The discussion on this thread is getting hard to read because of its length (most of which is my fault). I'm creating this post to make things more readable. See the comments section for my response to Terri's last post.
When I have a moment I might break each of the key issues out into its own post, which will make keeping track of the lines of argument infinitely easier.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
He does not appear out of thin air and with no relation to an already established religion in the same way that Mormonism, Islam and Scientology appear.
From a Christian point of view, Jesus is merely the fullfillment of Hebrew scriptures, not the beginning of a new religion. Obviously, Jewish people don;t believe that.
From a Muslim point of view, Muhammad is merely the fulfilment of Hebrew and Christian scriptures, not the beginning of a new religion. Obviously, Jewish and Christian people don't believe that.
From where I'm standing, it seems like Islam "appears out of thin air" to precisely the same extent that Christianity does.
Can't comment on Mormonism because I don't know enough about its doctrines. I'll give you Scientology, although a Scientologist would probably point out that their "founding events" supposedly happened 75 million years ago.
And, while much of the New Testament church and Christianity are based on Jesus' teachings, we also have the letters of Paul, Peter, James, John... [etc]
True. But, as I said, neither Mormonism nor Scientology are based purely on one person's revelations. It may interest you to know that the first page of the Book of Mormon lists 11 eyewitnesses to the golden plates that Joseph Smith claimed to have transcribed the holy text from. It is not exceptional for a religion to have secondary witnesses and teachers; rather, it is the normal state of affairs. Even Islam traces its law through the Companions of Mohammed, in the same way that Paul and the Disciples traced their teachings back to Christ.
Your quote from Jesus is an accurate quote, but it doesn't convey the same sense to me. Part of that is my obvious bias to believing that Jesus was divine..but I know that won't hold much water with you.
It doesn't, because those other religions would say exactly the same thing about their charismatic founder(s). It seems to me that, by any objective standard, they're no more cults than Christianity is.
Or maybe "no less" would be more appropriate? :)
(Of course, I don't even know if you believe in an historic Jesus or think him a complete fabrication.)
For the record, I believe that there was a real person corresponding to the Biblical Jesus. I think he was a holy man and a popular religious leader. He quite probably did some of the "miracles" that are ascribed to him like healing the sick and feeding the five thousand.
However, so far there's nothing to distinguish him from other holy men like Apollonius the Revivalist, who had disciples and performed miracles and so on. The only difference is that Jesus was in the right place and the right time and teaching the right things so that a variant of his teachings became very popular with disaffected Romans.
The fact that most people know of Jesus but not of Apollonius is IMO a pure historical accident.
The goal is not "Do everything I say, and I might let you into Heaven." Instead it is,"Believe in me and I will make you like me, a child of God...suitable for Heaven."
Several branches of Islam believe the same thing about Mohammed, if I recall correctly.
A cult relies on the hoarding of power and knowledge. Christianity is about shared knowledge and power.(not power in the earthly sense of the word)
Er... I refer you to the first 1.5 millennia of Christianity's existence, when it was all about hoarding power and knowledge. The Church in this era made Scientology look like a public library. The tendency towards openness is a post-Reformation phenomenon. So the best you can say is that Christianity wasn't a cult for the first and last few centuries of its existence.
Again, Sikhism is another example of a religion that (in its early stages) genuinely showed no interest in power, instead being focused on good deeds and building trust between communities.
Where is the corroboration for that view [that Mormonism and Islam are continuations of Judaism/Christianity]? Why are there no sources for such a view other than the sources created by the founders?
Where is the corroboration that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism? The only evidence I've seen is lots of alleged prophecies in Jewish scripture, most of which seem to rely on extremely blatant exegesis. Obviously no members of the Jewish religion are convinced by this "evidence" that's supposedly to be found in their own scriptures.
IMO there's very little corroboration for the claimed pedigree of Islam and Mormonism. But IMO there's no more corroboration for Christianity. Again, a standard of evidence that rules one out appears to rule them all out.
unless you're tired of some strange American bending your ear...err...I mean comment box. Feel free to say "enough..leave me alone already!" anytime you want. :-)
Like I say, I thoroughly enjoy this sort of discussion - you're making my day here. Plus, I would not want to get the atheism tattoo until I was quite sure that I'd heard a representative sample of the available counterarguments.
When you say:
Obviously no members of the Jewish religion are convinced by this "evidence" that's supposedly to be found in their own scriptures.
That is true of most people of the Jewish faith. However, there are Messianic Jews who have believed this message, both now and in the past. They are obviously not in the majority of Jewish people.
Also, if a Jewish person converts to Christianity, they sometimes aren't seen as being Jewish any longer. They become absorbed into a larger framework. So when we say Jews don't believe in Jesus, it is mostly a redundant statement. It's like sayig Atheists don't believe in God. That's why they are called Atheists. They wouldn't refer to themselves as Atheisits who believe in God? Do you catch my meaning?
Jesus' mission was first and foremeost to the Jewish people. The Old Testament was a record of the Hebrews and God's interaction with them. When Jesus came, he preached to the Jews in Israel/Palestine, not to the Gentiles.
All of Jesus' disciples were Jewish. Those who listened to Jesus' Semon on the Mount and followed Him wherever he went were Jewish. The thousands of new believers in the first few chapters of Acts were Jewish. All of the authors of the New Testament Epistles were Jewish.
So, it's not true to say that no Jews were convinced by the "evidence" of their own Scriptures. It's more correct to view early Christianity as another form of Judaism, not as a completely new religion.
Er... I refer you to the first 1.5 millennia of Christianity's existence, when it was all about hoarding power and knowledge.
A valid point as far as corruption and power go, but not really indicative of what Scripture teaches or of what the spirital message of Christ was/is. Bad things have been done in the guise of Christianity. I will only say that it reminds me of the comment you made at Amanda's about religious motives versus non-religious motives and evil. People who want power will use whatever means necessary to get it, even if it means bending a church to their will.
It may interest you to know that the first page of the Book of Mormon lists 11 eyewitnesses to the golden plates that Joseph Smith claimed to have transcribed the holy text from.
I went to Wikipedia and read more on this issue. What is interesting is that the Three Witnesses experienced this "vision" while with Jospeh Smith and while praying for some sort of vision about the plates. This sort of situation is ripe for manipulation. It creates an Emperor Has No Clothes moment. Who is going to speak up and say, "No, I dont see anything." The article about the Witnesses says:
All three witnesses eventually broke with Smith and were excommunicated from the church he founded,[1] but to varying degrees, they also all continued to testify to the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.
The article has a lot more interesting info. After reading it I guess I am still at a loss as to how you can't see the point I am making about having some sort of historical corroboration to a religion. For instance: Would metal plates be a technology that people in The Americas used or had access to? Why would Hebrew people have recorded their history in "reformed Egyption", a language that has never been heard of or seen anywhere else on the planet? Is it of interest that Jospeh Smith was a treasure hunter by trade and just happened to find this revelation in the same way one would find buried treasure?
Do you see why I don't even think twice about Mormonism? Everything it is based on comes from one source, and one source only--Jospeh Smith.
All this is to say that expecting a few certain things from a set of beliefs would make it easy for you to ferret out certain religions if you began to believe in God. I won't pretend that you'll wind up right at Christianity's doorstep after beginning to investigate the origins and claims of religion, but I do thik that Chrisitianity is vastly different than Mormonism.
So when we say Jews don't believe in Jesus, it is mostly a redundant statement.
Of course. I was just pointing out that, if Jesus were a prophesied Jewish messiah, you'd have expected more of the alleged "chosen people" to have recognised that. I mean, it's not exactly as if the Jews have been averse to following messiahs over the years.
A valid point as far as corruption and power go, but not really indicative of what Scripture teaches or of what the spirital message of Christ was/is.
Sure. But, for example, these scientology splinter groups would probably say that the cultish nature of the Church of Scientology is not really indicative of Scientology's message.
In other words, if you're going to use this defense of Christianity, you should also cease arguing against other religions on the basis that their proponents are cultists. It may be true, but it's an accusation that cuts both ways.
What is interesting is that the Three Witnesses experienced this "vision" while with Jospeh Smith and while praying for some sort of vision about the plates. This sort of situation is ripe for manipulation.
I completely agree. But then I had the same reaction to the story of Jesus meeting his disciples after the crucifixion. Again, although Mormonism's foundation doesn't seem very reliable, neither does Christianity's.
After reading it I guess I am still at a loss as to how you can't see the point I am making about having some sort of historical corroboration to a religion.
I can completely see your point, and it's one of the many reasons why I think Mormonism is a crock. But I'm at a loss as to how you think Christianity holds up any better under historical scrutiny.
Genesis is a crock. Most of the rest of the Pentateuch is a crock. Big chunks of the Gospels are almost certainly a crock. Revelations is about as croccy as it's possible to be without lurking in rivers impersonating a floating log.
I agree that knowledge should be independently testable to be trustworthy. But that's not true of Christianity either. I love the idea of setting up a standard of evidence first and then seeing which religions fit it. But all such approaches seem to rule out Christianity too.
If I seem bemused by your comments, it's because you seem to be sawing off the branch your religion is sitting on.
it's because you seem to be sawing off the branch your religion is sitting on.
I understand how you might feel that way. I never assumed that you would say,"Oh...gee...I never thought of that. How do I convert?"
I really don't think that Christianity and Mormonism are even remotely on the same footing. As a skeptic, I don't expect you to believe the theology of Christianity, but I would think that you would accept the historical evidence for it and much of the Old Testament. We know the people in the New Testament actually existed, as opposed to the people in the "golden tablets" of Jospeh Smith. We know the languages they spoke are consistent with the manuscripts that are written, as aoopsed to the "language" Smith made up. We know that the historical figures and places in the book existed...and Smiht's stories? IF you're going to call it a fraud, at least admit that it is a much more sophisticated fraud! ;-)
re: Genesis
The first 11 chapters of Genesis have a very different feel to them than the 12th chapter onward. Once we get to chapter 12 and are introduced to Abram things start to feel differently. The world, though still filled with some strange happenings, begins to resemble something familiar. There are cities, tribes, leaders etc.
I am still on the fence about the creation account, not because I don't believe that God created everything, but because I don't think the point was the "how" so much as the "why". 6 days, 6,000years, 6 million years, etc. It's not relevant in my view because I don't think it has anything to do with the point of the Creation Account.
Different parts of Scripture have different purposes. An epistle is a very different literary form than a geneaology. Revelations is a different literary form than the Proverbs. So, I would ask, is it possible that you think certain things are a crock because you are reading them with expectations that don't fit the form?
That leads into hermeneutics and exegetical arguments that may be far afield of what we're talking about right now.
But all such approaches seem to rule out Christianity too.
May I ask why? What specifically rules out Christianity?
But, for example, these scientology splinter groups would probably say that the cultish nature of the Church of Scientology is not really indicative of Scientology's message.
Yes, but that goes back to an earlier point I made. Many religions have principles which aren't necessarily false. Scientology's focus on reordering one's thoughts is proabably enormously helpful to some people. There are times when we let negative thoughts keep us from doing better in our lives. I can affirm that truth without being a Scientologist or believing their Narrative of the Universe.
Another approach is to look at a particular religion's theology and see if its principles ring "true". I wonder if you shy away from such a thing because it requires a judgment that can't be entirely measured.
Personally, my faith is strengthened by the world I see around me. Time after time I see the themes of Christian theology play out before me on a global scale, and in my personal life.
What are these themes?
1. The depravity of humans. It only takes about 2 minutes of watching the news to realize how completely screwed up humans are and can be.
2. The power of forgiveness. Forgiveness has the ability to release people personally and corporately. Refusing to be led by grudges and bitterness is an important skill for an individual and for a nation.
3. A universal desire for justice and truth. People everywhere want fairness and truth. Even your desire to probe and question is fueled by a desire to be "sure" about what you believe/know. You believe that there is a "truth" to be known, even if that truth is that there is nothing. Why do humans care so much about that?
There are more, but I think those 3are important
time for a break again!
"as aoopsed to the "language" Smith made up. We know that the historical figures and places in the book existed...and Smiht's stories?"
this should read:
as opposed to the language Smith made up. We know that the historical figures and places in the New Testament existed....and Smith's places and people?
I never assumed that you would say,"Oh...gee...I never thought of that. How do I convert?"
:-D
I hope you realise I just spat juice over my keyboard...
As a skeptic, I don't expect you to believe the theology of Christianity, but I would think that you would accept the historical evidence for it and much of the Old Testament.
Some of it is probably valid, but some of it is almost certainly fake as a tin shilling. IIRC, current academic consensus is that the Pentateuch is merely a collection of tribal myths - so Abraham and Moses were probably fantasies. Archaeological evidence appears to indicate that Jericho was unoccupied at the time that Joshua would have been there - he's a myth to explain the ruins.
Much of the later books of the OT is probably based on actual events. However, that's going to be true of any religion that accumulates its holy books over a long enough period - for example, you wouldn't believe in Sikhism just because their holy book got the genealogy of local emperors correct. David almost certainly existed, but Kings presents a highly romanticised version of his biography.
In the New Testament, the broad outline of Jesus' ministry described in Mark were probably correct - Mark was apparently only a second-hand source - but the extra detail in Matthew and Luke looks to me like a mix of urban myths and retroactive attempts to make Jesus fulfil the Jewish prophecies.
For example, there are two separate genealogies for Jesus, with almost no overlap. There are two separate nativity stories, which only overlap on the question of where Jesus was born (which was necessary to fulfil prophecy). Matthew constantly lists details which he would have no way of reliably knowing (for example, Matt. 28:11-15 is a fairly blatant attempt to spread counter-rumours).
Different parts of Scripture have different purposes. An epistle is a very different literary form than a geneaology. Revelations is a different literary form than the Proverbs. So, I would ask, is it possible that you think certain things are a crock because you are reading them with expectations that don't fit the form?
As I think I've shown above, it's not just the "poetic" bits that I think are a crock.
May I ask why? What specifically rules out Christianity?
If a religion must be historically accurate to be worth believing in, then any religion incorporating the Pentateuch is ruled out (see above for detailed discussion).
If a religion must be scientifically plausible to be worth believing in, then (quite apart from Genesis and all the miracles) any religion making continual references to the Babylonian cosmology is ruled out.
If a religion must have trustworthy sources of information to be worth believing in, then Christian spirituality is precisely as trustworthy as Jesus*. We don't have any way of assessing whether Jesus was trustworthy based on the available evidence.
If a religion must be founded in a non-cultlike fashion to be worth believing in, Jesus and his Disciples (who left their homes, jobs and families to follow him) are ruled out.
If a religion must be true to its predecessor religions to be worth believing in, Christianity is not necessarily ruled out - but neither is Mormonism, Islam or Sikhism. In fact, you could say that Islam's Jihad is far more true to the OT than Jesus' "turn the other cheek".
I got these standards by looking back over the last couple of posts to see how you'd ruled out the other religions. If I've missed anything, let me know.
Another approach is to look at a particular religion's theology and see if its principles ring "true". I wonder if you shy away from such a thing because it requires a judgment that can't be entirely measured.
That's correct. To understand why, I suggest reading this talk given by physicist Richard Feynman. In particular:
"I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist."
That's my ideal, that's the entire point of this thread, and that's what I'd be giving up on if I just said "this is what I believe - get over it already". If I can't articulate the standards I use to decide between different claims, but I use those standards anyway, then I'm no skeptic.
Apart from anything else, this approach tends to be used as an excuse. Most people worldwide are only deeply familiar with one religion, and they don't do enough research to get a feel for what the "themes" of other religions really are. By saying "only this religion's themes resonate with me", they're basically saying "I have no desire to change from my culture's primary religion". For example, most Indians would no doubt say that the broad themes of Hinduism resonated more strongly with them than those of Christianity. It's an invitation to stasis.
Even if I were to accept your approach, though, I still wouldn't accept Christianity - I think your themes are dubious.
1. The depravity of humans.
I don't believe in original sin. Humans may at times act depraved, but on average most people are good people. The worst excesses of slaughter that our species has ever committed against itself only came about because the people involved were able to tell themselves that they were behaving honourably. Read "Eichmann in Jerusalem" by Hannah Arendt for elaboration.
To ring true for me, a religion would have to incorporate the concept of "the banality of evil". Christianity doesn't.
2. The power of forgiveness.
I agree that forgiveness is a good thing. But I don't agree that it's always a good idea. In many situations, forgiveness would just lead to the same crimes being committed again and again.
Moreover, when people speak of "forgiving and forgetting", it is quite often because they have some vested interest. Forgiveness isn't just error-prone - it can be used as a tool of corruption. For a recent example, consider the Valerie Plame case.
To ring true for me, a religion would have to include the concept of punishment as enlightened self-interest. Christianity oscillates between treating it as divine retribution and claiming it shouldn't happen.
3. A universal desire for justice and truth.
I don't believe this is true, either as a matter of fact or as an ideal. People everywhere tell themselves they want justice, but mostly what they want is their enemy's head on a platter.
As an ideal, I think there are situations where truth and justice must take second place to expediency. To ring true for me, a religion would have to discuss when it's appropriate to break the rules and how such rulebreaking should be handled by the community. Off the top of my head, I can't remember Christianity doing that, but I could be wrong.
In recent years, I actually find "evolutionary morality" easier on the brain, if only because detailed discussion of the reasoning behind the conclusion is always available. See for example "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley. So even if I accepted your mode of reaching conclusions, I might still arrive at an atheistic stance.
* Actually, probably more accurate to say it's only as trustworthy as Paul...
IIRC
what's that? nothing came up in google under that term.
current academic consensus is that the Pentateuch is merely a collection of tribal myths - so Abraham and Moses were probably fantasies.
I knew that some scholars are uncertain about Moses, buut I had never heard that about Abraham, so I would have to read more before I could respond to that issue.
Mark was apparently only a second-hand source - but the extra detail in Matthew and Luke looks to me like a mix of urban myths and retroactive attempts to make Jesus fulfil the Jewish prophecies.
What you are referring to is the Q document. A document/source which has never been proven to actually exist. And even if it does, it only indicates that there was an initial writing of the teachings of Jesus, not evidence against christianity.
For example, there are two separate genealogies for Jesus, with almost no overlap.
That's because one is matrilineal and one is patrilineal. It states that right in the description from Matthew and Luke. One is from Mary, one is from Joseph. Why would there be overlap?
Matthew constantly lists details which he would have no way of reliably knowing (for example, Matt. 28:11-15 is a fairly blatant attempt to spread counter-rumours).
I understand your point about counter-rumors from your skeptical position, but disagree about the "no way of knowing" assertion. Matthew was written in the 50's AD, plenty of time to have heard things from connections to the Jewish community, and the odd soldier. How well are peope at keping conspiratorial secrets? Not very good. So, if the narration is generally true, I don't think that tidbit is unreliable, and hardly the cornerstone of an argument decimating Chritianity.
***break***
It's Saturday morning and I have to make pancakes! :-) I'm not done; I just have to stop.
***continuing***
any religion making continual references to the Babylonian cosmology is ruled out.
Why would you expect ancient peoples to have a "scientific" cosmology? That seems arbitrary. The model is a way of explaining separations and theological ideas. I think you are applying a 20th/21st century mindset onto the text.
If a religion must be true to its predecessor religions to be worth believing in, Christianity is not necessarily ruled out - but neither is Mormonism, Islam or Sikhism.
yes...but haven't we at least eliminated Mormonism and Scientology on the basis of credulity, lack of corroboration, and no historical evidence? Haven't we narrowed the holes of the sieve somewhat? I haven't gone into Islam, but maybe I will in the next comment.
If a religion must be founded in a non-cultlike fashion to be worth believing in, Jesus and his Disciples (who left their homes, jobs and families to follow him) are ruled out.
Did the disciples leave those things? Yes, but only temporarily, with the exception perhaps of their jobs. They went back home and still had their families. I would liken it to a political campaign in which candidates and their "people" work on something obsessively in the hopes of a certain outcome for a period of a couple years.
Does Christianity proscribe that its followers leave all those things? No.
That is how it differs from a cult.
then Christian spirituality is precisely as trustworthy as Jesus*
I am assuming that surely you have read or heard C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument about Jesus? I am not really sure because I don't think you ever answered earlier about whether you had ever read him.
Paul is most definitely the largest source of Christian doctrine we have, but don't forget that we have epistles from others, like Peter-- who mentions Paul in one of his own epistles.
While talking with you I have realized that, in some ways, you have the same view of Scripture as fundamentalists. It is either completely inerrant or completely false. I think that's curious.
I don't hold to that view. I think the spiritual truth of Scripture is inerrant, but am not willing to say that there is no mistake, mistranslation or problem within Scripture.
I almost feel as if I am being asked to argue a viewpoint that I don't exactly hold.
Any thoughts about that?
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. It's a weasel word intended to stop me looking so bad if you challenge me on a statement and I turn out to have been wrong. Feel free to challenge me on statements, by the way.
What you are referring to is the Q document. A document/source which has never been proven to actually exist.
Actually, I was talking about every source that the authors of Matthew and Luke used, apart from Mark's gospel. Q (if it existed) is just one example of this.
Actually, if there was a written Q document, that would slightly increase the reliability of Matthew and Luke as far as I'm concerned, because stuff that's written down isn't subject to the Chinese Whispers effect. As things stand, there's no reason to think that the "padding" is anything other than rumour and speculation. Examples like the Nativity correlate well with this explanation.
That's because one is matrilineal and one is patrilineal. It states that right in the description from Matthew and Luke.
I'm using the NIV. Matt. 1:12-16 -
"From the time after the exile in Babylon to the birth of Jesus, the following ancestors are listed: Jehoiachim, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, and Joseph, who married Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah."
Luke 3:23 -
"When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thoughts, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,"
Which Bible version are you using?
Matthew was written in the 50's AD, plenty of time to have heard things from connections to the Jewish community, and the odd soldier. How well are peope at keping conspiratorial secrets? Not very good.
The most common date range I've heard is 65-80AD, mostly because the ways in which it varies from Mark all seem to make the Jews look worse and the Romans look better (e.g. Matt. 27:24-25). That antisemitism didn't exist in the very early Christians who (as you point out) were Jews themselves.
We know from Jewish records that the transition to mutual hatred only happened later on in the first century AD, with Christians being banned from the Jewish synagogues some time after 100AD (which incidentally dates verses like John 9:22 to pretty late on).
Given the length of this delay - fifty years! - and the fact that none of the other Gospel writers even allude to this extremely scandalous evidence that was supposedly available to them, I'm going with the counter-rumour hypothesis. But I can understand why you'd disagree, and feel free to try further to convince me.
So, if the narration is generally true, I don't think that tidbit is unreliable, and hardly the cornerstone of an argument decimating Chritianity.
If this was the one bit of supposedly-confidential information that the author of Matthew had blithely claimed knowledge of then I could see where you're coming from. But it's not. For a rather blatant example, consider Matt. 26:44-47 -
"Again Jesus left them, went away, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then he returned to the disciples and said, 'Are you still sleeping and resting? Look! The hour has come for the Son of Man to be handed over to the power of sinful men. Get up, let us go. Look, here is the man who is betraying me!' Jesus was still speaking when Judas, one of the twelve disciples, arrived."
Since Jesus was immediately dragged off by soldiers, and since all the disciples were asleep, how precisely does the author of Matthew know what he prayed? The guy is quite obviously just making up the details to make the story flow better. How much of the rest of Matthew is similarly unhistorical? Given how long after the event he was writing, and the (ahem) informality of many of his sources, I'd guess that the answer is: a lot.
Why would you expect ancient peoples to have a "scientific" cosmology?
Bah, I could have sworn you'd made a reference to scientific integrity at some point, but it turns out I imagined it. Sorry 'bout that.
yes...but haven't we at least eliminated Mormonism and Scientology on the basis of credulity, lack of corroboration, and no historical evidence?
One standard of evidence at a time, please! I'm busily trying to argue in other parts of the thread that many parts of Christianity are just as credulous and uncorroborated. If you don't like the standard of evidence I'm using then say so, but please don't hop from one to another - it's hard enough to keep track as it is :)
Did the disciples have those things? Yes, but only temporarily, with the exception perhaps of their jobs. They went back home and still had their families.
Can I confirm what you're basing that on? I'd got the impression that the disciples followed Jesus around most of the time.
Does Christianity proscribe that its followers leave all those things? No.
Really? Then I must have misread Mark 10:21.
I should point out that it wouldn't exactly be unusual if Jesus had asked people to leave their homes and families - it would be pretty much par for the course for an early-stage religion. The only reason I'm harping on about it is that it would be a bit unfair to slap the label "cult" on scientology if early Christianity behaved the same.
I am assuming that surely you have read or heard C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument about Jesus? I am not really sure because I don't think you ever answered earlier about whether you had ever read him.
I think it's actually quite hard to be involved in this debate without coming across Lewis. I didn't find the argument very convincing because there are at least two other options: "self-deluding" and "misreported".
To clarify: Mohammed was by all accounts a very impressive individual, who was strongly driven to do what he felt God wanted. He was not a fraud, and neither was he insane in any normal sense of the word. I would say he was self-deluded, because he misinterpreted a subjective spiritual experience as an objective truth about the universe. Jesus was probably in the same category.
While talking with you I have realized that, in some ways, you have the same view of Scripture as fundamentalists. It is either completely inerrant or completely false. I think that's curious.
It's an interesting point. I wouldn't say I'm quite that absolutist. But I'm being asked to take a lot on faith here. Remember, I don't even believe in God at the moment. Yet, on the basis of the evidence presented in this book, I'm expected to believe in God, souls, heaven, hell, angels, demons and talking donkeys? To put it politely, it's a bit of a stretch.
I guess my question is: if the factual bits of the Bible are of dubious veracity, why on earth would you expect the spiritual bits to be any more accurate?
Gah, I tell a lie. It's not the NIV, it's a Good News Bible. I have no idea how it fits into the family tree of bible translations.
aacckk!
I just made a terrible mistake! You're right about the geneaology. WHen you brought up that point, I gave you an answer held by many scholars and when I looked up the geneaologies I skimmed over them. I saw Mary in Luke and obviously missed the phrase before it.
I must now self-flagellate with 40 lashes from a wet noodle! :-)
re:IIRC
What's so funny about that is the way it appeared in the sentence you used it in. I kept scratching my head trying to figure it out: International Institute for Religious Concepts? Intellectual Ideas of Roman Catholicism? :-)
Re: dates for Matthew....It all depends on who you read. Usually lates 50's is given at the date. More Liberal Scholars use later dates for almost everything, which suits their view of revsionism. It is hardly a widely accepted view.
re: Mark 10:21 and the disciples.
Jesus ministry was about 3 years long. The constant itinerant preaching lessened with His deprature. Paul mentions Peter having a wife, we see the church being established and being relatively stablein Jerusalem. SO, they didn't go back to being fisherman, but the demands on them were much different than before.....kind of lke the campaign illustration I used.
Your reference to the story of the rich young man is a little out of context. The point of that passage is that the rich young ruler was not ready to truly give all he had. He was too attached to his things. However, Jesus never said that everyone who follows him has to sell all he has and give it to the poor. IT was a specific tactic to reveal the heart of this particular man.
Spiritually, the gospel clearly teaches that the choice for Jesus is the rejection of the world. So, following Jesus does mean change and giving some things up. That's why we see Zaccheus the tax collector, repenting of his former extortion and promise to repay those he had cheated. He couldn't follow Jesus and still do the same things he had been doing. The two were incompatible.
"what is it to the gain the world and lose your soul?" thats the force behind it. It's not quite the same concept as, sell everything you have and give it to "me"...a sentiment found in cults.
**break again**
I must now self-flagellate with 40 lashes from a wet noodle! :-)
Hmm, that sounds more Pastafarian than Christian...
More Liberal Scholars use later dates for almost everything, which suits their view of revsionism. It is hardly a widely accepted view.
Really? I was under the impression that it was by far the most widely-accepted view on Gospel origins. Which source are you reading, and what justification does it give for the earlier date?
He couldn't follow Jesus and still do the same things he had been doing. The two were incompatible.
And that seems to be a very good summary of the reasoning that cults use to justify their practices. Like I say, I don't think this ideological purity is inherently a bad thing - in some ways, I rather approve. I just think that it's a sword that cuts in all directions.
If a family member of a disciple had tried to persuade them to leave Jesus, what do you think Jesus would have advised? Going by the Gospels, I'm guessing that he would have suggested avoiding the family member or similar cult-like behaviour, but I'm open to other suggestions.
Incidentally, I was flipping through the NT this morning and I came across an interesting little discrepancy. In Matthew and Mark, when the lynch mob turns up, one of the disciples hacks a guy's ear off and Jesus tells him to back down. In Luke, Jesus subsequently reattaches the guy's frickin' ear.
There's two interesting things about this. Firstly, neither the lynch mob nor the other Gospel writers seem to have noticed this miracle, which to me strongly suggests that it's a later insertion.
Secondly, every single popularisation of Jesus' life that I have ever come across includes this modification. That strongly suggests to me that, once they're unleashed upon the public, stories tend to adopt the most interesting form. It's a classic example of what Dawkins calls meme evolution. I've seen the same thing happen with urban legends and shaggy-dog stories, and even real news stories.
Another more controversial example is Mark 16:9-20, which contains all the post-resurrection sightings of Jesus to be found in Mark, and which doesn't appear in our two earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark. Apparently it was one of many possible endings invented during the 5th century, and only became the consensus option a couple of centuries later.
the dating of Gospels:
The few books and Study Bible Notes I have all have different dates within a decade or two. Most have Matthew listed as 50's or 50's-70 AD. Some say it's more fluid than that based on the audience of a particular gospel. There are scholars who give much later dates for almost every book in the New Testament.
It's a subjective art at best.
I would like to address one thing that has come out several times in our discussion, and that is your approach to the gospels. You seem surprised to find differences between them and the way they treat the material.
In this you are absolutely right; each gospel has a slightly different emphasis on the life of Jesus. That is acknowledged by pretty much all biblical scholars. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were each writing to different audiences. Their gospels reflect the flavor, style and substance of those different demographics, emphazing some aspects over others in the CHrist story.
This is not a secret.
The question is: Does it change the meaning of the gospel? Do the "discrepancies" or stylistic choices of the gospel writers completely contradict one another in the nature of their theme about Jesus and the import of his being and message?
I would say no. The general message remains the same.
In one account we see Jesus heal the man's ear, in the others we only hear Jesus condemn the act. Does this difference change what Jesus is saying about living by violence?
No. Not at all. One just gives an account more detailed than the other, but the message is still the same.
Re: what Jesus would say to one who wanted to leave.
Reading the gospels gives the impression that it was always just Jesus and the Twelve. In fact, several times we find out that therr were many more people traveling with Jesus who were also "disciples". John 6:66 records how many of them left him after hearing his Bread of Life Discourse. We don't see Jesus say anything to them. He does turn to the Twelve and ask if they want to leave to.
Jesus liked families. He healed Peter's mother-in-law. He had a close relationship with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus(sisters and brother). He asked John to watch after Mary, his mother.
He wasn't aimning for the rejection of family. He did expect people not to be kept from following God by their families...to make their own choices to follow him.
Regardless of that...Imagining what so-and-so would do is nothing more than speculation.
Jesus' harshest words were aimed at the religious authorites in his day, not at the everyday people he dealt with. He'd call Pharisees and Saducees vipers, but tell the woman caught in adultery to simply "Go and sin no more."
He wasn't always as predictable as you might think.
Secondly, every single popularisation of Jesus' life that I have ever come across includes this modification.
That's 'cause it makes for good special effects! :-)
I agree somewhat with ideas "catching", but still don't see that as a huge modification to the message.
We know that the Three Kings probably weren't kings and didn't show up auntil Jesus was probably 1 or 2, but there they are in the manger scenes every year. We recognize that as part of the Christmas tradition even if we know that technically it didn't play out like that.
I just think that it's a sword that cuts in all directions.
hehe...I couldn't pass this up!
Hebrews 4:12
"For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
Don't say I never threw a Scripture at you! It's not my style, usually. :-)
There are scholars who give much later dates for almost every book in the New Testament.
Yes, and from where I'm standing it seems to be most of them. This is not just because I read atheist books - I got a rather ancient history of the Christian Church from Oxfam and it quoted 80-100AD for Mark (IIRC).
I accept that it's subjective, but my subjectivity is better than your subjectivity - so there! :)
You seem surprised to find differences between them and the way they treat the material.
Not really. What I'm surprised to find is differences between them that seem to reflect differences in their source material. The ear-lopping case is a pretty clear example of this. Luke is apparently using (or faking?) information that was mysteriously unavailable to Mark and Matthew - or why would they not have mentioned such a conspicuous miracle?
It's not just a difference in presentation, or a difference in scene selection; it's a difference in content. It supports the idea that Matthew and Luke were cobbling together pre-existing oral traditions, rather than producing definitive works of scholarship. In short, it makes the Bible seem less plausible as an accurate biography of Jesus.
That is clearly relevant to the discussion of whether Christianity is the true religion. If it can't get the verifiable facts straight, why on earth should we trust it to get the eternal truths straight?
This is one area where I do actually agree with the fundies - an unreliable Bible may be of historical interest but, as far as running your life is concerned, it's not much better than no Bible at all. It's got some good stories in - but that doesn't distinguish it from any of the millions of self-help books out there. Its one competitive advantage is its claim to divine inspiration. But wouldn't a divine Inspirer have been able to ensure that the Gospel writers got their facts straight?
I would say no. The general message remains the same.
I agree. But it ceases to be divine wisdom and becomes merely the consensus opinion of a first-century religious community.
That's not a bad thing in itself - there's lots of wisdom to be found in such communities. But I still see nothing to distinguish it from e.g. Sikhism.
At this point, I'm desperately trying to remember what point one of us was trying to make that got us onto this subject. Unless it was a particularly interesting one, I propose a "truce": you try not to rely on the assumption of Biblical accuracy, and I try not to rely on the assumption of Biblical inaccuraccy.
Unless it was a particularly interesting one, I propose a "truce"
Ummm...are we at war? ;-)
I think what got us here was a comparison between Mormonism and Christianity which led to a discussion of sources, which led to more rabbit trails, which led to evaluating texts, history, and whatever else popped up into the discussion.
It's OK by me to stop if you're tired of the conversation. It was not my intent for it to develop into such a broad discussion.....but you know how that can happen when people start on this particular subject....it can go on for millenia! :-)
Cheerio! (do British people actually say that, or is it something they just put in the movies?)
Ummm...are we at war? ;-)
Nope, hence the quote marks :)
I don't mean stop the conversation, just move away from this thread of it (at least for the moment).
What'd be interesting for me would be to explore the gap that we explicitly skipped earlier: does God exist and, if so, how do we know that?
As a skeptic, the second part of that question is really more important to me than the first part. The value of knowledge derives from the reliability of its source. So the question becomes: what methods can lead to the conclusion that God exists, and how reliable are those methods?
(and can I suggest that we avoid discussing the reliability of scripture until we've run out of other avenues to explore...)
OK.
I am taking a break from th computer for a while.
I think I might write a post or two that deals with some of the stuff we've talked about here, because there are several things I haven't said, that I would like to, just because of the nature of comment threads and the tiny box we write in.
So...I'm not flaking out on you or the discussion, but life is getting busy and I am soooooo behind!
Merry Christmas...or Happy Christmas...or Happy Holidays!
I was actually thinking the same thing - really need to take a quick break from the internet. Speak to you in the new year.
Happy solstice! :)
Post a Comment