole flavor changes. The new church tested the truth with scripture. That scripture was the OT.
Luk 24:27 Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
So I would only suggest that maybe the power of the small, but passionately living earliest Christian community would be able to produce the Biblical writings.
Excellent...a great response.
It seems the fundamental question really is: is the immediate oral tradition that emerged adequate to account for the incredible coherence of the NT books.
The author is clearly saying that the answer must be no, based upon how complex human knowledge is transmitted and systematized.
I think the author is very persuasive on this point.
It may well be that the NT is, in its entirety, impossibly complex yet coherent to have been produced by anything other than a miraculous/inspired process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.