Posted on 02/16/2009 12:41:27 PM PST by annalex
Alex: Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood
That doesn't follow. Look, myth and legend is how people learned and probably still learn to a large extent. The Serbs managed to turn their disastrous (and blundering) defeat in Kosovo in 1398 into a moral victory. The resistance to the Nazi occupation of Serbia and Greece is believed to have delayed the invasion of Russia and contributed to the demise of Hitler's army due to late start and an early winter. Some of it may be true (late start), but the weather was not influenced by the Serbs' and Greeks' resistance!
It cold have just as easily been a late winter in which case the history would have been quite different. or it could have been an early invasion along with a late winter, in which case the outcome of WWII might have been rather different. But I am sure it makes the Serbs and Greeks feel good to magnify their part in slowing down the enemy, just as it makes the Serbs feel bitter-sweet about being defeated in Kosovo Polye in 1389, and growing spiritually and morally strong from the cross that was imposed upon them. They are feel-good rationalizations. And they are false associations even if their message is useful and profitable.
According tot he Gospels, Alex, not by anyone else. The Gospels are a biased source. They are no diffreent than, say, Egyptians making a habit of not mention of their defeats. We have extrabiblical evidence of Christians, but not of Christ miracles or resurrection. Again, there are only two eyewitnesses in the New Testament. The other nine wrote nothing. And the aposotlic authoriship of the Gospels is a late second century claim. Until then, no one refers ot any of the Gospel verses by the name of the Apostle.
Indeed, for someone who wa so visible, and public, in addition to someone who was such a "threat" to the Sanhedrin and even to Rome, it is really remarkable that nothing official has been written by either Jewish or Roman sources, given that we have documents of much more mundane nature.
Some of these are impositions by the Church. If we are going to go by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, then pretty much what's in the Creed is what makes one Christian, and real presence is not part if. But, anyone who was ever in an Orthodox Church knows that in order for someone to receive communion, one must recite the words that affirm the belief in the Real Presence "I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood..." which is an ecclesial imposition and not a Credal statement.
Excommunication in the Catholic vernacular and the orthodox usage is like and day. In the East it merely means you are denied communion. In the west, by a definition adopted in 1912, the Catholic Church equates it with anathema. Someone who denies the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection of the Lord would be anathematized rather than just excommunicated. Excommunication in the East is usually of a temporary nature, as part of penance.
They saw Christ die, and then they saw him walk, talk, fish, eat, touched His wounds, etc
Who saw him die? Who saw him resurrect? John? The disciple he loved is only presumed to be John. There are other candidates. Does John say he saw him die. Other authors describe events in great detail as if they were there, but they weren't. So, whose "eyewitness" version(s) are they conveying?
No, it doesn't, but simply because someone says they do, doesn't mean they do, doe sit? Again, someone;s belief is not sufficient evidence that something is true. I can't argue with dreams and figments of someone;s imagination. But I don not confuse my own dreams with my wakeful reality either.
There has always been the Sacred Deposit of faith that Christ left with the disciples. This gave them an internal compass: an ability to sort out the stories, reminiscences, parables, moral teaching into those that rang true and those that did not ring true
This is true, but this is also true of all other Christian sects. They all had an initial "deposit" of beliefs, which were readily verifiable in the Gospels later on. Of course, these were their Gospels. What we have are the surviving Gospels of a particular religious party we call orthodox, to which we belong and with which we share beliefs, so "naturally" it is the "correct" version. Again, there is the phenomenon of equating one's beliefs with facts.
The Orthodox sense was always there; this is why St. Irenaeus may not have the entirety of the Christian theology, but those things he writes about a modern orthodox theologian could write. The councils confirmed what the Church already believed
Of course there was. It was a religious party, dedicated to certain principle,s base don certain beliefs. Just as Sadducees and Samaritans and Essenes and Pharisees were. Today's Judaism is an outgrowth of Pharisaical Judaism as much as todays' Christianity is an outgrowth of Pauline Christianity. We may consider it "orthodox" (we are biased, remember), but it is only because the victors get to write the history.
What does the "deposit of faith" mean? It simply means a set of beliefs. There is no evidence that any particular party is led by the Holy Spirit. The liberals are pro-choice; the conservatives are pro-life. That is not going to change. Each side has it's "deposit of faith." Only one will become the dominant factor, and with it its official truth.
Are followers of Arius morally flawed simply because they don't see Jesus as co-equal with the Father? Are Protestant morally flawed because they don't share the belief in the Eucharist? Morality is not an issue here. Orthodoxy must be able to demonstrate not necessarily moral superiority, which would become self-evident if it were to show that it is the intrinsically correct version of Christianity, whatever objective criteria existed for such a proof. So far, no such case has been made.
The councils confirmed what the Church already believed
No, the Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries did not believe what the Church believed under Origen and Tertullian. The Church simply did not figure" out exactly what was believed; it was a work in progress.
This is why I always tell you that blind faith comes before theology. In other words, people proclaim belief in Christ before even knowing why they believe! When a whole bunch of people were "licked" by the fire-like Holy Spirit on the Pentecost, none of them knew why they believed; they were suddenly transformed, according to the Bible, from non-believers into believers. I think it is safe to say that the "multitudes" acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, but couldn't really tell you much more what that entailed.
They knew nothing about the faith, pretty much like infants. In fact, baptism was seen as the substitute for circumcision, so there is no reason why the earliest Christians, who were mostly Jews, would not baptize children, since all Jewish infants are circumcised shortly after birth.
But, as time went on, Christians began to realize that what they believed in was slightly different for the guy next door, so they began to congregate into different groups, according to like-mindedness, insisting they were right and others were wrong. In doing so, they had to define and defend what they believed in, thereby giving rise to specific Christian theologies.
This differentiation apparently took place fairly soon, because the book of Acts and Paul speak of such rival groups, and by the middle of the second century these divisions blossomed into full blown theological wars. The religious party we otherwise know as the "orthodox" side was advancing its beliefs, and won in establishing itself as the dominant Christian theology, but it took three hundred years to do so, and even then not in an absolute sense.
Like any party of men, it needed bylaws (canons) and statements of faith (corporations call them mission or vision statements), and the ecclesial (church) administration mechanism along with officers (hierarchy) to run it. It was no longer an ekklesia (i.e. simply gathering of the faithful), but a well-defined organization with an equally well-defined set of beliefs (theology).
The same can be said of modern Judaism being the outgrowth of Pharisaical Judaism. The Essenes and the Sadducee religious parties vanished (there are only about 700 Samaritans left, so they don't count, although they are the only genuine surviving priestly Judaic sect with animal sacrifices to this day because their temple was never destroyed).
The surviving (redefined) rabbinical Judaism then began to splinter in a fashion similar to that of Christianity according to differences in how different people perceive their faith.
So, yes, among the "multitudes" who were converted on the Pentecost, there were those whose faith was of the orthodox variety, even if they didn't have it all neatly defined and written down.
There is ample evidence of alterations as time progressed. As for the fate of the original documents, let's just say they were all "lost" (conveniently). What we are left with is the orthodox theology and the orthodox canon (in that order) that have been carefully preserved by the orthodox Church (I am using orthodox here as a party name or designation, such as republican, progressive, etc., and not as meaning "right").
This is probably not what most Orthodox/Catholic believers want to hear, but evidence shows that this is the case. The Church has actively engaged dissenters first with arguments and later with other means, and in active destruction of writings that disagreed with orthodoxy, for the sole purpose of removing any impurity from the mutually agreed orthodox version of Christianity.
It is not reasonable since the Old Testament is not a clear prophesy, but an implied prophesy, just as Matthew 16:18 is not a clear commission of the Pope to all Christians, but only to those who want to see it that way. We don't know what Paul was telling the Jews in Thessaloniki and Berea, but whatever it was, the Bible claimed it converted some Jews and some Greeks (what were the Greeks doing in the synagogues; did the rabbis allow them also check the Old Testament?!?)
Bible interpretation was not given to the observant Jews but to rabbis (teachers). If the rabbis in Israel rejected Christianity, why would they be more inclined to accept it in Greece or elsewhere? Especially if Paul also included his "the law doesn't count" sermon!
Then preaching and arguments are irrelevant. This also doesn't fit in with the Pentecostal conversion of the "multitudes." There was very little "scripture" in what the Christians preached, FK; they healed the "sick" (demon-possessed) to establish "credibility" (in another words, gaining authority through magic) and they preached the coming of the kingdom of heaven and the need to repent, to sell what they owned and distribute to the poor, etc., because they were an apocalyptic sect expecting the end of the world to come within their lifetime.
That was not what Judaism taught about the coming of the messiah. How could they justify that with scriptures (and which scriptures) when the NT wasn't written yet?
Where is Christ crucified and resurrected in the Old Testament? Isaiah 53? That is not how Judaism interpreted the Suffering Servant because the same Suffering Servant is mentioned elsewhere in Isaiah as Israel.
You can just as easily use the same OT to refute what Paul was saying. Using the same OT, the Jews make a point that Christ does not fit the requirements of the messiah found in the specific sections of the Tanakh, except for one (being Jewish).
But don't you think, at least as a telltale, a Man who was crucified and then resurrected would have been notorious in the marketplace, if not in religious circles, so close to Palestine?
Do you think the word of mouth would not have brought to their attention that this Man was performing unheard-of miracles? Some 25 years after Christ, no one in Greek-speaking Anatolia and mainland seems to have heart of Jesus who walks on water and feeds multitudes with five loaves of bread and five fish, and who heals the blind and brings people back to life. I find that very curious.
By all accounts the immediate area surrounding Palestine never even heard of such a Man, not even the Jews in Diaspora who were in contact with Israel. Besides, Israel did not exist in a vacuum; Greek merchants regularly visited the land and they would have surely reported on rumors of such inordinary events.
In some ways, the Bible stories are really extremely naïve, as much as they are fantastic, when you think about it.
I disagree completely. New Testament is all you need to have Christianity. You could never be a Christian based on the Old Testament alone. The Old Testament supplements the New Testament but is is clear that the basis and the seed of Christian religion is the New Testament alone.
Kosta: Paul really does not treat Jesus as God but as someone God raised, someone lesser than the Father, the only God as far as Paul is concerned
FK: I could not possibly disagree more
Paul goes as far as explicitly stating that the only God known to him is the Father. The Father is the only God he ever refers to as "God" (and so does the Creed for that matter). There is no co-equality of the Son, let alone the Spirit, in Pauline theology (or for that matter in the Creed if you think about it—homoousia, same essence, i.e. divinity, is not ranking). He persistently uses the passive perfect tense when referring to Jesus' raising (i.e. "he was raised," not "he rose") and often complements this, so there is never any confusion, with "by God" (i.e. the Father).
No, because, as the Creed shows, Pauline verses are subtly "modified" in the Creed. The bulk of Pauline teaching remains the foundation of the church, as the one who built the Church.
Or, did those who came hundreds of years later know what Paul meant in his writings better than he did? It would seem that would have to be the claim
Paul is a pastoral guide not a divine revelation. What he taught is good advice but the backbone of the theology are the Gospels. Thus, Pauline teaching must be "squeezed" to agree with the Gospels and not the other way around. If there is something that does not agree with the orthodox faith based on the Gospels, it is modified or rejected or, more often, simply ignored,
Alex: Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood.
That's the exact argument I earlier made concerning a disbelief in the truth of the Exodus story and Jesus' celebration of the Passover. The alternative is that Jesus was spiritually observing a fable. That just can't be true.
Kosta, 13 posts! I’ll just point out what hasn’t been covered, responding to all of them in this one post.
My remark about the creed was a bit offhand. I always thought that “according to the scriptures” makes a reference to the entirety of the Scriptures, and encompasses not only the actual gospels, and not only the prophesy in Isaiah, but all prophetic and historical content of both the Old and the New Testaments. That includes the three days Jonah spent in the belly of the whale. I agree that the creed makes a summary of the scripture regarding Jesus, but I would not call it a “subtle alteration” because it is in the nature of a summary to not copy one single constituent part. I think it is an accurate summary of what the scripture has to say about Christ.
I strongly disagree regarding the evidential nature of the Gospels. It is true that the evidence that is strongest is also from a biased source, since one who saw Christ come from the dead would be a fool not to convert to Christianity. It is also true that the actual death was seen by few, and the actual moment of the resurrection by none. It is possible to concoct scenarios that explain the resurrection away as a hoax, or some mistake, but the explanations of the unbelievers seem all strained. The totality of the evidence of Jesus’s life and resurrection, first in oral testimony and then written down and partly codified in scripture is solid. There is room for disbelief — millions of Muslims who think the resurrection was a hoax are not all ignorant fools, — but the natural reading of the evidence leads us to believe.
Note, too, that the atheist logic postulates absence of the supernatural, and from that foundational bias discard all evidence for the supernatural. That is not logical, unbiased examination of evidence.
Regarding the Jewish history, it is more ancient and I know less of it. I am comfortable with the idea that, perhaps, the Jews were an insignificant tribe and their exodus from Egypt escaped notice and hence left no independent evidence; that their military success is grossly exagerrated. That is not, however, incompatible with the chosen character of the Jewish race (the Egyptian race that enslaved them, for example, does not survive). It also has no bearing on the accuracy of their tribal memory of the ancient patriarchs, or on the inspired character of Old Testament theological cosmology.
Other religions have natural wisdom indeed. Much in what Christ revealed can be also grasped intellectually. Hence all serious religions are approximations of Christianity, as well as an error.
It doesn’t seem likely to me that Jesus likened his own mission to a legend of Jonah, if it were a mere legend in His mind. I suppose it is logically possible, but it is not a natural belief that arises from reading Jesus’s allusions to Jonah.
Regarding other Christian sects. The purest, fullest deposit of faith was with the apostles and is reflected in the canonical gospels and the epistles. It does not have the formulaic clarity of the creed and the councils. The heretics, — the gnostics, the marcionites, and the rest were attempts to rationalize the deposit of faith, which they received from secondary sources. A debate ensued and the victors, like you say, wrote the history. Why is it in any way bad? We know the heretical believes well; one is free to adopt them today, and I would argue that many do. How does that contradict the orthodoxy of the early Church?
A heretic, indeed, has his own faith, and considers HIS faith to be in connection with the Sacred Deposit of Faith, in agreement with the Scripture, lead by the Holy Spirit, and so on. That he has all that faith does not make it so; whereas I, being Catholic, can read both pro and contra the heresies of old and recognize my Church of today (as well as the Orthodox Church) in the early Church. They cannot. That is the criterion of objective truth, that overrides personal faiths.
What you have, Kosta, is a case of marcionism complicated by modernistic pseudo-rationality and relativism.
Where we agree: The Old Testament is to be read differently and through the prism of the New Testament. It is a poor source of theological prooftexts. Much of it is what God had to say to the ancient Jews as His children. And children they were: rebellious, disobedient, irrational little things that required upbrigning and chastisement. So God gave them simple rules of dos and donts. They viewed God as a child views his father: someone who is to be feared, angry, tyrannical, even monstrous. With Christ, we are adults. But it doesn’t mean our childhood is all a fable. It is reality, — we better not forget it.
Of course.
The particular verse does not make a summary of the whole Bible; it paraphrases a verse in 1 Corinthians, making a subtle change in the perfect tense from passive to active, but drastically changing the meaning. Otherwise it's verbatim what Paul wrote. I would call that a subtle, deliberate alteration for a desired theological effect, and without having to say Paul was in Christological error.
It is also true that the actual death was seen by few
By whom?
since one who saw Christ come from the dead would be a fool not to convert to Christianity
Last time I checked even some of his own disciples, 40 days after his appearance before them doubted him (cf Mat 28:17). If you can't even accept biblical evidence, what will you accept? The Bible clearly contradicts your own conclusion!
The totality of the evidence of Jesus’s life and resurrection, first in oral testimony and then written down and partly codified in scripture is solid
Not that solid, Alex. Solid evidence doesn't require blind faith. Solid evidence is doubted only by nuts (like those in the Flat Earth Society).
A biased sources is not a credible witness.
Note, too, that the atheist logic postulates absence of the supernatural, and from that foundational bias discard all evidence for the supernatural. That is not logical, unbiased examination of evidence
There is no parity, Alex. Atheist logic does not "postulate" absence of the supernatural; atheist logic says if something happens in nature it is natural. It is up to the supernaturalists to prove that there is something outside the nature appearing in nature. Atheist logic does not discard anything. It simply asks for proof of the supernatural, which is sadly lacking. Supernaturalist demand a priori assumption of "supernatural"without being able to show any evidence except by man-made tales.
Furthermore, I will say that supernatural is often a shortcut used to "explain" the inexplicable, often even being outright superstition. I will further state that what is real in someone's imagination is just a figment of their imagination unless they can show that it is a universal phenomenon. If you can fly in your dreams, it doesn't follow that you can do the same when you are awake and in contact with the real world. Anyone who cannot tell the difference between a dream and the real world has a problem.
Regarding the Jewish history, it is more ancient and I know less of it
More ancient than what? Most of what is in the OT legends and myths is found in other, older religions, almost verbatim.
I am comfortable with the idea that, perhaps, the Jews were an insignificant tribe and their exodus from Egypt escaped notice and hence left no independent evidence
Then the Bible accounts of the plagues and the demise of the whole Egyptian army is, well, a myth that never happened. I am comfortable with that.
That is not, however, incompatible with the chosen character of the Jewish race (the Egyptian race that enslaved them, for example, does not survive)
By that logic, Hindus must be an even more chosen people.
Hence all serious religions are approximations of Christianity, as well as an error
I agree, form the Christian point of view. As long as you understand that this "error" is relative to the believer. The Jews can say that Christianity is a bad imitation of Judaism, although it has elements of Judaism.
Regarding other Christian sects. The purest, fullest deposit of faith was with the apostles and is reflected in the canonical gospels and the epistles
Sorry, the New Testament does not support your claim. Every Chrisotlogical heresy found its "proof" in the New Testament.
The heretics, — the gnostics, the marcionites, and the rest were attempts to rationalize the deposit of faith, which they received from secondary sources
Last time I checked, Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses , but were using secondary sources. Paul never witnessed Christ in Person. None of the disciples heard what Pontius Pilate and Jesus talked about. None of the Synoptic Gospel authors heard Jesus on the cross, or saw him die. There is a question if John did (because there are other contenders to the title some ascribe to John as the disciple Jesus loved). If John were the only witness, don't you think the others would say they got it from John?
Not a single apostle was awake in Gethsemane to quote Jesus directly as they do. Not one was present in the desert for 40 days with Jesus. Not one was there when Jonah was swallowed by the fish. Not one was present when the Sanhedrin tried Jesus. No one was there when infant Moses took a ride down the Nile in a tarred basket. All this is secondary source, based on something legends are made of. Yet they quote Jesus verbatim as if they recorded what he said! I know, someone will tell me the Holy Spirit told them.
Well if he did he didn't do a good job because they all got is somewhat different, couldn't make up their minds as to how many people were present, how many women discovered the empty tomb, how many angels were there, or were they only men, etc. Too sloppy to get the Holy Spirit involved in if you know what I mean.
A debate ensued and the victors, like you say, wrote the history. Why is it in any way bad?
It's not bad. As long as it is recognized that being victorious doesn't mean being objective or right. I think some people believe that being victorious does make one right! That's subscribing to might is right principle.
We know the heretical believes well; one is free to adopt them today, and I would argue that many do. How does that contradict the orthodoxy of the early Church?
It doesn't contradict the orthodoxy. But it doesn't make orthodoxy orthodox either, if you know what I mean. Just because party calls itself "democratic" doesn't mean it is democratic! North Korea calls itself "democratic" and only a hard-line communist might say it is! It's partisan to the core.
A heretic, indeed, has his own faith, and considers HIS faith to be in connection with the Sacred Deposit of Faith, in agreement with the Scripture, lead by the Holy Spirit, and so on. That he has all that faith does not make it so
Wow, I agree! I have been saying for the longest time that just because someone believes something doesn't make it right! Maybe we are making progress. :)
whereas I, being Catholic, can read both pro and contra the heresies of old and recognize my Church of today (as well as the Orthodox Church) in the early Church. They cannot. That is the criterion of objective truth, that overrides personal faiths
Oh, darn, I was too optimistic. That's not objective truth, but subjective interpretation. The orthodox Church was in the early Church together with all the heretical ones. They can recognize their own in the history and, more importantly, in the scriptures just as the orthodox Church does! The objective truth is that the divisions appeared almost immediately after the Pentecost.
What you have, Kosta, is a case of marcionism complicated by modernistic pseudo-rationality and relativism
What we have here is labeling. There is nothing "Marcionist" about me. And, speaking of pseudo-science, I am not the one claiming talking donkeys, Alex!
Where we agree: ... Much of it is what God had to say to the ancient Jews as His children.
No this is where we disagree. :) You must have me confused with someone else. God of the Genesis did not make "children." He made Adam and Eve, fully reproductively mature humans, capable of speech and understanding, beings supposedly in God's image and likeness. If the people are children, then, by reflection, God must be too, being that we are made in his image.
And children they were: rebellious, disobedient, irrational little things that required upbringing and chastisement
You forgot the wicked! He could have done a better job, don't you think? I mean, if you had a choice how your children will turn out, would you create a wicked, troubled child who is born hating you? There is something very troubling in what you are saying.
They viewed God as a child views his father: someone who is to be feared, angry, tyrannical, even monstrous
Tyrannical, monstrous father? Loving God? Some role model.
With Christ, we are adults. But it doesn’t mean our childhood is all a fable.
You mean this is all by design? In that case Christ didn't come to "save" the world, but to turn the page.
But the paraphrase is fitting for the summary of the Christian faith -- not of the "entire Bible". The Creed is a summary, and a accurate one.
By whom [was the actual death of Christ seen]?
Why, by Mary, John, the Centurion, Mary Magdalene, Mary Cleopas at least.
doubted him
Naturally. But they became convinced enough to die for this conviction.
Solid evidence doesn't require blind faith
Christianity doesn't require blind faith. It is in fact a defect of faith if it is unquestioning.
It is up to the supernaturalists to prove that there is something outside the nature appearing in nature
Right, that part is true. So if one sees someone executed and buried, and then he walks, talks and eats with them, that's the proof that something out of the natural order has happened. Then denying the evidence becomes superstition.
found in other, older religions, almost verbatim ... myth that never happened.
The sacrifice of Isaac, the Exodus, the giving of the Law is verbatim on other religions? Well, it is in Islam, as they read the same Bible. Other than that?
Whether private sotries of Abraham, Joseph, etc. never happened well, there can be no proof. That the Egyptians never recorded their defeat is not a prove that it never happened, as you yourself noted, nations are prone to such selective memory. It possibly was not as catastrophic as the Jewish history suggests, -- I would not argue that point.
"error" is relative to the believer
No. There are truths and untruths. These things cannot be relative. Gravity is not relative to the student of physics, and neither what Christ did and taught is relative to the student of God.
Every Chrisotlogical heresy found its "proof" in the New Testament
There are prooftexts here and there. The New Testament as a whole does not support anything but orthodox Catholic faith.
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.