Tags
It may be because so many modern aggressive atheists are from a science background that they fail to understand the way in which historians proceed; but quite what excuses their ignorance when this is pointed out is a matter for their care workers and not for me.
The notion that people who had seen their beloved leader die on the Cross would, in some ay not explained, all collude in a delusion that He had risen from the dead is simply a form of atheist madness. No one has delineated such a mass delusion across even a decade, let alone centuries; yet atheists who pride themselves of their devotion to reason can trot out the idea of mass delusion without blushing. Paul knew that eye-witness testimony mattered, and as he told the Corinthians, more than five hundred people has witnessed the Risen Lord; he offered important names among them. Paul was more than happy for contemporaries to check his story out. The same was true of Luke, who puts at the very start of his Gospel the declaration that it is based on eye-witness testimony; St. John’s first Epistle does the same. These men had seen what they preached and happy to call in aid eye-witness testimony. If modern atheists wish to behave like the bad part of doubting Thomas, that’s their look-out, but to say there is no eye-witness testimony is simply incorrect. There’s more and better corroborated testimony for Christ’s resurrection than there is for Caesar landing in Britain.
Paul called on that testimony because of who he was. An avowed enemy and persecutor of the Christians, he was received by them with some suspicion, and the notion that such a man could simply come in with his fancy ways and rewrite what others had seen and what he had not is, again, one which carried weight only in atheism 101, that fact-free zone where atheists cheer each other up by repeating improbable stories and then attributing them to Christians. Paul came as a penitent to the Church, one with an important vision, but there was nothing in that vision which was not already known to those to whom he talked. The fact was that Paul needed to be vetted and checked out, and he was. His vision matched what the early Christians already knew – that was why they accepted Paul.
But Paul never occupied any leadership position in the Church in Jerusalem – indeed he paid an enormous personal price for his conversion. His old allies, the Pharisees, pursued him with hatred to his death, and it is clear that James the Just and the official leadership regarded Paul and some of his ideas with lasting suspicion. If we stand back a moment we will see that Paul spent his life as an itinerant missionary, suffering many hardships, including shipwreck and persecution, and indeed, ended by receiving martyrdom in Rome under Nero.
If we place Paul into his context, we see, even before we examine any detailed evidence, how improbable it is that he would have been able to come in with a very different version of what Christ taught and who He was – let alone have been able to convert to such a view those who had seen the Lord in the flesh.
bozoboy87 said:
“his conversion”. When you walk down the street an meet someone new, are you converted?
“His vision matched what the early Christians already knew – that was why they accepted Paul.” I guess you could say that. But the reality is that those who knew Jesus could tell that Paul met him also. They could say…”yep, This guy must have met Jesus” Theres no mistaking it. The same way i can tell if someone has met Jesus, or someone hasnt met him.
“able to convert to such a view ” Theres no view. The woman at the well. She told everyone that the messiah is at the well and they came running to see him. They all got a chance to meet him also. Salvation is meeting Jesus. No costumes, no smoke and mirrors.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I didn’t think we were disagreeing on that; do you think we are?
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Why am i Bozo? I am Bosco the magnificent.\
Brother Geoff, its not so much a disagreement. You are close to the truth. Jesus is a man. People like to make a religion out of him. Gold cups, costumes, pay for play. Think about it for one second. ” why gaze ye up to heaven? This same jesus you saw taken up will likewise return to earth”. Jesus left earth as a man, hes in heaven as a man and he will return as a man. “In my flesh shall i see god”–Job
Hes not a concept or 7 sacraments or a golden cage. Hes a man.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
There was cannot agree. Jesus is man and God – In the beginning was the Word and Word was with God and the Word was God. That is what the Bible says. That is what I believe.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
True. But Jesus shed his divinity to become man.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Nowhere in Scripture is such a statement made. We are told to bow the knee to God alone, and Paul tells us that Jesus’ name is the name at which we all bow – Jesus is God and God is Jesus. The Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father. All there in Scripture, brother.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Yep, i cant disagree. Its a hard thing to understand. Say brother geoff, you know jesus was a man, the son of man. he shed his divinity to be born of a woman, like all of us are.He is one of us. But, thats not here or there. We all need to ask him to reveal himself to us.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Hardest thing of all to understand, and we aren’t required to – just to accept he is God and man. He did not shed his divinity – where do you think the healing and the miracles came from? You and I are men, we can’t do that.
And yes, we must ask him to reveal himself to us and we must believe in him – no other name saves.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Im going back to sleep now. Ill get back to you in the morning.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Good night Bosco – sleep well.
LikeLike
The Southern Rationalist said:
I have several factual objections to your claims. First, none of the gospel writers identify themselves, and there is no corroborating evidence that I know of for the tradition of naming the authors as Luke or John. Second, scholarship places the authorship of the gospels decades after the death of Jesus, so it is not irrational in the least to call into question the veracity of the testimony. In fact, it would be irrational not to.
Your post seems to imply that the only two alternatives are complete, factual accuracy or mass delusion. There is another alternative: legend. We have observed the growth of legends and even whole religions around those legends with the Cargo Cults of the Pacific Islands. While I do not cite this as evidence that this is what happened with Christianity, I do cite it as evidence of the possibility of something comparable.
To say that there is no eyewitness testimony might be incorrect, but based on what serious Biblical scholarship has found, it is not incorrect to say that the Bible contains no eyewitness testimony of the life of Jesus. The reasons for this based on actual scholarship are the subject of a discussion in their own right.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
There is a considerable body of scholarship on this issue, and the more recent it is, the more it adheres to the view that the Gospels were written by those to whom they have always been attributed. Here are three scholarly links to research which shows why I believe what I do:
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-new-testament-has-been-faithfully-transmitted
http://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-1-the-new-testament-books-are-the-earliest-christian-writings-we-possess/
http://michaeljkruger.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-9-the-canonical-gospels-were-certainly-not-written-by-the-individuals-named-in-their-titles/
LikeLike
The Southern Rationalist said:
I’m sorry, but the websites you presented don’t qualify as scholarly. Please Convince Me is a website on Christian Apologetics, which while it can incorporate scholarly work, its mission to defend Christian teaching calls its fairness into question. While I recognize Kruger as a scholar, his website does not constitute scholarship any more than mine does. I’ve read the works of the early church fathers as cited in the Please Convince Me link (not selections, but the English translation of the documents themselves), and they come off as being recollected long, long after the events in question. It’s not sufficient to establish the authorship of the NT Gospels without first asserting that authorship. Let’s say, for example, that Peter did need a translator, and that translator was John Mark. It does not follow that the document we now call the Gospel of Mark is in fact the document that was written by John Mark. It’s the same for the other gospel authors.
I am not out to question your faith, but when you talk about atheist madness, then I feel justified as a non-believer in responding to that.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
In which case I will direct you to Charles Hill’s book ‘who chose the Gospels?’ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Chose-Gospels-Probing-Conspiracy/dp/0199640297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361216637&sr=1-1
And Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the eyewitnesses’ Perhaps a Fellow of the British Academy will be scholarly enough for you? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361216720&sr=1-1
We have plenty of evidence in the NT of the immense importance early Christians attached to accurate transmission of the faith ‘once received’ and none that any but these four Gospels were ever received. How likely is it such people would have forgotten who wrote them?
I have yet to see an atheist even engage with this scholarship – largely because they can’t. Prove an exception.
LikeLike
The Southern Rationalist said:
It is at least as likely that individual believers would retain what they heard well enough to withstand scrutiny as it is that the story would be corrupted over time, like a game of Whispers.
Why would I need to prove an exception? I didn’t assert anything about atheism at all, and the only thing I said about your post was to mention the third possibility of it being legend. I have yet to actually see you engage that. I’ll be happy to check out the books you recommend, and if they are convincing, I will modify my opinion. That’s what rational people do.
This brings me to my counter-question: I can concede that the early Christians might have attached great importance to accurate transmission. Does their attachment necessarily exclude the possibility that they got at least some of it wrong? I certainly don’t see how their personal convictions translate to accuracy, and we have no other say so than the texts that heresy hunters allowed to survive. That doesn’t exactly ease my concerns about accuracy of transmision or authorship of anonymous texts.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
In cultures which rely on oral transmission you do no get ‘Chinese whispers’ – you only have to look at the history of the Illiad or Odessey to see that. Beside that, Christians wrote things down too. If you think a scenario where some one suddenly applied the name ‘Luke’ to one book and then, in some mysterious manner everyone followed suite, then fair enough, but that is so unlikely that the more obvious explanation is more convincing.
I have zero interest in atheism, which seems a rather empty creed. Christianity, by contrast, has a long and well documented history – indeed we have more written documents from its first century than for anything else of that antiquity. It is this mix of documentary evidence and the thoroughness with which it has been worked over which shows me, and many who study these things, that what is in the NT is grounded in accurate historical record.
I commend you for your willingness to study these things.
LikeLike
The Southern Rationalist said:
I’m curious: where do you get the notion that oral cultures are not susceptible to Chinese whispers? As long as human memory is malleable, it can and will happen. Second, why is is so unlikely that anonymously written gospels are are misattributed that it makes a tradition of attributing authorship that wasn’t established until long after those documents were written to be the more obvious explanation? I also note that the objection that even if they were written by who other people (not the authors themselves) say they were written, it doesn’t guarantee accuracy of transmission, especially given documented evidence of alterations to the texts.
Additionally, who ever said that I am an atheist? Just because I don’t buy traditional Christian teachings wholesale doesn’t mean I am atheist. Further, what exactly is the creed of atheism? It seems rather like saying that you don’t subscribe to the hobby of not collecting stamps. Moreover, Hinduism has a longer recorded history than Christianity. If longevity of religious tradition is the indicator of validity, then it makes more since to be a Hindu than a Christian. Don’t confuse my willingness to look at your recommended reading as ignorance of the subject. I was in fact a Christian for far longer than I have been a non-Christian, and during that time, I ingested a steady diet of Bible, prayer, commentary, history, and textual study.
I’ve in fact started reading the E.C. Hill book, and having read Ehrman’s work before, it seems that Hill is misrepresenting what Ehrman has been claiming for years. I’ll go back and check Ehrman’s remarks directly to make sure, but what Hill says that Ehrman says doesn’t match anything that I’ve read of Ehrman to date.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
What makes you think the Gospels were anonymous? Just because none of the authors names himself in the text does not mean they were anonymous. As far back as the written record goes they have always been attributed to the four Evangelists. The reason it is unlikely that the attributions were wrong is that we know that the early church rejected anything as canonical which did not come from the Apostles or their circles- they took it that seriously. You seem to posit a group of hicks who had no real concern for their own history and didn’t mind making things up – now unless you have evidence for that, it seems to me that the evidence points the other way – to a group of people who took their faith and its origins as a sacred trust.
The creed of atheism consists of haunting Christian sites and making irrelevant and ill informed comments. Whatever you ingested when you were a Christian it seems to me you are another example of poor catechesis – if you weren’t you’d still be a Christian. The irrelevance here is Hinduism. I did not say longevity was an indicator of validity. What I did say was that the Christian record of the Gospels being by their authors was good evidence. How that applies to Hinduism only you can say. Ehrman, like many Peotestants with a blind faith in the absolutely accuracy of every word, lost his faith for no good reason, I am sorry you lost yours – but you know, that really is your problem, not mine.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Southern Rationalist – One viewpoint on the authorship of the gospels, which might interest you, is Martin Hengel’s ‘The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ’.
In it, he puts forward the argument that the gospels clearly had apostolic authorship behind them, otherwise they would never have gotten ‘off the ground’. He also thinks that the order of the gospels is basically the order in which they came into existence (although he has a bit of a problem here with Matthew. He claims that there was probably a proto-Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which was entirely revised at a later date).
I can’t find the book on my shelf right now – but (for example) he argues that Mark’s gospel, with its strong similarities to Matthew and Luke (but substantially shorter) would never have made it into the canon had there not been strong links with Peter – Mark writing down what he remembered from Peter shortly after Peter’s death.
He also argues that the fact that these four gospels contradict each other on various points (for example, John contradicting Matthew, Mark and Luke on the date of Easter) and have made their way into the canon in the form we find them, is further evidence that they were composed by the people whom they are named after. If there hadn’t been extremely weighty authority behind the authorship, then attempts of harmonisation by people such as Marcion might have succeeded.
He claims that the codices would have had the author’s name right at the beginning as part of the codex.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
All excellent points. it is one of the reasons why attempts to have a concordance broke down.
LikeLike