Another (really longs) conversation about God.

It's like this;
A really smart man whom I don't really know all that well (except that he's obviously pretty intelligent) posted this treatise at Ray Comfort's Blog.

He also posted it at the Raytractors.

I posted my response over at Ray's, but felt that since my response really had nothing to do at all with Ray Comfort, it wasn't appropriate to post at the Raytractors blog. So, I'm posting it here instead, and hoping that people might see it.


Anonymous:
I'm feeling a bit philosophical at the moment, so I'd like to make points against a few of your beliefs and where they lead, Mr Comfort.

Please note: the following is way out of line for me. I usually limit my comments to scientific claims, because I really don't have an objection to modern christianity. But occasionally, I decide to tell it like I see it. I don't actually want to spark any deconversions here, though it may seem that way, but I do want to make it clear why I don't consider christianity any better than any other religon.

This comment is directed at anyone who shares Ray's beliefs.

You believe that all humankind is tainted by sin, and that the only way to remove that sin (and gain eternal peace) is by accepting your Lord into our hearts. We are miserable, pathetic, sinful wretches, living out a meaningless temporary existance on a tainted world before passing into eternal punishment. Only His mercy and sacrifice can spare us this fate, and bring us to eternal peace in heaven.

What hope is there for the future then? None on this planet, certainly. Indeed, your bible portrays an enless spiral into sin, until finally God steps in on Judgement day and destroys it. Our decendants cannot hope for a better life than ours: they will be born into a progressively more and more sinful world, until the final generation is burned off of the earth in God's final act.

So all of your hope is regulated to the afterlife: where God will purge you of your sins and keep you in eternal peace. This existance, means nothing compared to that, right? You have sold the only life you will ever have to slavery to religon, to an invisible Lord, in return for the promise of eternal life. But you have no way to ensure that promise is kept: you have no way to ensure that promise was even made in the first place. Even worse, as part of this slavery, your Lord demands that you do not question the promise, condemning any doubts rather than allaying them.

You claim we are all miserable sinners: worthy only of hatred from God, and eternal punishment. How then can you love another human? Rather than seeing them as beautiful, you see them as hateful sinners, evil by nature. God can forgive us only with eternal mercy: do you claim to have the same level of mercy for your loved ones? Do you compare yourself to Him?

Love is a shared respect for the other individual, an accceptance of everything that they are, including their 'sins'. To steal a quote from the 2004 Hellboy movie: "we like people for their qualities but we love them for their defects." How can you accept anothers sin, when even God's infinite mercy can only go so far as to forgive it, and even then only if we accept Him first? I hate to ask this, but are you even capable of love?

What about logic, and reason? The only feature that sets us human apart from the animal kindom is our brain, and your Lord expressly forbids using it. Look at Adam and Eve's tale: they ate from the tree of knowledge, and they and their decendants were cursed for all eternity with the very thing your God so despises: sin. If this isn't a metaphor for the promotion of blind obediance to authority, nothing is.

In comparison, those philosophies based on atheism generally promote the use of logic, reason and curiosity. The modern scientific endevour decended from those philosophies. Us atheists see hope in progress, in the ability to make life better for those who come after us, or at least not make it worse.

We don't see life as wretched, the twisted result of perfection lost: instead we see it as beautiful, something complex that has come out of the relatively simple laws of nature to make the universe its own.

Our life is the only one we have: it is something that cannot be replaced. In that we find value: how can we justify taking something impossible to replace? Where you see something temporary and meaningless compared to eternity, we see something that, despite it's brevity and seeming insignifigance, has more meaning than anything else in the entire universe.

You have sold your only life, your hope for the future of this world, your logic and reason and your ability to love another to the dictates of a 2000 year old book, in exchange for an empty promise from someone you can not meet in this world that He will spare you from punishment after death. You hang every speck of your hope, not on the beauty and nobility that is life, but on death, and the afterlife beyond it.

It is your choise to continue to worship death. I choose life.


Me:
Firstly, let me tell you that I don't agree with a lot, if not most, of what Ray posts here. If you were to look at the continuum of Christianity, Ray would be pretty far right and I would be just to the right or left of center. Haven't figured out which yet.

Having said that, your post does pertain to things that I believe.


Though I do not hold to original sin, I do believe that it is impossible for any human being to live long in this lifetime without sinning. Not that we are born with sin, but we are born as less than what we were originally designed to be and cannot avoid sinning because of our brokenness.

A thing gets value from who made it, and how much some one is willing to pay for it. Humans were made, in my belief, by God. And God was and is willing to give everything for it, even his son/self.

God loves me and God loves humans, even though we are broken. Not that he loves our brokenness, but he loves us in spite of it. That's the true love. Where you say "This and this and this are terrible, horrible things about this person. And yet, even though all of that is there, I don't want to experience life without them."

And you know what? It's not hard to see why. Look at the coolness that people are capable of, and have the potential for! Art, Music, Dancing, Humor, Love, Friendship (also love,) philanthropy, discovery, whit, intelligence, beauty, invention, strength, passion, ingenuity. And that's not even an exhaustive list.

That is the kind of love that makes marriages last to death, and the kind of love that makes friendships truly potent, and the kind of love that every disciple of Jesus is capable of (though many, for some reason or another, choose not to exercise such power.)

It's the kind of love that drives to protect, and heal, and nurture. Even at the cost of one's own life. It's the kind of love found incessant and unlimited in Christ. And it never gives up.

Love is a shared respect for the other individual, an accceptance of everything that they are, including their 'sins'. To steal a quote from the 2004 Hellboy movie: "we like people for their qualities but we love them for their defects."
Have you given up on humanity already? Where is the hope that people can Grow? Where is the hope that the people who we love so much can become something greater than what they are?

Am I to believe that my defects will never change, and that I should simply expect every one to live with the things that I do wrong? Should I be expected to accept the wrongdoings of people around me, and give up the hope that it will ever change?

Dr. Carl R. Rogers states that in order for therapeutic personality change to happen, there must be a therapist.
The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Therapeutic Personality Change
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training
2007, Vol. 44, No. 3, 240-248
Any one can be a therapist. If I can counsel some one in a way that will help them grow, it would be horrendous of me to simply "love their flaws." That is an injustice to that person more than any thing else.

My hope for humanity's future comes from Christ, from the promise that Christ can make all things new, that God can "call a thing that is not as though it were, and give life to the dead."

Is the greater love that which accepts what it sees, or that which accepts what it sees and then compels it to grow into something better?


The problem with your perception of how Christians view the world is that you seem to think that it stops at sin in this lifetime. It doesn't. God is capable of taking a world of broken vessels and turning them in to an elaborate mosaic. Things heal. Things live, grow, and give life.

To steal from a song that I haven't heard in a long time:
It's a beautiful world. What a great idea! Your beautiful song is all I can hear! Your beautiful colors surrounding me! Your beautiful life is all I can see!

I am not under the impression that this world is horrid and nasty and it's just a matter of when's daddy coming home. Though there are nasty, horrid things in the world, there are also beautiful and brilliant things in the world, and to miss that is to miss something that God has given to us to enjoy. The beauty that the Earth can hold is the Rose in God's hand as he whispers sweet nothings into our ear.


Christianity that focuses on the afterlife and never sees this life is a sad tale indeed. It's so easy to fall into, and so hard to get out of. It's really another way that the church universal has painted itself into a corner. People forget that Christ said "The Kingdom of Heaven is near."

Study that word a bit. It's not "The Kingdom of Heaven is on it's way, and it'll get here soon so be ready." It's proximity. The Kingdom of Heaven is close. Reach out your hand and touch it. Everywhere Jesus is, so is the Kingdom of Heaven. And if Christians have him in their hearts and lives, then they are living in that Kingdom now. Why not enjoy it? That's not to say that we will all have it easy. There's still bills, there's still hurt and sickness, and there's still evil and bad things around us as long as we're in this body. But we have something that others don't, and so many times Christians want to hide that away and down play it's worth in this existence.


You seem, also, to think that our hope for the future stops at the end of the world as we know it. That's a bit more near-sighted than the picture that God has painted for us. There is a hope for the future, and it's a future that I get to see. When there is no more war, no more sickness, no more suffering, no more death, and nothing that comes in between me and the beauty that surrounds me. While it is a shame to think only of the after life and not ever of the beauty that encircles us every day, it is also a shame to forget that this beautiful world will not be destroyed. It will be cleansed, and restored to the perfection it was destined for all along.


As for logic and reason, God never condemns this. Nor does the Bible. The tree of knowledge is not the tree's name. It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge of anything. Before Adam and Eve knew the difference between right and wrong, they were innocent. They ran naked like a baby might in it's house. Or like my 2 year old nephew might like to do anywhere at all. Absolutely nothing came between them and God. When they ate the fruit, they hid like criminals. They tried to pass the blame onto each other. The whole story is a metaphor for a loss of innocence, not a loss of ignorance.

You are right about one thing, though. I am a slave. Not just a slave, but a bond servant. The difference is that a bond servant says "Hm, this master's pretty cool. I think I'll stick around," and serves out of choice. I choose to serve the master who shows me his love for me on a daily basis. I choose to serve a master who speaks to me. I choose to serve a master who is real and who I have met in this world.

God has never made a promise to me that he hasn't kept. And one of the foundational truths that I'm learning in my classes is that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. There is nothing about this collection of books, letters, songs, and proverbs that he inspired that gives me any reason to distrust it. Not when it's handled responsibly, which is something I've been trying to do for a couple of years now.

Not that I've been a believer in Christ for just a couple of years. But that I've actually gotten up off of the couch, questioned the faith of my parents, and put effort into following the command in 2Tim 2:15.

My faith has not, as you suggest, quelled my hopes and dreams and ability to think and sight for the beautiful in the world. Ultimately, my faith in Christ gives me an enhanced experience of this life, an obligation to exercise what logic and intelligent thought I'm capable of, a near-sighted love for this world and the inhabitants therein, and a far-sighted hope for the future.

It is your choice to continue to exist until death. I choose to live more abundantly than anything I could have anywhere else.

I'm seriously considering

dropping the title of Christian.

Now, before you start throwing stones at me, hear me out.

There was a conversation in my civ class about Locke's social contract theory. Locke was a Christian, but he believed that humans aren't inherently good nor evil when they're born. A student questioned how Locke came to that conclusion from the Bible, as she subscribes to the Doctrine of orrigional sin.

The conversation isn't important to this post so much as the ending of it. Our teacher said "That's the thing I find so interesting-and disturbing-about Christianity and Judaism and Islam. They can't seem to get away from each other. They constantly intertwine because of their shared origens."

That got me to thinking. Ya know, at least with Judaism and Christianity, he's right. We do share similar origens. We do have a LOT in common with our teachings. What's the difference?
Well, of course, it's Jesus. I believe he is the Messaiah, the son of God, and that he took away the penalty of my sins.

But aren't there also Jews that believe this? They're called "Messianic Jews."

Christianity is simply the continuation of Judaism after the arival of the Messiah. So why are we called Christians? Why aren't we called Messianic Jews, like the Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

Part of me likes the idea of changing our title to Messianic Judaism because it's got a sort or ancient feel to it. Theres some intangible romantic (literary sense, not as in love) feel to it, some undefinable epicness about it that's just cool. Plus, it doesn't take any emphasis away from the fact that I believe that Jesus is the lord, the Messiah, and the son of God. I wouldn't be breaking any Jewish laws, because even Rabbis believe that in the Messianic age they will all be fulfilled and they won't be required to follow many of them any more.

And as a Christian, haven't I been "grafted onto the tree of Israel?" In Romans, Paul says, "And if a Gentile obeys God's law, won't God declare them to be his own people?" and "No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumsicion is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's spirit," and "For Abraham is the father of all who believe. That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, 'I have made you the father of many nations.'" I am a descendant of Abraham. I am one of God's people. Why am I not a Jew?

So, I'm seriously considering dropping the term "Christian" in favor of "Messianic Jew." Christianity is the continuation of Judaism after the arival of the Messaiah. Why not call ourselves Jews? Even if I call myself a Christian, all that really means is that I'm a convert to Messianic Judaism, so why not call it that?

What does Ben Witherington say about The Jesus Puzzle?

Ben Witherington knows his stuff. You may remember when I posted his view of Zeitgeist. He's pretty much awesome, and I can only dream of doing doctoral work under him.

Alas, however, I don't even know if a doctorate is what God has in mind for me. It'd be nice to be Reverend Dr., but that's a lot of money. Besides that, I'm not really calling the shots here in my ministry. It's all up to God.

Any way, without further adue:

Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' -- An Exercise in Mythmaking

In a post-modern post-Christian age where atheism has gained some new life, it was to be expected that there would be some persons who thought it might now be possible to make Jesus and Christianity vanish without a trace through a certain kind of prestidigitation, or at least an enormous amount of revisionist history writing. One such effort is that of Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle', which draws on some of the tenets of G.A. Wells and others of their ilk. In response to too many requests here is the basic deconstruction of such unhistorical and even anti-historical myth-making.

The basic tenets of 'The Jesus Puzzle' are listed below in numerical fashion can be summed up as follows (my comments on each of its twelve tenets can be found in bold and in a different color):

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

THESE ASSERTIONS INVOLVE SUCH OBVIOUS BLUNDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1) FIRST OF ALL THE EARLIEST NT DOCUMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARE PAUL'S LETTERS (WRITTEN BETWEEN A.D 49-64 OR SO) IN THESE LETTERS NOT ONLY DO WE HEAR ABOUT JESUS AS A HISTORICAL FIGURE BUT ALSO PETER, JAMES, JOHN, AND A HOST OF OTHERS WHO WERE EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS' EXISTENCE, NOT TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE REFERENCES THAT HE PERFORMED MIRACLES, TAUGHT VARIOUS THINGS AND DIED ON THE CROSS. 2) IN THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY WE HAVE NUMEROUS SUMMARIES OF THE LIFE OF JESUS, NOT TO MENTION CLEAR REFERENCES TO MARY AND THE BROTHERS OF JESUS AS WELL. PAUL ALSO MENTIONS THESE BROTHERS CLEARLY ENOUGH IN 1 CORINTHIANS. IN SHORT, THERE IS NO SILENCE ABOUT THESE FIGURES IN OUR EARLIEST NT DOCUMENTS 3) FURTHERMORE, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS ARE BOTH MENTIONED NOT ONLY IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, BUT ALSO IN JOSEPHUS,' ANTIQUITIES, WRITTEN IN THE LATTER DECADES OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 4) TO THIS WE MAY ADD THE TESTIMONY OF TACITUS WHO REFERS NOT ONLY TO JESUS BUT TO HIS EXECUTION UNDER PILATE.

IN SHORT, THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ABOUT SUCH MATTERS, BUT RATHER PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. TO THIS SHOULD BE ADDED THE FACT THAT THE CANONICAL GOSPELS, WHICH ARE ALREADY KNOWN AND CITED BY CHURCH FATHERS IN THE SECOND CENTURY, WERE ALL EXTANT IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. AND ARE WRITTEN EITHER BY AN EYEWITNESS ( THE FOURTH GOSPEL) OR BY THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH THE EYEWITNESSES (MARK, LUKE, AND SOMEONE WHO KNEW MATTHEW). THIS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS AT THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. (SEE RICHARD BAUCKHAM'S JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES).

IN SHORT, MR. DOHERTY HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DO HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK ON THESE MATTERS.


Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO THESE MISTAKEN NOTIONS ABOVE, TO WHICH CAN BE ADDED TACITUS WAS NOT WRITING THE ANNALS IN 115 A.D. AND SHOWS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF HAVING CLOSE CONTACT WITH ANY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. AS FOR JOSEPHUS THOSE SCHOLARS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THE 'ANTIQUITIES' ARE QUITE CLEAR-- THE REFERENCES TO JESUS IN THIS WORK CANNOT SIMPLY BE WRITTEN OFF AS LATER CHRISTIAN INSERTIONS, EVEN IN TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM, WHERE THERE WERE SOME LATER CHRISTIAN ADDITIONS. DOHERTY'S CLAIM THAT IT IS 'UNIVERSALLY' RECOGNIZED IS SIMPLY A CANARD, WHICH SHOWS HE HASN'T BOTHERED TO EVEN READ THE SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXT CRITICISM ON JOSEPHUS' WORK. FAR FROM THE JOSEPHUS' REFERENCES BEING INCONCLUSIVE, THIS EVIDENCE IS DECISIVE. CONSIDERING THAT JESUS NEVER WANDERED FROM THE IMMEDIATELY VICINITY OF THE HOLY LAND IT IS NO SURPRISE AT ALL IN AN AGE BEFORE THE INTERNET THAT HE IS NOT WIDELY ATTESTED IN THE FIRST CENTURY. INDEED, THE SURPRISE IS THAT HE IS ATTESTED BOTH BY A JEWISH AND A ROMAN HISTORIAN WHO HAD NO AXES TO GRIND IN THE MATTER.

Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

THIS MUST BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS-- A BALD FACED ASSERTION WHICH COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE. GAL. 4 IN PAUL'S EARLIEST LETTER WRITTEN IN A.D. 49 OR SO WE HEAR THESE WORDS " BUT WHEN THE TIME HAD FULLY COME, GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF WOMAN, BORN UNDER THE LAW TO REDEEM THOSE UNDER THE LAW." IN ONE OF HIS LATEST LETTERS WE HEAR: "FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS, THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL."

IN SHORT, DOHERTY SEEMS TO HE CHANNELING THE MISINFORMATION OF THE LATER GNOSTIC GOSPELS, NOT THE EARLIER AND FAR MORE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED CANONICAL ONES. NOT ONLY DOES HE BADLY MISREAD PAUL, HE EQUALLY MISREADS THE CANONICAL GOSPELS ON THESE VERY MATTERS. IT IS PRECISELY THESE SORTS OF REMARKS WHICH SHOW SUCH IGNORANCE OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHICH LEAD NT SCHOLARS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, JEWISH FAITH, AND NO FAITH TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PURE POLEMICS OF DOHERTY--- HE IS NO HISTORIAN AND HE IS NOT EVEN CONVERSANT WITH THE HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE VERY MATTERS HE WANTS TO PONTIFICATE ON.


Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

HERE AGAIN THIS SORT OF ASSERTION BETRAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL'S WRITINGS, AND INDEED OF EARLY JEWISH DEMONOLOGY. IN EARLY JUDAISM DEMONS AND EVIL SPIRITS ARE INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN SPHERE AND IN THE HUMAN REALM, AS WELL AS IN THE HEAVENLIES. IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR MATTER. PAUL CERTAINLY DOES NOT SUGGEST JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. TO THE CONTRARY, PAUL RECITES THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CREED IN 1 COR. 15.1-5 THAT JESUS DIED AND WAS BURIED LIKE ANY OTHER MORTAL, AND THEN WAS SEEN ALIVE ON EARTH AFTER HIS DEATH. SINCE TACITUS AS WELL STRESSES JESUS DIED A MUNDANE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF PILATE, ON THE BASIS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROMAN RECORDS, IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO DISMISS SUCH EVIDENCE, OR PROJECT IT INTO A MERELY SPIRITUAL REALM. FURTHERMORE, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT JESUS SUFFERED AND DIED IN JERUSALEM, NOT IN SOME SPIRITUAL REALM ( SEE E.G. HEB. 13, OR HEB. 7-11). IT DOES REFER TO JESUS GOING TO HEAVEN AFTER HIS DEATH AND ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN. BUT HIS DEATH IS SAID TO BE A SACRIFICE ON EARTH, LIKE THAT OF A PASSOVER SACRIFICE. ONCE AGAIN. DOHERTY HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO INTERACT WITH ANY OF THE EXPERTS ON EITHER PAUL OR HEBREWS, AND CHOOSES TO MAKE UP HIS INTERPRETATIONS AS HE FEELS LED.

Piece No. 5: SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THERE WERE SOME EARLY JEWS AFFECTED IN THEIR THINKING BY PLATONISM. PHILO WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE, AND THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS MAYBE ANOTHER. HOWEVER, MOST OF WHAT IS SAID ABOUT HEAVEN AND EARTH AND SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ARISES NOT OUT OF REFLECTION ON THE WORKS OF PLATO BUT OUT OF EARLY JEWISH APOCALYPTIC THINKING WHICH BEGAN IN EXILE BEFORE ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR THE AFFECTS OF HELLENISTIC THINKING ON JEWS. IT IS TOTALLY ANACHRONISTIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. THE SOURCE OF OTHER WORLD AND AFTERLIFE THINKING IN THE NT AND IN MOST EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE IS CLEARLY ENOUGH BOOKS LIKE DANIEL, EZEKIEL, ZECHARIAH AND OTHER JEWISH APOCALYPTIC PROPHETS. THE 'HELLENISTIC' EXPLANATION OF THEIR OTHERWORLDLY THINKING COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EARLIER JEWISH LITERATURE, WHICH BTW WAS THE SOURCE OF JESUS' OWN SELF- UNDERSTANDING--- ESPECIALLY DANIEL 7 AND ZECHARIAH INFLUENCED JESUS.

Piece No. 6: A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS MISINFORMATION IN DETAIL IN MY POST ON THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE LAST FALL. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED HERE. SEE THAT POST (JUST TYPE IN ZEITGEIST MOVIE IN THE SEARCH FIELD FOR THIS BLOG).

Piece No. 7: THE INTERMEDIARY SON

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.

THIS COULD BE SAID TO BE A FAIR SUMMARY OF GNOSTIC THEOLOGY, THAT GOD WHO IS SPIRIT WHO CAN HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE MATERIAL WORLD, BUT IT BADLY MISREPRESENTS THE THOROUGHLY JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE NT WRITERS WHO NOT ONLY AFFIRM AN INCARNATION OF JESUS THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION ON EARTH BUT STRESS HE WILL RETURN TO EARTH TO BRING IN A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NT REFLECTS THE OT THEOLOGY ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF THE MATERIAL CREATION. THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE STRONG AFFIRMATION OF THE GOODNESS OF CREATION THAN THAT GOD'S SON WOULD TAKE ON A PHYSICAL AND GENUINE HUMAN NATURE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ATTEMPT TO READ A RADICAL SPIRITUAL /MATERIAL DICHOTOMY INTO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA AND ITS FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, AND AGAIN REFLECTS A TOTAL FAILURE TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES AS THEY EXIST.

Piece No. 8: A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

I MUST STRESS THAT WE NOW HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ACTS BEING A FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENT. I HAVE SEEN THE FRAGMENTS OF A COPY OF ACTS IN SYDNEY AT MACQUARRIE AND THEY DATE TO NO LATER THAN 125 A.D. IT IS CLEAR AS WELL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, BUT ONE OF MANY LATER COPIES. SO THE ATTEMPT TO LATE DATE ACTS WILL NOT WORK (SEE MY ACTS COMMENTARY). FURTHERMORE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NT SCHOLARS THINK THAT JOHN IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL STORY, INDEED IT CLAIMS TO BE AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (ON THE TRUTH OF WHICH--- SEE MY WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS?. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY ODD ABOUT THIS TENET OF DOHERTY'S IS THAT IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE THREE SYNOPTIC ACCOUNTS. THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST THEY ALL ONLY HAD ONE VERSION OF THE STORY. IT SUGGESTS THEY HAD SEVERAL, AND INDEED THE PROLOGUE IN LK.1.1-4 MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY--- LUKE CONSULTED BOTH EYEWITNESSES AND EARLY PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND INDEED HE ADMITS VARIOUS PERSONS HAD WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE GOSPEL STORY BEFORE HIM, NOT JUST MARK. I WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A REFERENCE TO AT LEAST MARK AND MATTHEW'S ACCOUNTS.

NOTICE AGAIN THE DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF THE USE OF GLOBALIZING LANGUAGE--- "NOW ALMOST A UNIVERSAL SCHOLARLY CONCLUSION". HE CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT NT SCHOLARS, OR CLASSICS SCHOLARS, OR ANCIENT HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD. SO WHAT SCHOLARS IS HE REFERRING TO. SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THIS SORT OF BRAZEN POLEMIC WHICH DOES NOT DEAL EITHER WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, OR WITH THE CAREFUL SCHOLARSHIP DONE FOR CENTURIES UPON IT.

Piece No. 9: THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN ONE OR TWO SCHOLARS OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS WHO SUGGESTED MIDRASH WAS INVOLVED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS TODAY, THIS SUGGESTION IS REJECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GENRE AND NATURE OF THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES. MIDRASH IS BY DEFINTION A FORM OF CREATIVE EXEGESIS ON A PRE-EXISTING JEWISH TEXT. IT IS NOT A LITERARY GENRE AT ALL. MOST SCHOLARS TODAY RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE THE GOSPEL WRITERS DO SOMETIMES CREATIVELY INTERPRET THIS OR THAT PIECE OF THE OT IN SERVICE OF EFFECTIVELY PREACHING CHRIST, THAT THIS IN NO WAY ACCOUNTS FOR THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CHRIST STORY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OT DOES NOT PREDICT A CRUCIFIED MESSIAH. NO EARLY JEWS READ ISAIAH 53 THAT WAY. FURTHERMORE, ISAIAH 7.14 DOES NOT PREDICT A VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IN THE GOSPEL SENSE OF THE PHRASE. WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GOSPELS IS EVENTS WHICH HAPPENED TO JESUS WHICH WERE UNEXPECTED, AND UNTIL FURTHER DILIGENT STUDY OF THE OT WAS DONE, NO ONE HAD THOUGHT SUCH THINGS WERE PREDICTED IN THE OT. AS RICHARD BURRIDIGE'S BOOK 'WHAT ARE THE GOSPELS' SHOWS AT LENGTH, THE GOSPELS ARE LIKE ANCIENT BIOGRAPHIES AND HISTORICAL MONOGRAPHS, NOT LIKE THE EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUE OF MIDRASH. YOU COULD NEVER HAVE CREATED THE JESUS STORY OUT OF THE OT ITSELF, BUT ONCE THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JESUS HAPPENED AS IT DID, THIS FORCED A RE-READING OF THE OT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVENTS OF JESUS' LIFE.

Piece No. 10: THE COMMUNITY OF "Q"

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.

Q IS A CIPHER FOR THE NON-MARKAN MATERIALS FOUND IN COMMON IN LUKE AND MATTHEW. THIS MAY REFLECT ORAL TRADITIONS THESE TWO GOSPEL WRITERS KNEW OF, OR AN EARLIER WRITTEN DOCUMENT, BUT WHICHEVER IT IS, I KNOW OF NO Q EXPERT WHO SUGGESTS THAT THE Q COMMUNITY INVENTED A JESUS FOUNDER FIGURE. IN FACT EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL Q SCHOLARS WOULD REJECT THIS ASSERTION AS PURE NONSENSE AND WISHFUL THINKING ON DOHERTY'S PART. TO THE CONTRARY, IF YOU STUDY THE Q MATERIAL CLOSELY IN THE GREEK, YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT THERE IS BOTH NARRATIVE AND SAYINGS MATERIAL IN THIS SOURCE, AND BOTH REFLECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE LIFE, EVENTS, AND TEACHING OF A HISTORICAL FIGURED NAMED JESUS OF NAZARETH.

AS FOR THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS A Q COMMUNITY, THIS IS DEBATED, BUT IT APPEARS THAT A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS EVER A COMMUNITY THAT HAD Q AS ITS ONLY CHRISTIAN SOURCE MATERIAL, OR THAT ONLY BELIEVED IN A JESUS THAT WAS A TEACHER. THAT IS RATHER LIKE ARGUING THAT THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY ONLY BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS IT HAD CREATED FOR ITSELF, NOT ALL OF THE OTHER SOURCE MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO IT.

Piece No. 11: A RIOTOUS DIVERSITY

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

I HAVE SHOWN AT LENGTH IN WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS HOW VERY WRONG THIS WHOLE THESIS IS. FIRSTLY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT WAS A TIGHT KNIT SMALL OFFSHOOT FROM EARLY JUDAISM. ITS LEADERS WERE CALLED APOSTLES AS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM PAUL, THE GOSPELS, 1 PETER, REVELATION AND OTHER SOURCES. NOT ONLY WAS THEIR A HIERARCHIAL LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE, WITH APOSTLES AND THEIR CO-WORKERS AT THE TOP, WE KNOW WHO WERE THE LEADERS WHO SPANNED THE EMPIRE AND HELPED BIND THE MOVEMENT TOGETHER--- PAUL AND HIS CO-WORKERS, PETER AND HIS, THE BELOVED DISCIPLE AND HIS CO-WORKERS, JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS AND HIS, AND SO ON. THE ATTEMPT TO PREDICATE THE LATER DIVERSITY FOUND IN THE LATE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH CENTURIES BACK INTO THE FIRST CENTURY JEWISH SECT CALLED CHRISTIANITY IS BOTH BAD HISTORY WRITING AND POOR RESEARCH. IT ONCE AGAIN COMMITS THE SCHOLARLY SIN OF ANACHRONISM-- READING THE TRAITS OF A LATER AGE INTO AN EARLIER PERIOD. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS ABOUT THIS WHOLE APPROACH IS IT IGNORES THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE OF ORTHODOXY AND ORTHOPRAXY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM THE START. THIS IS HARDLY A SURPRISE IN A MOVEMENT FOUNDED BY DEVOUT EARLY JEWS. ALL THE NT BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY SUCH JEWS, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF LUKE-ACTS AND 2 PETER.

Piece No. 12: JESUS BECOMES HISTORY

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

THIS FINAL TENET HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY THE DISCUSSION ABOVE. IGNATIUS I AM SURE WOULD BE TRULY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK OF A HISTORICAL FIGURE NAMED JESUS WHO LIVED AND DIED UNDER PILATE. NO, THIS WAS ALREADY WIDELY KNOWN FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE. NOTICE FOR EXAMPLE PAUL'S WORDS IN 1 TIM. 6.13-- "IN THE SIGHT OF GOD WHO GIVES LIFE TO EVERYTHING, AND OF CHRIST JESUS, WHO WHILE TESTIFYING BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE MADE THE GOOD CONFESSION..."

MR. DOHERTY UNFORTUNATELY IS A MERE POLEMICIST. HE HAS NOT DONE HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK, HE CLEARLY HAS NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE BROAD RANGE OF NT SCHOLARSHIP, AND OF COURSE HE COMES AT HIS STUDY WITH A STRONG AX TO GRIND.

A bit more about me.

Not that all of you necisarily care.

I grew up in an uber-conservative family. My grand-father is a pastor for the American Baptist Association (ABA), as well as one of my uncles.

For those of you who don't know, the ABA split from the Southern Baptist Convention because they felt that the SBC wasn't strict or literal enough.

Any way, when I was somewhere around 3-5 (I can't remember), my mom and dad got a divorce. Mom woke me and my sister up in the middle of the night, put us in the car, and drove us to a city in Arkansas called Judsonia to live with the affore mentioned grandparents.

From that point on, I grew up hearing about God, Jesus, Hell, Heaven, and every Sunday School story you can think of. How all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and people who die without accepting Jesus as their savior will go to Hell, while those who do accept him will go to Heaven. I was getting ready to go to sleep one night and realized that this Hell place sounded pretty sucky and I didn't want to go there. So, I talked to God and said these words,
"Jesus, I know I've sinned and I've done wrong. I want you to forgive me and come into my heart."

Sinner's prayer as I've heard it all my life.

Sweet. Now, I'm not going to go to Hell. I went to the living room where all the adults were and said "I got saved," and every one was thrilled.
But nothing changed.

I was a good little boy. I learned to be polite, well behaved, and just good all around.

When I moved to Beebe with my mom and sister, we stopped going to church for a few years. It didn't occure to me that I should want to go if mom wasn't going until a friend from school invited me to the church that his Dad preached at.

I didn't know the difference between ABA and SBC at the time, but First Baptist was an SBC church.

I started to learn more about the Bible and God, but things still weren't changing. Why should they? I was a good boy, and I know I'm not going to Hell when I die.

That's what Christianity was about for me. Tell people about Jesus if I can, and get people out of Hell.
But fire insurance isn't what God is offering.

I didn't know that until the summer before my second or third year here at MSU.


I remember what started it. I was listening to Switchfoot's beautiful letdown album. The song was 24.

There was a line there that said "I wrestled the angel for more than a name," and that triggered a slow but steady process that started me off into REAL Christianity. The kind where you have a real, breathing, living relationship with Jesus. The kind where you're really following God, and not just doing what he says.
Yes, there is a difference.

I began to realize that Christianity isn't about some far off distant future. Yes, that's part of it, but that's not the end-all, be-all of it. There's an aspect of reality that has to be there, or it's not real.

...

Yeah, that last statement sounded less redundant and more epic in my head. Oh well. No use in pretending like I'm some kind of epic man.

Any way, it's true. If you spend your Christian walk focusing on the future, you miss the now.

"But master Yoda says I should be mindful of the future."
"Yes, but not at the expense of the present."

That is why I am so specific about the Gospel when I'm talking about it.

If you leave out the here and now, then Christianity is just fire insurance. That's not what God wants.

God wants a relationship. He created us with the capacity to love greatly because he wants to share love with us. That's why we are made! That relationship doesn't come in the future, it comes now! Yeah, it will be better in the future when we are all perfect, but we don't have to wait until then to have it.

My life with Christ became real when I realized that. Why would I share my Gospel, my good news, in any other way?

An ongoing conversation

Anonymous: Listen, I am not interested in theological arguments because when you come to the core claims, the miraculous claims, what evidence is provided? Jesus, if the story is based in fact, could only expect those who witnessed his life, death and resurrection to accept what happened. To us it is hearsay, and there is no reason why I should accept this, just as you don't accept Muhammad's "revelation" nor Joseph Smith's. Theological proofs are ridiculous, and they simply don't prove anything other than people are willing to accept argument without evidence. I am inclined to go with Thomas Paine's analysis of theology:

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

Myself: Thomas Paine doesn't have a very clear understanding of good theology.

Good theologians have to have more than just a working knowledge of ancient history and ancient societies, ancient languages, philosophy, archeology as well as a knowledge of what scripture says. And that's not even an exhaustive list as far as I'm aware of.

Just like any other study, there's different schools of thought, but all Christian theology shares a few basic principles.

Just like any other study, there are quacks who know just enough to make themselves and their peers look incredibly stupid.

Just like any other study, it is evolving and learning more as time goes on and taking note of certain truths that it didn't take note of before. That's why we had things like The Reformation.

The only real difference between Theology and any other study such as mathematics, or biology, or musicology, or psychology is the profoundness with with it changes lives, and people don't have a relationship with their studies or the thing that they are studying in quite the same way as many theologians do with the God that they are studying.

Well, I suppose I should admit that clinical psychology and biology do change lives a great deal. Therapists and medicine and the like. But they both still lack that relationship building.

And as far as Jesus only expecting eyewitnesses to accept what happened, how does that work with any other historical or archaeological subject? Why must Jesus be held to such a higher standard than other such figures in these studies?

Anonymous: "The only real difference between Theology and any other study such as mathematics, or biology, or musicology, or psychology is the profoundness with with it changes lives, and people don't have a relationship with their studies or the thing that they are studying in quite the same way as many theologians do with the God that they are studying."

How does one study God? This brings me back to the Thomas Paine quote.

Myself: "How does one study God? This brings me back to the Thomas Paine quote."

That's a good question.

How does one study psychology? You can't see a person's thoughts. All you can do is see how their mind affects certain things about them, like their personality, their decisions, their mannorisms, their moral and ethical code, and the like.

A cognitive psychologist would study how a person's cognitions change the way they act, and how things can change a person's cognitions.

You don't have to be well versed to know that the Bible claims that it is inspired by God, so the first thing a theologist would study is the Bible. And not just the Bible, but it's context. What do other histories say about the stories in the Bible? What were the methods of keeping these histories? What were the societies and the people like? You would study the areas of Archeology which are relevant to the Biblical stories. The languages of the people of the day. The culture of those people.

What does the Bible say about an even which we know happened? What does the Bible say about a city that we know existed? How many (if any) successful archeological endevors have been so succesfull because of knowledge gained from Biblical stories? How would the culture and language of the day change the way those people interpreted the Bible and what would their reaction to it be?
These are just some questions you would ask yourself, none of which assume the Bible's truth or falsehood.

All of these things you would study in order to acertain as to the reliability of the Bible, what the Bible is trying to tell you, and how much of the Bible is or isn't inspired divinely.

BTW, not all theology is in favor of Christianity.

You, yourself have drawn theological conclusions not in favor of Christianity by some pretty impressive means here. You've started with an assumption that the creation story of Genesis is literal (not something I agree with,) which is a fact that you either gained from some outside source or came upon in your own study. You then put that side by side with other data and studies you have seen showing that the literal interpritation of the Creation story isn't possible, which left you with two choices:
1) you were wrong in your assumption about a literal creation story in Genesis
B) The Bible is wrong about God.

And you chose B.

As a side note, Acts 1:18 doesn't say that Judas Hung himself. It says that Peter said Judas hung himself.

Anonymous: "You don't have to be well versed to know that the Bible claims that it is inspired by God, so the first thing a theologist would study is the Bible."

The problem is that the field of theology hasn't progressed since the beginning. What has it found? What convincing evidence has it presented that god exists? The ontological argument? Aquinus' proofs? What? You can dig up cities and read accounts of people written other than the bible authors two hundred years after the events...but how does this lead them closer to uncovering virgin births, walking on water, resurrection....divine inspiration?

"What does the Bible say about an even which we know happened? What does the Bible say about a city that we know existed?"

Pick up most any novel and real places and real people will be discussed...but we know it is fiction.

Also, the psychology analogy fails because we know the mind exists and we know the person with the brain exists....theology is the "study" of god...which begs the question from the get-go.

Thanks

Myself: "The problem is that the field of theology hasn't progressed since the beginning. What has it found? What convincing evidence has it presented that god exists? The ontological argument? Aquinus' proofs? What? You can dig up cities and read accounts of people written other than the bible authors two hundred years after the events...but how does this lead them closer to uncovering virgin births, walking on water, resurrection....divine inspiration?"

Theology hasn't progressed? Theology isn't just the study of wheather or not God exists, it's studying him. I think I would call the Reformation and emergence of certain denominations a progression of theology.

If theology had never progressed, then there wouldn't be any protestant churches. If we were to assume that theology didn't progress today, then I would still have to believe in an inerrant Bible with a strict literal translation throughout all of the scriptures in order for such a statement to be true.

As far as convincing evidence goes, I am sort of a baby theologist. I haven't even finished reading Bruce Metzger's "The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, and Content." By the way, his work is awesome. His obituary in Princeton's news called him "one of Princeton's truly great alumnus." His work is the leading authority on Canonical studies, and even atheists who are known in the field reference him. I recomend him to every one and any one.

Any way, I haven't got much for you, I'll be straight up. But I'm learning, and I'm starting at the same place every good theologist has to start: an inteligent look at the Bible.

As far as the miracles of the new testament go, I can tell you that we have some eye whitness testimonies outside of the Bible.

The Babylonian Talmud talks about him about half a dozen times, and even though it wasn't reduced to writing until the fifth century, it's an accumulation of much earlier materials, some of which go back to the first Christian century.

They called him Ben Pandera (that is, son of Pandera). Though the Pharasees did not believe that Mary was a virgin, they did believe that Jesus didn't have a proper father and that he was born outside of wedlock.

Obviously, if you believe that the Bible is reliable, (which I do,) you would interpret this as their rationalisation of the fact that Jesus didn't have a father.

He was said to have been in Egypt, where he learned magic., and was able to perform miracles in order to decieve people.

This doesn't bother any one who has already acertained the reliability of the Bible, as the Pharasees are seen in the gospels telling people that he can cast out demons only by the power of beelzebulb.

It was said that he called himself God. Something that agrees completely with Biblical accounts.

He was tried by the Sanhedrin as a deciever and a teacher of apostasy. Something else that agrees completely with the Biblical accounts.

He was put to death on the eve of passover, which as well agrees with the Bible. However, they have two traditions here. One says that he was crucified, and the alternative tradition says he was stoned and then hanged.

The Babylonian Talmud says that he had five disciples, whose names are given as Matthai, Neqai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah.

Bruce puts it all this way:
"It is commonly agreed by both Jewish and Christian scholars that these Talmudic tradidions add nothing new to the authentic history of Jesus in the Gospels. In general, they confirm early Christian tradition by giving independent-and even hostile-testimony that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. It is noteworthy also that the Talmud refers to Jesus' power to perform miracles (although it attributes them to his knowledge of magic) and to his claim to be the divine Son of God. The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera." (Third edition, revised and enlarged, page 93. Emphasis is mine.)

There's also Josephus, and the like, but I'll assume that you know Josephus. Every one seems to these days. ^_^


"Pick up most any novel and real places and real people will be discussed...but we know it is fiction."

The diference there being that there aren't historical records or archeological findings to support the events of a fictional novel, and there are all kinds of literary and culteral cues that ficional stories are, in fact, fiction. That's why a good theologian has to know all of those things.

"Thanks"
Thank you for not automaticaly declaring my stupidity. It seems there's a lot of mud-slinging around here, and it's nice to see a clean hand every once in a while. ^_^