Posted on 11/07/2015 9:04:37 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
“Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history. . . . The gospels are ancient fiction.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
If Dawkins is correct, one might imagine the following conversation . . .
Luke: Let’s have another round of drinks. I’ve an idea I want to run past you.
John: Sure. What’s on your mind?
Luke: You probably heard about the Nazarene named Jesus who was crucified yesterday. I think he could be the perfect candidate for our fake Messiah project.
Mark: One tiny problem: he’s dead!
Luke: Yes, but that means we’ll control the narrative. We’ll be in charge of his reputation.
Matthew: Who would follow a dead Messiah?
Luke: Nobody, so we’ll begin with a resurrection myth. We’ll hire some thugs to fight off the soldiers guarding his tomb so we can get rid of the corpse.
John: But a missing corpse isn’t the same as a resurrection.
Luke: You’re right, so we’ll have to persuade Jesus’s friends to spend the next 30 years telling everyone he’s risen from the dead, even if sticking to that story means they’ll be imprisoned or killed.
Mark: Okay, then what?
Luke: Well, to make a conspiracy credible you need precise details. So we’ll invent stories where Jesus interacts with people in specific locations.
Matthew: Won’t people just disprove the stories by visiting those places and asking around?
Luke: There’s no need to worry about that. We could invent a story about a synagogue ruler’s terminally ill daughter being healed, give the synagogue ruler a name, set it all in a particular place, and still no one—absolutely no one, not even the people living in that place—would trouble to fact-check. Everyone would simply swallow the story whole!
Mark: It sounds like we’re on safe ground there. But if we want people to follow Jesus, he’ll need a message. People have been waiting for the Messiah for centuries. He’s got to be worth listening to when he finally appears.
John: Good point. I’ll cook up some deep quotes.
Luke: Thanks, John. Mark’s right: you’ll need to put profound wisdom on Jesus’s lips that theological scholars can happily study for their entire careers.
John: Not a problem.
Luke: Guys, it will take us a while to put these documents together. We need to get communities of people worshiping Jesus in the meantime so that when our books come out they’ll get a good reception.
Mark: There’s a guy I know called Saul, he could help with that.
Luke: Saul the Pharisee? I can’t imagine him getting involved with this kind of thing.
Mark: Trust me, he’s our man. I see him leaving behind everything he’s been trained to do and planting congregations of Jesus worshipers throughout the Roman Empire, whatever it costs him personally—beatings, shipwrecks, and the like.
Matthew: Awesome. But Luke, can you just remind me, what’s the point of all this? I mean, what exactly do we get out of this?
Luke: Come on, Matt, it will be so much fun. We’ll watch people being brutally martyred, and we’ll know they’ve been deceived by our dishonest fiction! What’s not to like about that?
John: I agree with Luke. This is definitely worth years of effort on our part. Count me in.
Mark: Me too.
Matthew: I’ll do it if my name comes first in all the promotional material.
Luke: Deal. Let’s get to work.
great point!
[[That means nothing - and highlights a most curious phenomenon of willful ignorance that regularly occurs in Biblical studies. That is, one will wax on about the “fallibility” of the biblical writers while in the same breath accept without question the supposed infallibility of the so-called “experts” he or she has hand-picked to support the view they have chosen to believe.]]
That’s what I was trying to get at only you said it better than I
[[Those who reject biblical truth are not likely to teach and write in support of those truths]]
Exactly- like I suggested, IF someone really wants to get to know truth, they must meet truth and not rely on their own understanding until truth has had a chance to show them the error of their understanding. To put our faith in our own fallible finite understanding is not a very good wager especially when we choose not to participate experientially in that which we criticize
For those demanding proof that God is real before they bleeive, let me just give a simple analogy why asking for proof isn’t very wise- this analogy runs along the line of Pascal’s wager, but puts it into what I think is a readily graspable scene
Suppose someone lived isolated on a mountain somewhere, and some folks had seen him, wrote about him, witnessed Him accomplish things. They inturn told others that this man exists, but those who haven’t seen him refuse to believe it- It would be silly for the unbelievers to suggest the man didn’t exist simply because they refused to go see the fella for themselves.
But let’s take it a step further, let’s suppose the isolated man doesn’t want ot be seen or spoken to, and so won’t reveal his physical presence, or utter audible words to hear. It would still be silly to suggest he doesn’t exist simply because he won’t meet our demand for physical revelation.
Further still- Suppose this man declares that he WILL reveal himself, but only to those who take a leap of faith and believe He exists
Now let’s suppose that belief in this man on the mountain was the only way through which we could see heaven when we die. Would it be wise to reject that he is real simply because he won’t meet our demands of revelation first before faith? When the stakes are so high- eternity in heaven or eternity in hell- would it not be wise to do as the man asks in order to find out if he rally exists?
there are many ways in which God Does reveal Himself when we seek Him- Ways which are not open to those who refuse to believe but who demand that God listen to their demands before they believe
Bottom line is- To put our eternal destiny I n the hands of those who refuse to meet with God, and who wish only to tear His word apart, and who glom onto moot ‘proofs’ which have been refuted over and over again, is not a very wise thing to do- especially given the fact that God proves His word through prophecy, and through personal experience to so many billions of people all down through the ages- He proves His existence in personal ways , and the closer we get to Him, them ore He proves His existence to us in ways that are personal to us ad unique to us. It might be a word of advice from His word that we need at a specific moment, it might be guidance that obviously is led by Him, it might be answers that open doors that could only be opened by Him- on and on it goes- personal experiences that those on the outside are not privy to.
[[and in fact will spend their entire career attempting to tear down the authority of the Bible.]]
A very unwise position to take, but one that many undertake unfortunately. preferring the fallible biases of people hell bent on denying the word of God. Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct your paths.”
Matthew 18:2-4New International Version (NIV)
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Many Scoff at these verses thinking only the gullible and ignorant are deluded into thinking they’ve found something- however, once one does Find God in humility, simply by Trusting in Him- Fin Him to be true and His word to be true, and their eyes are opened to the truth in such a way as to say “It was right there all along, why didn’t I see it?”
Good points!
I can attest to that!
No one is saying that the experts are infallible. However, they have demonstrated strong evidence, using actual manuscripts, to prove their points. The documents and the history support their claims.
You are referring to "the experts" as though there exists a scholarly consensus that the NT was cobbled together centuries after the fact, and is riddled with errors and contradictions. This is a misrepresentation of the state of affairs.
As already mentioned, having spent a good deal of my life involved in biblical studies, including teaching on the college level, I have seen that - far from any kind of consensus - there exists a sharp divide between those scholars who approach their discipline from a position of faith and respect for the full authority of the sacred texts, and those who are dismissive of what they deride as "literalistic fundamentalism" and are dedicated to "proving" that the Bible is not an inspired document.
As for numbers, given the large number of conservative colleges and universities (and thus teaching positions in biblical studies), its a fair guess that there are far more scholars who accept the full authority of the biblical text than oppose it. However, the "liberal/progressive" faction controls important "citadels of power," including Ivy league schools like Harvard, Yale, etc, and of course they can count on support from the MSM (also ruled by anti-faith writers and presenters) should any issue spill over into the news cycle.
However, this does not mean that all positions are equally valid - or invalid. As the old X-Files tagline put it: "The truth is out there." My experience in the field has thoroughly confirmed my faith in the full authority of the biblical texts. I believe if anyone is willing to question the "Received Truths" of the skeptics who reject the very idea of sacred scripture, there are sufficient answers to any troubling questions.
This may involve, for instance, looking beyond the first several Google hits which are typically controlled by the "powers that be." The real eye-opening evidence is often on the 2nd and following pages.
Of course, the theological skeptics/liberals are fond of pointing out that their opponents approach the subject from a position of faith. Fair enough. What the skeptics/liberals fail to admit is that they approach the topic with every bit as much faith as those they oppose. No scholar is capable of personally investigating every fact or truth-claim presented by any scholar.
Scholars are of necessity very narrowly-focused, and are forced to either accept or reject the claims of other scholars in specific fields that are beyond their area of expertise. A professor specializing in one area of Old Testament studies is not in a position to personally evaluate the claims of, say, an expert in Near Eastern Studies with specialty in Assyriology.
What happens in practice is said professor is already likely seeking support in these other areas for a position which he or she is already committed to. So it is not a matter of being "objective" but rather mustering support for one's worldview.
I do not mean to present a pessimistic view of scholarship, as I firmly believe that approaching biblical studies from a strong position of faith will often lead to surprising evidence that the prevailing skeptical culture has ignored or suppressed. Put another way, one cannot "go wrong" by humbling oneself to the divine authority of sacred Scripture and desiring to uphold those texts.
I for one would rather face the ridicule of the enemies of God's Word lest I fall afoul of the words of Jesus: "If anyone causes one of these little ones, those who believe in me, to stumble it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Thanks Jimmy- a great many people can attest to it as well- Even people saved out of completely hedonistic societies where ‘anything goes’ confess that there was always a nagging feeling that something just wasn’t right, that their lifestyle, even though not frowned upon by the evil society they lived in, was immoral and wrong, and that there must have been something else besides the sin which drove their society- They confess that the truth was always right there in front of them the whole time, but they were too blind to see it (and I think this is true for everyone that gets saved- the truth is right there in plain view, but we were too blind to see it for awhile)
Many longtime students of the New Testament and many scholars of the New Testament, including some who began their educations at fundamentalist schools, take my position.
The fact is that the New Testament was put together after the fact. In the early days of Christianity, there were many Scriptures. What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea.
If you approach this from a position of “respect for the full authority of the sacred texts”, you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.
I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of. However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices (which reflect the worldview of the person making them and therefore may or may not be correct interpretations.)
You claim that scholars are “dismissive of what they deride as “literalistic fundamentalism” and are dedicated to “proving” that the Bible is not an inspired document.” I he never read one who fits that description. That is an assumption on your part, based on your already-held theological views, nothing more.
Furthermore, all the quotes attributed to Jesus may not be accurate. Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them. And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.
[[However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices]]
First off there are not many contradictions- not when the issues are examined in context taking into consideration history, culture, phrases of speech particular to the period etc-
Secondly, none of what you describe refutes and earlier writing of the gospel of the apostles- they are simply translation differences after the fact,
[[What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea]]
What has this got to do with anything? Did what was excluded prove the writers of the 4 gospels wrote what they did after 70AD? If not, why even ring this up? Do later translations mean that the original works could not have been before 70 AD? Of course not- why bring it up? Why bring up copies to cast doubt on when the originals were written?
The only real point you’ve brought up in your argument goes something like:
‘Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore John and the gospel writers could not have been eyewitnesses’- and then you just keep repeating that ‘highly credentialed scholars’ ‘have a myriad of information’ that refutes the idea that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses (Yet you fail to produce any of this ‘rock solid’ evidence)- You basically just ‘appeal to authority’ as though that’s enough to settle the matter
The only other point you make really is something along the lines of ‘The bible contains errors’ (apparently in an effort to suggest that none of it can be trusted, and insinuating that the gospels were just stories- and not actual eyewitness accounts)
[[I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of.]]
Well sure you do- when In the face of evidence that refutes the claims you choose to accept the claims over the evidence, you come at it with a perspective that it can’t be theologically true- you are in denial if you think that you are being objective.
Every point that is brought up to show that the bible gospels were written after 70 AD has counter points showing why they can’t be true. John’s gospel talks of a pool outside the present Temple- using the word is and not was-
Do you have some other point you’re trying to make? If so I’ve missed it
[[you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.]]
This isn’t true at all- IF there is evidence that proves otherwise- then it’s a no brainer that the bible is fallible and not trustworthy- Facts are facts, however, In regard to this issue, there is strong evidence the gospels were written before 70 AD contrary to the claims of the few who think otherwise
[[Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them.]]
Yep- and some scholars conclude that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God while other scholars do- so what’s your point?
[[And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.]]
Yeah not so much- again, context is your friend
The destruction of the temple was predicted in Mark 13:2, Matthew 24:2, and Luke 21:6
“Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, ‘As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.’â€
But in order to prove the gospels were written after the fall of temple, scholars have to concoct a story that Jesus never said or predicted this event, and claiming that the apostles later claimed Jesus said these things- essentially lying about the event
So TBP when you say Scholars who doubt that the bible is accurate are objective, this is simply not true- when they have to invent a scenario to claim Jesus never said what he said in order to uphold their hypothesis, then clearly they are not objective and are creating facts to make the puzzle pieces of their hypothesis fit
That may well be. As I attempted to point out, there exists a sharp division among scholars as to the nature of the biblical texts. It is, however, by no means correct to imply that there is a "consensus" among scholars that the biblical texts are not historically reliable.
The fact is that the New Testament was put together after the fact. In the early days of Christianity, there were many Scriptures. What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea.
Your first sentence is self-evident. Your second sentence is unsubstantiated if you are implying that there were many gospels, out of which four were chosen. Yes, there were much later Gnostic gospels that surfaced in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Nicene Creed does not mention a specific list of canonical texts.
The New Testament books that composed the canon are amply represented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, several of whom compiled lists of books that were considered canonical. A careful examination of the lists finds a remarkable correlation with those which were later recognized by the Council of Hippo.
If you approach this from a position of “respect for the full authority of the sacred textsâ€, you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.
No argument here. I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of. However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices (which reflect the worldview of the person making them and therefore may or may not be correct interpretations.)
One must clarify that the doctrine of inspiration extends only to the original manuscripts. Of course slight differences will occur in later copies and translations. However, almost all of the differences are regarding slight differences in wording or phrasing. There are amazingly few changes that impinge upon a significant point of doctrine.
One common claim about alleged "contradictions" has to do with the variations in accounts of events found in the Gospels. However, one must not expect that all the Gospels be carbon copies of each other - if so, what would be the point of having four Gospels?
The point is to present four perspectives of the events of Jesus life that highlight different theological themes. If you can imagine four different accounts of an automobile accident provided by four people viewing it from different perspectives. Of course they will present unique details, they will use differing words and aspects of the events, but the main account will be consistent. This is part of the richness of the Gospels, and in no way is evidence that they are "contradictory."
You claim that scholars are “dismissive of what they deride as “literalistic fundamentalism†and are dedicated to “proving†that the Bible is not an inspired document.†I he never read one who fits that description. That is an assumption on your part, based on your already-held theological views, nothing more.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. As stated, I have spent years in the world of theological and biblical scholarship, and I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many scholars who are not at all open to the idea that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God.
Of course they will not broadcast the hidden intentions of their heart! It is death by a thousand cuts, and all the while, underlying everything they say, is the unspoken assumption that sacred Scripture was a human book written by men trying to convince others to join their particular religion.
Furthermore, all the quotes attributed to Jesus may not be accurate. Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them. And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.
I find this claim particularly specious. How could anyone know with any degree of certainty what other possible things Jesus may or may not have said? Of course the Apostle John himself says that Jesus spoke "many other things that were not written in this book." The Gospels do not claim to be exhaustive compilations of all the words of Jesus.
As for "differing versions of many key quotes," it must be recognized that during his three-year ministry Jesus doubtlessly repeated His teachings to different audiences. Slight variances in the accounts of these teachings are insignificant.
“scholars” = The Jesus Seminar, Brian Flemming, Peter Joseph, and the countless atheist websites that quote them.
TBP, I notice you have studiously avoided specificity, as I pointed out in my last reply to you.
Also, you have not addressed the premise of the original post, much less discredited it.
I’ve been quite specific.
I have seen the work of the Jesus Seminar, and I have found it useful and interesting. No, I am not using Flemming or Joseph. I gather you object to them.
Did Jesus say anything on the way up Calvary?
There were many Gospels and other scriptures in circulation in the early Christian world. As time went on, some came to be more popular than others. Eventually, the church elders sat down and codfied the Scripture, what was in and what was out.
It is not true, as you said, that “almost all of the differences are regarding slight differences in wording or phrasing.” Looking at earlier texts, there are whole sections inserted or deleted, transcription errors that affect meaning, details that change and contradict other details, slanting of the story to a particular audience (each Gospel, for example, was written fora different group of people), and as I noted before, editorial choices regarding which meaning of a word Jesus spoke was the correct one. Correct or incorrect, each of these affects and alters the substance and meaning of the text.
One small contradiction in the Gospel is what Jesus said, if anything, on the way up Calvary. He is quoted in two different Gospels as saying two different things (that’s possible — he could have said both), and in another as being silent all the way up the hill. Now, he could not have spoken and been silent.
Just one, and a small one, but an easy one to remember off the top of my head. And one that is not reconcilable. There are numerous others.
One of the differing versions of a key quote: In Matthew, “You are the light of the world.” In John: I am the light of the world.” Which is accurate?
Really? My Bible only has one Gospel (luke 23:27-31) record of Jesus speaking on the way to Golgotha. Arguments from silence, however, are hardly grounds for allegations of contradiction. The remaining Gospels do not declare Jesus was silent, they simply do not offer any detail.
If one will search the scripture with an honest, fair and open mind, all of your alleged contradictions will vanish.
Have you even investigated the claim you make here? Did you actually read the account yourself? If not, you should read these passages, and see if their is grounds for your weak, specious assertion. I will make it easy for you:
. Matt 27:31:33, Mark 15:20-22, Luke 23:25-33, John 19:16-18.
their is = there are
Richard Dawkins = Certified Dumb@ss
The Our Sun, the Moon and the Stars is God’s signature. Never forget it!
The Matthew passage takes place at the Mt of Olives, and the John passage takes place at the Temple. No contradiction, different time, place, audience and intent. They are both accurate!
Compare to John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
Where are you getting your alleged contradictions? Have you investigated any of them yourself, or are you happy to ignorantly parrot the ramblings of unbelievers?
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.