The Resurrection and Prayer
On August 6, 1945 the United States Air Force detonated a nuclear weapon over the city of Hiroshima. 140,000 people died in the blast, many of whom were immediately vaporized into their constituent atoms, leaving no remains at all. Yet a majority of Christians in the US believe that those victims of the bombing will one day be made whole and stand in judgment before God. A majority of Christian Americans believe in a God so powerful he can reconstruct the exact DNA and protein sequences of each of those bodies, in exactly the form they were in at the moment before they died in that blast.
Yet a sizable number of commenters on this blog seem to believe this powerful God, who is keeping track of the DNA sequences of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the certainty of a future resurrection at some date uncertain, is unwilling to heal a girl of diabetes, or meningitis. They believe he can't even make the common cold go away, or clear up a horrendous case of warts. This incongruity is rarely pointed out, and making it more explicit is what I will try to do in this post.
Christianity is based on the belief that a man, Jesus, lived and died. Christians to some degree or another also believe that this man was divine, most believing that he was the God of the universe in human flesh. In addition, most Christians further argue that this man's life was sinless, and that by his death, Christians can escape the consequences of their sin. Most also assert that his resurrection is the evidence for a future resurrection of all mankind. Thus, most Christians believe that God will, at some point, bring all the dead humans who have ever existed back to life.
Thus, when we discuss issues about prayer and healing, the assertion that God can do nothing about sickness, suffering and pain on earth is a perfectly reasonable assertion to make if there were no future resurrection. For instance, a Deist can hold to this position with no logical contortions. Certain Jews such as the Sadducees could reasonably hold to this, since again, they do not believe the human exists again after his death.
For the bulk of believers though, and here I mean those who accept Jesus' resurrection as a historical fact and those who believe in a future resurrection, the inaction of God in the face of suffering has to be deliberate. For Christian believers, the argument that God is somehow hamstrung from acting to heal the sick flies directly in the face of the miracles of Jesus. Even after Jesus' death, the Bible is full of stories of wondrous healings on the part of the apostles, none of whom felt it was necessary to hold back from helping the sick because it would leave them without free will.
The modern concept of free will is not mentioned in the Bible. It's an ex post facto justification for the modern finding that faith healing doesn't happen. Even medieval Christians firmly believed God healed the sick. The relic of the "one true cross" was determined to be such because it had the power to heal the sick when it touched them. There was no begging for the wonders of free will to be manifest in the lives of those supposedly healed by it. In France, the touch of the king was believed to heal scrofula, and this was due to the king's proximity to the deity, yet nobody in France complained that the king was violating the free will of those who were healed.
No. This free will defense is weak tea, the only leftovers of a warmed-up, thrice picked-over last meal. But again, think of the victims of Hiroshima. They are spread throughout the ecosystem now after they were thrown up into the atmosphere by the cloud of gas that flew up from the city. Yet their free will had nothing to do with their vaporization. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. My explanation for the facts is simple: the victims of Hiroshima, and all other people who ever died, are dead now, and will remain so. My explanation fits all available facts.
Some Christians may adopt the idea that the resurrection will not be one of bodies, but only one of spirit. I applaud them for this, but then the conundrum of Christianity grows even deeper. For if the resurrection of the dead does not entail the reconstruction of their bodies, why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected at all? After all, sacrifices given by the Israelites prior to Jesus were of animals, and God did not need to resurrect those sacrificed animals for the deaths to be atoning. In fact, the bodily resurrection of Jesus makes the atonement suspect, for all Jesus really did was experience the absence of cellular activity for something like 36 hours. Is this really such torture?
To hold the position that the cessation of cellular activity in a man-god for 36 hours is an adequate recompense for all the evil mankind has done over roughly 150,000 years of history -- including Hiroshima, the Holocaust, the pogroms of the medieval era, the countless genocides, petty violences, rapes, murders, infanticides and slavery of human existence -- is one of the silliest beliefs I've ever heard. It sits up there with flat-earthism, phrenology and young earth creationism.
So the Christian believer is presented with a quandary and I suspect their lack of unanimity in the face of this quandary is the single best evidence for the essential vacuum at the core of this system of belief. For if there were a cogent explanation, one that was satisfactory to all, Christianity would at least be unanimous in accepting it. This suggests to me that if I ask questions of Christians, their answers to these questions should be the same, since the same divinity that remembers the exact sequence of DNA in the victims of Hiroshima could certainly make the followers of his One True Religion aware of the truth of it. Yet the answers to the following questions are probably as varied as the answers to questions about taste in food, clothes, or film, but I will ask them anyway:
1. Is it the position of Christians that all humans will be resurrected bodily at some future time by God?
2. Is it their position that God has the power to do this phenomenal act of healing, but cannot heal the children who are dying because their parents are praying for their life, or rid someone of a crippling, deforming disease because to do so would harm their free will?
3. If so, why were Jesus and the apostles, the "one true cross" relic and the king of France able to heal without violating free will? If not, why do we have no evidence that God does any healing at all?
4. Finally, if Jesus' death were necessary for the atonement of man's sin, what purpose was his bodily resurrection? Specifically why was it necessary for his atonement to include a resurrection when sacrificial animals, who were sacrificed under the rules God gave to the Israelites, were not resurrected but were eaten?
Yet a sizable number of commenters on this blog seem to believe this powerful God, who is keeping track of the DNA sequences of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the certainty of a future resurrection at some date uncertain, is unwilling to heal a girl of diabetes, or meningitis. They believe he can't even make the common cold go away, or clear up a horrendous case of warts. This incongruity is rarely pointed out, and making it more explicit is what I will try to do in this post.
Christianity is based on the belief that a man, Jesus, lived and died. Christians to some degree or another also believe that this man was divine, most believing that he was the God of the universe in human flesh. In addition, most Christians further argue that this man's life was sinless, and that by his death, Christians can escape the consequences of their sin. Most also assert that his resurrection is the evidence for a future resurrection of all mankind. Thus, most Christians believe that God will, at some point, bring all the dead humans who have ever existed back to life.
Thus, when we discuss issues about prayer and healing, the assertion that God can do nothing about sickness, suffering and pain on earth is a perfectly reasonable assertion to make if there were no future resurrection. For instance, a Deist can hold to this position with no logical contortions. Certain Jews such as the Sadducees could reasonably hold to this, since again, they do not believe the human exists again after his death.
For the bulk of believers though, and here I mean those who accept Jesus' resurrection as a historical fact and those who believe in a future resurrection, the inaction of God in the face of suffering has to be deliberate. For Christian believers, the argument that God is somehow hamstrung from acting to heal the sick flies directly in the face of the miracles of Jesus. Even after Jesus' death, the Bible is full of stories of wondrous healings on the part of the apostles, none of whom felt it was necessary to hold back from helping the sick because it would leave them without free will.
The modern concept of free will is not mentioned in the Bible. It's an ex post facto justification for the modern finding that faith healing doesn't happen. Even medieval Christians firmly believed God healed the sick. The relic of the "one true cross" was determined to be such because it had the power to heal the sick when it touched them. There was no begging for the wonders of free will to be manifest in the lives of those supposedly healed by it. In France, the touch of the king was believed to heal scrofula, and this was due to the king's proximity to the deity, yet nobody in France complained that the king was violating the free will of those who were healed.
No. This free will defense is weak tea, the only leftovers of a warmed-up, thrice picked-over last meal. But again, think of the victims of Hiroshima. They are spread throughout the ecosystem now after they were thrown up into the atmosphere by the cloud of gas that flew up from the city. Yet their free will had nothing to do with their vaporization. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. My explanation for the facts is simple: the victims of Hiroshima, and all other people who ever died, are dead now, and will remain so. My explanation fits all available facts.
Some Christians may adopt the idea that the resurrection will not be one of bodies, but only one of spirit. I applaud them for this, but then the conundrum of Christianity grows even deeper. For if the resurrection of the dead does not entail the reconstruction of their bodies, why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected at all? After all, sacrifices given by the Israelites prior to Jesus were of animals, and God did not need to resurrect those sacrificed animals for the deaths to be atoning. In fact, the bodily resurrection of Jesus makes the atonement suspect, for all Jesus really did was experience the absence of cellular activity for something like 36 hours. Is this really such torture?
To hold the position that the cessation of cellular activity in a man-god for 36 hours is an adequate recompense for all the evil mankind has done over roughly 150,000 years of history -- including Hiroshima, the Holocaust, the pogroms of the medieval era, the countless genocides, petty violences, rapes, murders, infanticides and slavery of human existence -- is one of the silliest beliefs I've ever heard. It sits up there with flat-earthism, phrenology and young earth creationism.
So the Christian believer is presented with a quandary and I suspect their lack of unanimity in the face of this quandary is the single best evidence for the essential vacuum at the core of this system of belief. For if there were a cogent explanation, one that was satisfactory to all, Christianity would at least be unanimous in accepting it. This suggests to me that if I ask questions of Christians, their answers to these questions should be the same, since the same divinity that remembers the exact sequence of DNA in the victims of Hiroshima could certainly make the followers of his One True Religion aware of the truth of it. Yet the answers to the following questions are probably as varied as the answers to questions about taste in food, clothes, or film, but I will ask them anyway:
1. Is it the position of Christians that all humans will be resurrected bodily at some future time by God?
2. Is it their position that God has the power to do this phenomenal act of healing, but cannot heal the children who are dying because their parents are praying for their life, or rid someone of a crippling, deforming disease because to do so would harm their free will?
3. If so, why were Jesus and the apostles, the "one true cross" relic and the king of France able to heal without violating free will? If not, why do we have no evidence that God does any healing at all?
4. Finally, if Jesus' death were necessary for the atonement of man's sin, what purpose was his bodily resurrection? Specifically why was it necessary for his atonement to include a resurrection when sacrificial animals, who were sacrificed under the rules God gave to the Israelites, were not resurrected but were eaten?
59 comments:
Perhaps Jesus' body was eaten.
That is why his physical body was never found. At the Lords Supper Jesus gave specific instructions on how to eat his body.
The condiments on the table at the Lords Supper were not listed as chicken or beef or vegetables, it was bread to represent his flesh to be dipped in his blood and consumed.
The Christian cult is therefore one formed from the minds of ignorant cannibalistic barbarians.
By partaking in Holy Communion, one is mimicking the act of the disciples eating Jesus' dead body, a sick and demented ritual.
That's a really good point, Steven. I always knew it was disgustingly cannibalistic, but I never thought about how Jeebus was giving explicit instructions on how to "inter" his body.
What makes it even sicker is that the Catholics, who admittedly are the least Christian of any denomination, actually consider the wine and host to be transubstantiated into Jeebus' literal flesh. It's bad enough to do it symbolically, but then to claim proudly that you're eating actual flesh and drinking actual blood is abhorrent! Really quite sickening.
My Question is how can two people share the same molecule?
Example: William Bradford is buried under an apple tree. As the tree grows roots grow into the grave and into William Bradford's body sucking up the decomposing nutrients which are then conveyed to other people who come along and eat the apples. Those nutrients are then become part of other people and their body. They eventually die and decompose, find their way to the water table and are distributed throughout the world, becoming part of countless other people. You and I are made up of the molecules of countless others who dies many years ago. In the resurrection; who gets the molecules?
Evan,
Sounds like you've been (mis)reading my comments on the Treeman thread, and also you're still hung up on the prayer for the sick thing. I guess I'll go for it again...
A majority of Christian Americans believe in a God so powerful he can reconstruct the exact DNA and protein sequences of each of those bodies, in exactly the form they were in at the moment before they died in that blast.
Not quite. It's not "exactly the same form", because Christianity teaches that our resurrection bodies will be perfect and there will definitely be some differences, such as how Jesus was able to appear in a room despite the door being locked, etc. There is some mystery here (gasp!), but there does seem to be some "new" creation going on, although our new bodies are likely to be very similar in appearance to our old bodies, seeing how Jesus was recognizable and still had the nail prints. I may not understand how exactly God will do this, but this is not an inconsistency in Christian theology because if God is all-powerful, then he could either put everyone all back together or create new bodies similar to the old ones. It's simply not a problem if we posit an all-powerful God.
Yet a sizable number of commenters on this blog seem to believe this powerful God, who is keeping track of the DNA sequences of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the certainty of a future resurrection at some date uncertain, is unwilling to heal a girl of diabetes, or meningitis. They believe he can't even make the common cold go away, or clear up a horrendous case of warts. This incongruity is rarely pointed out, and making it more explicit is what I will try to do in this post.
How is it incongruent to say that God can do lots of things but chooses to do some and not others? God being unwilling to do something is vastly different than God being unable to do something, yet you seem to be using the two ideas interchangeably here.
The modern concept of free will is not mentioned in the Bible.
So, verses like Joshua 24:15 have nothing to do with free will?
There were a few other random thoughts in your article that were erroneous, but they're off-topic so I'll leave them alone.
Let's get to your conclusion:
1. Is it the position of Christians that all humans will be resurrected bodily at some future time by God?
Yes.
2. Is it their position that God has the power to do this phenomenal act of healing, but cannot heal the children who are dying because their parents are praying for their life, or rid someone of a crippling, deforming disease because to do so would harm their free will?
No.
3. ... If not, why do we have no evidence that God does any healing at all?
I don't know how this question follows from the a "no" answer to question 2. But what would you consider "evidence" that someone had been healed specifically by God?
4. Finally, if Jesus' death were necessary for the atonement of man's sin, what purpose was his bodily resurrection?
A variety of reasons. To vindicate his death in general, but specifically to his followers and all who would believe; to demonstrate and actually achieve victory over death; to show the truth of an afterlife/resurrection to his followers, inspiring hope, faith, perseverance, etc.; to prepare a "pattern" for our own resurrection; and many more I'm sure.
Specifically why was it necessary for his atonement to include a resurrection when sacrificial animals, who were sacrificed under the rules God gave to the Israelites, were not resurrected but were eaten?
The reasons for Jesus' resurrection are unrelated to the rules of sacrifice given in the OT. Jesus' rez also shows that he is different than those sacrifices in that he is the "once for all" sacrifice and there is no need to continue offering them anymore. The atonement aspect was completed at the cross. But it's not much good (maybe a little) if no one lives on after death in this world.
Steven,
Were you being serious? I thought you were being sarcastic until Kyle seemed to respond seriously. I really hope you do not seriously think that Jesus told his disciples to eat his body, that his disciples actually did eat his dead body, and that Christians pretend to eat Jesus' dead body during Communion.
Surely you are not serious with these claims.
1. Is it the position of Christians that all humans will be resurrected bodily at some future time by God?
Not sure but Scripturally, the answer is no.
2. Is it their position that God has the power to do this phenomenal act of healing, but cannot heal the children who are dying because their parents are praying for their life, or rid someone of a crippling, deforming disease because to do so would harm their free will?
Who knows. Is there anyone here entitled to speak on behalf of all of Christianity? :)
3. If so, why were Jesus and the apostles, the "one true cross" relic and the king of France able to heal without violating free will? If not, why do we have no evidence that God does any healing at all?
The evidence is in the Bible and in any number of personal experience accounts over the past two thousand years.
4. Finally, if Jesus' death were necessary for the atonement of man's sin, what purpose was his bodily resurrection? Specifically why was it necessary for his atonement to include a resurrection when sacrificial animals, who were sacrificed under the rules God gave to the Israelites, were not resurrected but were eaten?
If Jesus hadn’t been resurrected, salvation via resurrection would be possible. The Corinthians asked this very same question and Paul answers it in 1 Corinthians 15.
Rachel said: But what would you consider "evidence" that someone had been healed specifically by God?
Really? You can't think of a single instance where someone could be healed and the only way it could've been accomplished was by God's intervention? Do I have to give you the link to the amputee site again? Seriously, do you just do this to annoy us, or are you truly so forgetful/ignore all comments made by us?
I think part of Evan's point that you need to address is all the healings that (supposedly) occurred by Jesus and his apostles, and yet not a single Christian today can healing anybody, of anything, solely by faith. Seems a bit strange, don't ya think?
Rachel, I have to give this to you...you are not afraid of setting yourself up. First, why should Steven not be serious? Cannibalism is a recognized and even ritualized process in current "primitive" cultures and certainly throughout history. Preserving the knowledge, wisdom and experiences of the elders, yada yada. That Jesus would have encouraged cannibalism is not so strange...he said, during his life (John 6), "unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you cannot follow me." Many people left him that day...who can blame them? He made (supposedly) other outrageous statements that are just as incongruous with his contemporary Judaism or Roman culture, so cannibalism could have been a thought that he tossed out to keep him alive and present among his disciples.
You said "God being unwilling to do something is vastly different than God being unable to do something." Possibly...but what about God stating, in the Bible, that He is willing to do something, but does not do it. Then has he demonstrated incapability...or just capriciousness? "Ask anything in my name, and I will do it for you." "Lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." "Greater things than I have done shall you do, because I go to the Father."
If Jesus said he will answer a prayer, and does not, is he incapable, unwilling, just toying with us...or is he or his teaching just a myth made up to personify people's hopes, fears, and need to control the morality of others through guilt, condemnation and holding forth the apple of eternal life?
Rachel" " I really hope you do not seriously think that Jesus told his disciples to eat his body, that his disciples actually did eat his dead body, and that Christians pretend to eat Jesus' dead body during Communion."
"Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part in me." It is this verse upon which the doctrine of transubstantiation rest. Roman Catholicism since the Lateran Council of 1215 AD have taught Transubstantiation, which means literally to change substance. According to roman Catholicism, unless you are a part of the true church and receive the eucharist from a priest who prays over the elements, reciting the "magic" words and thereby changing the elements into the literal body and blood of christ you are lost and hell bound.
Read also the Council of Trent.
It really doesn't matter what you believe, the majority of christianity throughout the world believes this. They also believe if you are a protestant; you are lost. Again see the Council of Trent.
So much for Blaise's wager.
Rachel,
What is the perfect form of the human body? By who's standards? Will our resurrection bodies be identical in height and weight? Can you keep the plastic surgery you had done or will the snozola or bubble-butt you were born with be returned? Will we all have bound feet? Elongated necks supported by gold hoops? Blond hair and blue eyes? What skin color? Will the "perfectly created" cleft palate be reformed on the mouths of those born with such palates? Will we all have cleft palates? Does god have a cleft palate as he creates this on people "in his image?" Will you be wearing designer clothes or just the original nude form of Adam and Eve? Will you have belly button in heaven?
This "perfect form" idea sounds like a lot of wishful thinking based on the materialistic desires of somebody dissatisfied with the form they were given. Not necessarily you, but whomever formulated this idea that physical form will be a concern in dispensing ultimate reward. If you will be with god forever does it really matter what you look like?
I would consider a bill remitted to a healthcare provider for services rendered by the medical office of "your god" a good start to showing "your god" healed someone. Until then anybody's god can claim responsibility.
Jason: "If Jesus hadn’t been resurrected, salvation via resurrection would be possible. The Corinthians asked this very same question and Paul answers it in 1 Corinthians 15."
Corinthians was like all the rest of the early new testament church, apocalyptic in their view of the world. Just like Jesus was baptized by an apocalyptic John the baptist, and Jesus' deed's and words make sense in an apocalyptic context, especially his words that "many of you will not taste death before the son of man returns in power," or " This generation will not pass away until shall be fulfilled,"it wasn't until the later writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, Hebrews, Revelation that the imminent return of "the son of Man" that the apocalyptic tone was softened and modified. Jesus appears in the synoptic gospels which are the earliest, to believe himself, that the end was upon them just as John the Baptist and many other apocalyptic writers of that period. When we speak of the resurrection 2,000 years ago please remember that Jesus and Paul appear to apocalyptic in their teaching, and it was the later writers that softened the imminence of that tone.
I keep thinking someone on these discussions of healing is going to post a link to a bunch of online healings we have to debunk. So I searched. Found none. Did I use the wrong search words? What about those people who 'go forward' every Sunday morning and toss their crutches aside? Do they pick them up on the way out or get tired out the next week and go back to them? Sure there are some "God healed my cancer" but they were in medical treatment anyway and so it is more likely the treatment kicked in. If there were modern day healings, where are the vast number of witnesses and healed? If there are none today, why were there then? When we read a Native American tale of a shaman changing form literally, and we can't find someone who can do that today, we know that means they maybe took on the ways and lived in the wild for a while or just told that as a story to make some point about how to behave and that there was not literal transformation that would have violated any laws of physics. So maybe there were not really healings then or maybe people beleived and it was the placebo effect or more likely it was all just made up. To make them seem more special and wonderful. They were turned into Gods and the stories made up to reinforce that. Jesus probably didn't say anything like that but someone made up the ritual years later and said he said it to support it and people have been making up what it means ever since.
Christianity worked before science and the internet. The problem with Christianity is, to up date its thinking / theology into the logical world would means it’s death.
Here’s an example from Judaism. Biblically, the Holy of Holies was totally off limits to all but the High Priest who entered it once a year on the Day of Atonement. Stories abound in the Hebrew Bible about how even the sincere and pious act of sacrifice by King Uzziah was rewarded by God with leprosy (2 Chronicles 26:16 - 23) since he violated Gods Llaw or Torah as cited by the priest Azariah and 80 other priest who knew God would not tolerate even a sincere violation of the Law of Sacrifice. In this sense we can equate this to the pious Christian claims of Biblical healing in that it is ONLY meant to be read in the past to inspire faith and gain followers for the present.
But just look at what happened in reality to the Holy of Holies when the Temple was defiled by the Babylonians in 586 and when the Greek king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (died 164 BCE) entered the Temple and sacrificed a pig on the alter and smeared it’s blood everywhere in the temple…absolutely NOTHING! Maybe the pious Christians can write off God’s wrath against the Romans when they destroyed the Temple in 70CE and carried its wealth off to Roman for its new use in their pagan temples because the actions of Jesus atoning death made the Temple in God’s sight useless, but NOT in 586 BCE and late summer of 169 BCE when Antiochus IV plunders the Temple and rededicates it to the Greek god Zeus (see: The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt by Elias Bickerman, EJ Brill 1979).
To defend the Christian dogmas of Biblical truth, Christian believers must be constantly some what of a con-artist engaged in the old “Shell Game” with reality where faith is quicker than the logical mind and thus,…it’s not REALLY that way…you DON”T REALLY understand!
In my opinion, most Christians would make a hell-of-a great used car sales people; it’s not a lie if you can get caught!
To Rachel,
As bazaar and insane as it sounds, yes I was being serious.
Please read, KJV St.John 6: (Jesus is quoted as saying)
50 (This the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.)
51 (I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.)
52 The Jews threfore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 (Then Je'sus said unto them, Verily verily I say unto you, Except ye eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.)
54 (Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.)
55 (For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.)
56 (He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.)
57 (As the living Father hath sent me, and I live in the father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.)
58 (This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.)
59 These things said he in the syna-gogue, as he taught in Ca-per-naum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmered at it, he said unto them, (Doth this offend you?)
Also Matt: ch: 26 vs. 26
Mark: ch: 14 vs. 22
Luke ch: 22 vs. 19
One must remember that the disciples were on a time line to get Jesus' wishes fulfilled, because he was to return quickly and they had a duty to fulfill.
This was serious business to the disciples. The Man of God was not to be taken lightly, because the disciples were responsible for having him crucified. "For who shall give an account for this man?" And not one disciple spoke up for him.
Since the disciples were part of the plan to murder their redeemer for their lost souls, they had to carry out their instructions, less they not receive their promised reward.
Jesus's return was to be quick and without warning. (paraphrase)No man knows the day that I return, it could have been the very next day.
It's beyond sickning.
Just a couple of quick clarifications. First, Jason is right that no one can speak for all of Christianity. I almost included that in my answer, but didn't. However, there are certain basic tenets that are common to the vast majority of evangelical Christianity, and I think I can generally speak for that.
Also, my understanding is that one major area in which Christadelphians differ from evangelical Christianity is the physical resurrection. So Jason is of course free to provide his answers, but just realize that he is not speaking from a Christian perspective on the issue of the resurrection.
Emodude,
I said,
But what would you consider "evidence" that someone had been healed specifically by God?
Then you said,
Really? You can't think of a single instance where someone could be healed and the only way it could've been accomplished was by God's intervention?
Um... what? Did I say I couldn't think of any instances of healing? I'm asking what Evan would consider as evidence of such a thing before I even bother. As in, does he want a personal testimony, an eyewitness account, a doctor's quote, what? And I think most people here know exactly why I'm asking that. It's because when you don't believe in the supernatural, nothing can ever change your mind. I've seen skeptic after skeptic say the same thing, "where's the evidence" or "why doesn't God do a miracle for me, then I'd believe him", etc. Yet these same skeptics say that if God appeared to them, they'd think they were hallucinating, or it wasn't really God, blah blah. If you start with the presupposition that there is no supernatural, then you'll never be convinced otherwise no matter what kind of proof anyone brings.
Evan says he wants "evidence" that God does healing today. I'm simply asking, what constitutes "evidence"? What would count? What kind of evidence is required in order for the healing to be accepted as a true act of God? Because if you/he can't say what that evidence would be, then this whole discussion is pointless.
Seriously, do you just do this to annoy us, or are you truly so forgetful/ignore all comments made by us?
Emodude, I haven't forgotten or ignored a single comment to me, on the contrary I have answered responses from many, many people. If anyone is being annoying here it's you who seem to want so desperately to find something wrong with my arguments that you don't take the time to read carefully and understand what I'm saying.
I think part of Evan's point that you need to address is all the healings that (supposedly) occurred by Jesus and his apostles, and yet not a single Christian today can healing anybody, of anything, solely by faith. Seems a bit strange, don't ya think?
I don't think it's been proven that "not a single Christian today" has healed anyone. But certainly the number of healings is significantly reduced. It's not strange to me, the numerous miracles and healings were done to authenticate Jesus as God's Son and the apostles as having authority from God. We have the Bible all written now, so we don't need any new "words from God" and no one directly speaks for God anymore (contrary to the Charismatics).
Brother Crow,
First, why should Steven not be serious?
Oh I don't know... maybe because it's a ridiculous claim and only fundy atheists to the extreme would even entertain such a notion, let alone actually think it's a good argument?
Cannibalism is a recognized and even ritualized process in current "primitive" cultures and certainly throughout history.
This doesn't prove that Jesus was being literal in those verses in the slightest. You yourself even noted that cannibalism was "outrageous" and "incongruous" with Jesus' contemporary culture, so why in the world would the disciples think Jesus really meant that they should eat his body and drink his blood?
Many people left him that day...who can blame them?
Um... they left, but not because they thought Jesus wanted them to eat him. They didn't like his teachings, especially that he was saying they had to believe in him and his speaking of such a close connection to God.
cannibalism could have been a thought that he tossed out to keep him alive and present among his disciples.
Sorry, but you need more than "could have been" to claim that Jesus meant anything else but metaphor by these statements.
Possibly...but what about God stating, in the Bible, that He is willing to do something, but does not do it. Then has he demonstrated incapability...or just capriciousness?
First up:
Ask anything in my name, and I will do it for you.
Notice the "in my name" part, i.e. according to God's will/character.
Lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
I think you mean James 5 here, and you've missed quite a bit. The sickness there is connected with sins, implying that if the sickness was the result of judgment, then the prayer of faith (repentance) would restore the sick one. Plus, the passage says the elders should anoint the sick one with oil, which was actually a form of medical treatment in those days anyway.
Greater things than I have done shall you do, because I go to the Father
Let's see, Jesus healed, raised the dead, and fed more than 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish. What's greater than all that? Not more miracles, but seeing many people around the world saved.
Just yesterday I witnessed a guest speaker lay his hands on an injured man and say "We rebuke this injury in the name of Jesus".
He said it several times.
Nothing happened.
I was unable to dig up enough courage to ask why it didn't work.
These are the sorts of issues that fuelled my questioning and ultimate deconversion from Christianity.
Doesn't it strike you as incredibly "odd" that so many "important" doctrinal issues like the nature of the resurrection or free will are debated without satisfactory resolution? The endless arguments seem to rest or fall on the subjective and nuanced interpretations of one little snippet of a verse against the derived meaning of another unrelated passage.
Surely, if the New Testament was inspired by the God who created Shakespeare, & all the greatest authors of literature and science, these issues could have been spelled out a little more clearly and unambiguously? If God is the author of the Bible, why is it so muddled & incoherent on so many of these important questions? Why should we need theologians to parse the hidden implications of Scripture to reconcile the obvious contradictions?
To me, the vagaries of Biblical Doctrine are a huge problem. Just look at how many people have lost their lives or even the ability to live in peace with their neighbor over the disparate and fractious interpretations of "scripture". It is this wealth of ambiguity that fuels the disputes between competing sects & denominations of organized Christianity. Why would a god of peace leave these ambiguities to fester when a more definitive scripture could have prevented so many of these misunderstandings?
One is forced to conclude that either God wanted us to be confused & fight amongst ourselves or the Bible is not his work at all.
-evan
Rachel, the concept of christian cannibalism was not initially forwarded by "fundy atheists" but by christians! Check out Bruggeman, who referenced early christianity as a tribal religion with traits of cannibalism. A ridiculous claim to you, perhaps...but you should know, you make them all the time.
The biggest issue with you christians (and if you don't know, I used to be one) is that you demand the bible be literal when it suits you, then metaphorical when it doesn't. Where is it "tagged" that Jesus was speaking metaphorically? Literal cannibalism is a legitimate explanation for why people deserted him in John 6 - the author claims it was because they could not tolerate his teaching...yes, cannibalism. For you, the bible is literal truth when speaking about his resurrection, but metaphor when speaking about cannibalism. YOu can't have it both ways! Can't define the interpretive hermeneutic? Then don't make the audacious claim.
And the claim that they left because of a close connection with God is BS...Jesus was most likely an Essene, but even if he wasn't, the mystical tradition of Judaism was alive and well long before Jesus came on the scene and long after he left it.
No, I am not refering to James 5...but the gospel of Mark. And no where in the NT does it discriminate against healing for illness due to sickness.
Which is more perverse...that God promises but does not deliver, or that despicable doctrines arise that profess that sickness due to sin cannot be healed? I hope you do not really believe that.
And finally...nope, you are the one who needs more than the spam you toss about to prove that Jesus meant anything less than literal cannibalism. I don't have to prove shit. Again - you can't have it both ways, Rachel. Was he literal, metaphorical? Or does the bible itself give us direction on when to know what is literal and what is not? It doesn't, because the writers and their followers believed it was all literally true.
"What's greater than all that? Not more miracles, but seeing many people around the world saved."
Hmm, saved from what? Truth? Time on their hands to study real things instead of wasting it on something akin to adults beleiving in Santa or Zeus? Many people around the world deluded, more like it. Pretty sure the fishes and loaves thing was made up after the fact to. Anyone got an answer for how he mighta actually pulled that off? I mean a real plausible scientific answer.
Re: Y'shua's words regarding eating His body and drinking His blood - pridefulness (my own and others infected with it) is what causes people to be offended with the truth and thus suffer from delusions. Y'shua was not offended by any of the spiritual viruses we tend to infect each other with - rather, He offered salvation from such. He spoke of eating His body and drinking His blood twice - once before a crowd of people (whom most did take offense and withdraw) and just before His death. The first time He spoke this way He was encouraging people to bring their hostility and antagonism to Him - to not take it out on one another - He can take our cannibalistic ways whether they be literal, spiritual, emotional or mental - we are not designed for such. The second time He speaks of eating His body and drinking His blood He says to do it in remembrance of Him - have you ever taken Him up on His advice? Or is it just easier to scapegoat others and justify taking out aggression on other people??
Rachel: " First, Jason is right that no one can speak for all of Christianity. I almost included that in my answer, but didn't. "
That is perhaps the understatement of the year. Even within individual denominations there are such a diversity of beliefs that you could get a consensus on many of the doctrines.
Rachel: "Let's see, Jesus healed, raised the dead, and fed more than 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish. What's greater than all that? Not more miracles, but seeing many people around the world saved.
That is not the context.
You are following classic apologetics; " The art of making the bible say what it does not say, and also making the bible not say what it says."
jean-baptiste said: Corinthians was like all the rest of the early new testament church, apocalyptic in their view of the world.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the resurrection...?
it wasn't until the later writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, Hebrews, Revelation that the imminent return of "the son of Man" that the apocalyptic tone was softened and modified.
The message regarding the return of Christ is consistent throughout the NT.
Jesus appears in the synoptic gospels which are the earliest, to believe himself, that the end was upon them just as John the Baptist and many other apocalyptic writers of that period.
This is incorrect. Jesus describes the events that were to occur prior to his return, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 being one of them and the fulfillment of the time of the Gentiles being the second.
When we speak of the resurrection 2,000 years ago please remember that Jesus and Paul appear to apocalyptic in their teaching, and it was the later writers that softened the imminence of that tone.
Please clarify as I'm not sure what your argument is here. The point still is, if Jesus hadn’t been resurrected, salvation via resurrection would be possible.
First let me say that "God" does a lousy job of making himself clear. Here we have two of his followers who read the same book, Rachel and Jason, who can't even agree on a basic doctrine like the resurrection.
They both believe the resurrection is a critical belief, they just don't agree with one another about what's critical about it.
Rachel believes we'll get our old bodies back and Jason doesn't. That alone is odd. Can't they both pray to God to let them know if they are right? Should he not give them the right answer when they pray?
Secondly -- there is no logical reason that if Jesus is not resurrected, nobody else can be resurrected. The Bible is full of resurrections that took place prior to the resurrection of Jesus. In addition -- if Jesus' death is an atonement for sin, then the logical thing would be that his death -- being permanent -- would allow for others to be resurrected, assuming the logic of sacrifice.
There is, in fact, not much sacrifice in the case of Jesus. He had a cessation of cellular activity for about 36 hours after 6 hours of suffering that is far less than the average burn patient experiences for several months after a severe burn. And 36 hours? Really? I've slept for that long after a bout of heavy drinking for goodness sake.
It is much more of a sacrifice if Jesus is not resurrected and God permanently loses his son than if he is. But of course, this does not fit with the facts of the NT so logic goes out the window and we are told it's a mystery.
Anyway, my primary purpose in the post is still unanswered.
God is capable of bringing back to life the victims of Hiroshima, yet he won't bring back to life a girl dying of diabetes type I, which a doctor could do. Is God less powerful and loving than a doctor in this case, but more powerful than anything anyone has ever heard of in the other case?
I think not.
My solution answers all the data. Dead people remain dead, there is no God, and we will never be resurrected.
I can also speak for all atheists on the central point of belief for them. There is no God. No atheist will disagree with me on that.
Yet the followers of the one true God can't agree on central doctrines of their faith like the trinity, the resurrection, and the presence or absence of Jesus' flesh in their crackers.
Jason: I'm not sure what this has to do with the resurrection...?
The point is that Jesus himself, according to his own words expected the "Son of Man" to appear imminently . Jesus; God in the flesh? Expecting? Anticipating? Apparently he did not get the memo. He was not expecting 2000 years to be defined as imminent. Mark chapter 9 " Many of you, will not taste death before the Son of Man comes in power." What in the world could he be talking about? Mark Chapter 13 "This generation will not pass away." Christian apologist have engaged in linguistical contorsionism in an attempt to make this not say, what it says. The first churches were apocalyptic in their view as well and expected the Son of Man within their lifetime.
The gospel of John begins to soften and modify the imminence of the return of the Son of Man because it was written in the middle of the second century. You can figure out why it would be important to modify the text.
Jason : "The message regarding the return of Christ is consistent throughout the NT. "
Wrong Cochise! The earlier gospels and earlier epistles paint a picture of the return of the Son of Man as an immediate, in their lifetime event"The Ax is laid at the root of the tree." The Apostle Paul in in Corinthians and I Thess. Expect the return in HIS LIFETIME. It is not consistent throughout the earlier gospels and later gospels and the earlier epistles and later epistles.. The teaching Company " The Historical Jesus" Bart Erhman. Plus, " Lost Christianities" Bart Erhman. Erhman lays out the case quite convincingly.
Also in Mark's gospel when Jesus is referring to the "Son of Man" the language used does not indicate that he is referring to himself. It is the later gospel's and epistles, (ie... Hebrews, Revelation) that indicates that it is actually Jesus who is returning.
Apocalypticism began 200 years before the beginning of the New testament to explain the problem of suffering. Order Ehrman's course from the "The Teaching Company" "The historical Jesus" it is quite good.
Jason: "This is incorrect. Jesus describes the events that were to occur prior to his return, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 being one of them and the fulfillment of the time of the Gentiles being the second."
If I am not mistaken, and I could be, you are citing a text from the Gospel of John. It's not that hard to get prophecy correct when you are writing after the event has happened. Let me give you a prophetic message about the murder of John Kennedy. I can cite the day, hour, what city it occurred in, and who theoretically pulled the trigger. There is going to be an oil embargo in 1973, there will be gas lines, and fuel shortages.
To goprairie,
"Pretty sure the fishes and loaves thing was made up after the fact to. Anyone got an answer for how he mighta actually pulled that off? I mean a real plausible scientific answer."
I have your answer, anyone can do this, I have done it myself.
Here's how it works.
You take 5 loaves of bread and 5 fish and you cut off 1/4 inch square of bread and 1/4 inch cube of fish, and as you hand them their meal, you oraly give each person spiritual advice, such as, Peace be with you, May God bless you richly, Go and be healed, Love God with all your heart, I will pray for you, God loves you, God knows your heart, etc. etc. It could go on and on and feeding the believers with spiritual gifts. What a blessing it is to be fulfilled with spiritual gifts from the g-man himself.
I'm also sure there was an abundance of fishes and loaves, but with all the commotion they conviently lost count.
This is how it was done, seriously.
Brother Crow said,
The biggest issue with you christians (and if you don't know, I used to be one) is that you demand the bible be literal when it suits you, then metaphorical when it doesn't. Where is it "tagged" that Jesus was speaking metaphorically?
If this is what you think, then I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Evan has posted a comment with random complaints against Christianity. When he finally gets to his "primary purpose", we find it's just a restatement of the Problem of Evil which is already being discussed in the Of Trees and Men thread.
Beyond that, this thread seems to be high on claims and assertion, and low on actual reasoning and argument. So I will bow out of this discussion now and move on.
Rachel,
Evan has posted a comment with random complaints against Christianity. When he finally gets to his "primary purpose", we find it's just a restatement of the Problem of Evil which is already being discussed in the Of Trees and Men thread.
Yes, I have random complaints. And my primary purpose is to suggest that a God who can reconstruct the bodies of the dead at Hiroshima ought to be able to save a little girl from diabetes when even I can do that.
The fact that he can't/won't/doesn't is in fact the problem of evil and it's a complaint that will never be answerable by Christianity.
It obviously doesn't bother you and you are welcome to worship such an indifferent-when-he-wants-to-be God. But the God you worship is different than Jason's, different than that of Catholics and Orthodox. It's probably different than the person sitting next to you in the pew.
So why persist with the fiction that God exists, since nobody knows a thing about him?
Wash your hands all you want, the problem won't go away.
Brother Crow said:
The biggest issue with you christians (and if you don't know, I used to be one) is that you demand the bible be literal when it suits you, then metaphorical when it doesn't. Where is it "tagged" that Jesus was speaking metaphorically?
To which Rachel responded:
If this is what you think, then I see no point in continuing this discussion.
I must say, however, that I'm confused as to why Rachel is so quick to give up. Clearly, there is some tongue-in-cheek bantering occuring regarding the cannibalism of Jesus, but this in no way diminishes the point, which is that Christians "demand the bible be literal when it suits [them], then metaphorical when it doesn't."
This statement is true, and I'd be curious to see how Rachel, Jason, or any other self-confessing Christian might attempt to defend (or deny, as it were) it.
As science discovers more and more about our universe, be it cosmic/astronomical discoveries, biological discoveries, geological discoveries, or what have you, the Christian's interpretation of the bible necessarily adjusts to fit the new data.
It's rather like a demonized version of the Scientific Method, especially with regard to theories.
In real science, a theory is amended to account for the data, or scrapped entirely if that proves impossible, and where competing theories are equally capable of accounting for the data, the simpler is chosen.
In religion, the text of the theory remains unchanged, and the data is the same as with science, so rather than changing the theory, the interpretation of the theory's meaning is changed. Unfortunately, religion seems unable to swallow the bitter pill which is scrapping the "theory" altogether and coming up with a new one.
(I guess that explains the disproportionately high level of education amongst proclaiming atheists -- we have chosen the simpler of the competing theories.)
All throughout history, the religious pundits have claimed outright falsehoods as truth, based on biblical interpretations, and as science uncovers the fallacy, they merely amend the interpretation, to make it appear as though the bible supported the facts the whole time.
In fact, keep yourself up-to-date on the Theory of Evolution and current Cosmological theories -- you'll find that as more information and facts are uncovered regarding the formation of the solar system and the origins of life, that the biblical account will suddenly become more metaphorical than literal.
It's happening right now, as even the "noted scientists" who claim to be theists (most of whom would also claim to be Christians) are quick to remind us that evolution is true, so the Genesis account for creation is clearly metaphor.
Rachel has recently accused some of us of wanting to "have our cake and eat it, too", but truly this is the desire of all Christians, as they constantly re-interpret the bible to fit the facts as uncovered by science.
--
Stan
jean-baptiste said: The point is that Jesus himself, according to his own words expected the "Son of Man" to appear imminently.
See below.
He was not expecting 2000 years to be defined as imminent. Mark chapter 9 " Many of you, will not taste death before the Son of Man comes in power." What in the world could he be talking about?
Christ is talking about the transfiguration, as witnessed by three of his disciples immediately proceeding this statement in Mark 9. The evidence in Matthew, Luke and Peter explicitly supports this.
Mark Chapter 13 "This generation will not pass away."...The first churches were apocalyptic in their view as well and expected the Son of Man within their lifetime.
The generation is mentioned in the parable immediately preceding this verse - it's not the one of the disciples.
Wrong Cochise! The earlier gospels and earlier epistles paint a picture of the return of the Son of Man as an immediate, in their lifetime event.
Not according to the text.
"The Ax is laid at the root of the tree." The Apostle Paul in in Corinthians and I Thess. Expect the return in HIS LIFETIME.
Paul expected to die before Christ returned. 2 Timothy 4:6.
Also in Mark's gospel when Jesus is referring to the "Son of Man" the language used does not indicate that he is referring to himself. It is the later gospel's and epistles, (ie... Hebrews, Revelation) that indicates that it is actually Jesus who is returning.
Mark 14:41 seems clear enough.
Apocalypticism began 200 years before the beginning of the New testament to explain the problem of suffering. Order Ehrman's course from the "The Teaching Company" "The historical Jesus" it is quite good.
I still fail to see what your arguments have to do with the resurrection…?
If I am not mistaken, and I could be, you are citing a text from the Gospel of John.
You are mistaken. I’m citing text from the other three Gospels.
It's not that hard to get prophecy correct when you are writing after the event has happened.
But it’s hard to get it right if you’re talking about events that wouldn’t come to pass for decades of years down the road and other events that wouldn’t come to pass for thousands of years down the road.
Stan, great comments and observations. You saw the point, which Rachel did not. Which makes me wonder...doth she protest too much? And let us acknowledge the Christian way...if the argument against their doctrine/belief is a good one, they slip into metaphorical mode. If they get called on that, they throw up their hands and say "you are not arguing reasonably, I am out of here." If, somehow, they get called out on that, then the argument becomes personal..."you jerk, you blasphemer, you typical snotweed atheist, you don't know god anyway, because if you did, you would believe as I do."
Stan, you said "All throughout history, the religious pundits have claimed outright falsehoods as truth, based on biblical interpretations, and as science uncovers the fallacy, they merely amend the interpretation, to make it appear as though the bible supported the facts the whole time." Brilliant! Well said. And this is the great greased watermelon of any debunking effort...they don't remain consistent with themselves. At some point, they plug their ears with their fingers and go running into the night, screaming "blasphemy!"
When I was in seminary, the literal resurrection of Jesus was questioned, debated and studied...it was a central focus of academic research. The fall back position of many fundies in seminary was "doesn't matter what the research says, the proof of the resurrection is that Jesus is still changing lives. I was once lost, but now am found."
Once again, subjective experience will always trump logic, reason, science or history in the christian world view. Having a supernatural god who exists outside of the measurable parameters of the natural universe means that - if the obvious, scientific measures don't provide the proof - then they can default to supernatural mysticism and faith, which (they proudly claim) cannot be proven by the foolishness of man. Literal, metaphorical. Cake, and eat it too. Greased watermelons. Aaaaarrrgggghhh!
Paul expected to die before Christ returned. 2 Timothy 4:6.
2 Timothy (as well as Titus and 1 Timothy) is almost universally recognized by scholars as being of non-Pauline authorship, and was written after Paul died. Paul was unambiguous in 1 Thess 4:
"15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."
He's not talking about you and I, or whatever generation you want to put after us that will be awake when Jesus returns. He's talking about himself and the Thessalonians. He thought THEY would be awake when Jesus returned. He was wrong.
The generation is mentioned in the parable immediately preceding this verse - it's not the one of the disciples.
The whole of Mark 13, Jesus is telling his disciples "When YOU see such and such sign, YOU will know what's happening." He is certainly talking to his disciples, and I find it telling that you are making even less than a half-hearted effort to explain this away; you know you can't do it.
The parable immediately preceding the verse says in it's entirety:
"28Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: 29So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors."
What does this have to do with some other generation?
2 Timothy (as well as Titus and 1 Timothy) is almost universally recognized by scholars as being of non-Pauline authorship, and was written after Paul died.
No, it's not "almost universally accepted".
2 Timothy 1:1 opens with “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus…” You’ll have to provide quite a bit more evidence before I buy into the idea the writer of 2 Timothy was a Pauline imposter. Until then, my point remains: Paul fully expected to die before the return of Christ.
He's not talking about you and I, or whatever generation you want to put after us that will be awake when Jesus returns. He's talking about himself and the Thessalonians. He thought THEY would be awake when Jesus returned. He was wrong.
I’m not sure how you’re coming to this conclusion save on the grounds you’re changing the meaning of the text to fit your theory. Paul is talking about the resurrection, mentioning those who are alive at the return of Christ and those who are dead. This isn’t a Thessalonians-specific reference since there’s no indication Paul thought these believers alone would be the only Christians alive at the return of Christ.
The whole of Mark 13, Jesus is telling his disciples "When YOU see such and such sign, YOU will know what's happening." He is certainly talking to his disciples, and I find it telling that you are making even less than a half-hearted effort to explain this away; you know you can't do it.
Unfortunately, Luke 21 doesn’t fit with this interpretation, nor have you provided any good reason of why I'm wrong, save a weak and unconvincing "certainly".
What does this have to do with some other generation?
It has to do with the generation that witnesses Christ returning (verse 28) – a generation that would come after the destruction of Jerusalem, after the Jews were lead captive and after the times of the Gentiles was over. It has to do with a generation who sees “these things come to pass” (verse 31).
I don't know that it means all that much to God (Who places a priority on spiritual values over materialistic expressions- A creative God is also a progressive one, not allowing for creation to remain concrete), that He resurrected His own body, but I think He knew that it would mean something to those who yet placed value on such a sign. He can do these things but He doesn't want to promote material expressions as the ultimate pursuit.
And down the Jason hole we go.
Shygetz you get a gold star for engaging but it's a waste of time.
Jason can't see that you mean the believing community of Christians and not specifically the Thessalonians so he picks at that little sore in your syntax but ignores the gaping wound that Paul includes himself in the "we" pronoun.
Paul expected to be alive when Jesus returned, that is clear from all the non deutero-Pauline texts.
Jason, as someone who believes there are no deutero-Pauline texts this puts you at odds with most Christian biblical scholars, but that's OK because as far as I can see all you would need was one person to agree with you and you'd be satisfied you were right.
Your response is typical of the apologetic responses: The Bible means what I say it does, not what the plain meaning of the words suggests.
You enjoy that.
Jason, have you seen my discussion of Mark 13 here?
I’m trying not to frustrate Evan, Shygetz or Harry with your comments and at the same time not trying to censor all of them. You probably won’t listen to us when we say you are on the ignorant side of things. Someone you trust will have to say that for you to consider it.
It’s as if you walked into an engineer’s lab and told them how to instantly build something when you don’t know exactly what they’re trying to build and they’ve already been working on it for several months. That’s what you sound like to us.
What you spit out to us are clear and certain answers to questions that admit of several other probabilities. While you believe the Bible is God’s word you cannot be as certain of your interpretation of the Bible as you are that it’s God’s word. What you defend isn’t what God says, but what you think it says. And it appears to us that you have only heard one interpretation of what it says, and therefore that’s the only possible interpretation. Maybe I exaggerate a bit, but I’ll tell you what you need to do, and it will be beneficial for you. Get a book on the history of Biblical interpretation or take a class in it. Get a good Christian theology textbook that shares the various interpretations Christians have had down through the centuries. Buy commentaries from different publishers than just one and be sure to get some scholarly ones too.
Take a good look at this debate, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one.
Christians disagree on a whole host of issues. I disagree with them all. But surely you can become educated by reading books like these. Then when you debate with us we won’t consider you to be ignorant, even if we still disagree, okay?
Now I’m not saying that by doing so you will agree with us on these issues. I’m only saying that you will better appreciate the problems involved whenever it’s your goal to establish the proper interpretation. What we do here on a regular basis is merely deny a particular interpretation, and even though we may suggest an alternative way of looking at the Bible, we merely have to deny your particular way of doing so.
Jason,
I'm sorry that I have not gotten back with you sooner but I have been out of the office today.
I started to respond but I see that a couple of the other guys have already said what needed to be said.
Most of my comments were cited from or belonged to Professor Bart Erhman, James A Gray professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
They are found in The Teaching Company" The Historical Jesus" "Lost Christianities" and "God's Problem"
Your contention is with his assessment, not mine. He is a scholar, you, to my knowledge, are not. He has written or edited 12 books. If you can provide me with evidence that he is incorrect, please make your case.
Rachel wrote:
"I may not understand how exactly God will do this, but this is not an inconsistency in Christian theology because if God is all-powerful, then he could either put everyone all back together or create new bodies similar to the old ones. It's simply not a problem if we posit an all-powerful God."
Sure, if we posit an (omni)³ G-sh thingy, it's no problem at all.
But . . .
If we don't posit such a magic (omni)³ G-sh thingy . . . if we need a good reason for taking this logical step (a doozy) . . . what then?
You seem intent on demonstrating that the uber-sacrifice is "vouchsafed," subsidized so to speak by a very real and tangible supernatural entity, not just some mythic ideal — well . . . Rachel . . . go on then! . . . demonstrate! You'll have to do that first before I can bracket that huge leap as somehow a "given."
I'll be ready to posit a tangible (omni)³ G-sh thingy once you have done so. Otherwise, your rhetorically ornate piety is just so much superfluous wordplay.
words dissemble
words be quick
words resemble walking sticks
The staunchly-defended platitude has been the daily bread of apologists since the days of the Justin of Neapolis. Bombast and an overly lenient readiness on your part to accept gross a prioris — such as (omni)³ G-sh thingies — does not place any obligation on my (or any other individual's) part to follow suit.
Believe whatever you want, Rachel, but bring something better than credulous appeals to a public forum that centers around the rejection of precisely that a priori that you are selling.
. . . or . . . .
by all means, continue doing the hamster-in-a-wheel apologetics . . . if you want to . . . (I'm all for free and good will :)
But know that it is completely ineffectual to anyone who has not already suspended her reason in the service of some previous addiction to a religious commitment.
Ó
Evan,
"Some[citation needed] have cast doubt on the authenticity of the epistle, based on internal analysis, ancient commentary and textual evidence. However, evangelical Christian scholars typically defend Pauline authorship, citing the inconclusiveness of academic inquiry."
I'd like you to know explain how my line of thinking, that Paul did write 2 Timothy, is at odds with "most" Christian scholars.
Your response is typical of the apologetic responses: The Bible means what I say it does, not what the plain meaning of the words suggests.
The "plain meaning of the words". Hmmm...
2 Timothy 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus…”
What do the "plain meaning of the words" say to you, Evan?
John,
Thanks for your input, but I’m really not that interested.
Jean,
I'm not interested in discussing the opinions of Bart Erhman, I'm interested in dealing with the Biblical points originally raised by you and others here.
If you're unable or unwilling to address the points I've raised, please say so.
Jason said:
[Y]ou’re changing the meaning of the text to fit your theory.
...and I laughed.
--
Stan
Jason you're asking me how I justify most Christian scholars identifying the deutero-pauline and pastoral epistles as not coming from Paul.
That's easy:
Here, here, and here.
According to the 2nd reference EIGHTY PERCENT of Christian scholars do not believe that 2nd Timothy was written by Paul.
According to S.E. Porter in the last reference:
...if the church and its scholars are no longer willing to accept the Pastoral Epistles as written by Paul, perhaps it should eliminate them as forgeries that once deceived but will no longer, rather than creating strained theological justifications for their continued canonical presence.
Marcion did not include them in his 2nd century canon and Marcion was believed that Paul was the greatest Christian who ever lived. Therefore the best explanation is that they are 2nd century forgeries.
So say you want to forge a document. One of the best ways to do that is to place the name of the person who you are forging the document to appear to be made by in the early part of the document.
Have you ever heard of the Mormon forger, Mark William Hoffman? He put the name of Joseph Smith on a bunch of documents. According to your logic, they must all have been authentic.
I'd hate to have you on a jury, you would buy just about any excuse someone could come up with.
Jason: I'm not interested in discussing the opinions of Bart Erhman, I'm interested in dealing with the Biblical points originally raised by you and others here."
The points that I raised were citations from Professor Erhman. I, like you, am not a biblical scholar. I have no desire to hear the opinion of someone who, is most likely less educated and less objective on the matter than I am.
If you are unwilling or unable to address Erhman's points just say so.
Jason said...Thanks for your input, but I’m really not that interested.
What is it that you're not interested in, reading and learning? or in learning of opposing Christian viewpoints?
Are you saying that you know everything? I don't? Or are you saying you only trust reading the books written by people in your denomination? Why? Or are you saying you only trust what the Bible says?
Again, how do you know what the Bible says? Because someone you trust tells you what it says?...Because you know the best interpretation of the Bible regardless of what anyone else says? What if they are wrong? What if you are wrong? Did you know that nearly every conclusion you accept about the Bible was first argued by some scholar in the past? Are you anti-intellectual? You cannot be, for this very fact? You have accepted the conclusions of scholars and don
t even know it. Almost every single belief you have about the Bible was first argued by a scholar against other scholars. Scholars of today do not simply accept these conclusions. They must continue to be defended and re-examined.
Anyway, if you are so sure that you are right then why won't you read these books? And if you are so sure you are right, then why won't you read my book? Why? How can you say in advance that you're right without encountering the arguments of sincere people to the contrary?
Evan,
Wow - three links to three websites sites (including the United Methodist Women’s Division) and you’re claiming they’re evidence that the majority of Christian scholars don’t think 2 Timothy was written by Paul. Fascinating.
According to the 2nd reference EIGHTY PERCENT of Christian scholars do not believe that 2nd Timothy was written by Paul.
Incredible! Do they provide a source for this statistic?
Marcion did not include them in his 2nd century canon and Marcion was believed that Paul was the greatest Christian who ever lived. Therefore the best explanation is that they are 2nd century forgeries.
Which would be fine and dandy if not for: “The Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was never doubted by Catholics in early times. Eusebius, with his complete knowledge of early Christian literature, states that they were among the books universally recognized in the Church ta para pasin homologoumena ("Hist. eccl.", II, xxii, III, iii; "Præp. evang.", II, xiv, 7; xvi, 3). They are found in the early Latin and Syriac Versions. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of them (Strom., II, III), and Tertullian expresses his astonishment that they were rejected by Marcion (Adv. Marcion, V, xxi), and says they were written by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus; evidently their rejection was a thing hitherto unheard of.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)
I'd hate to have you on a jury, you would buy just about any excuse someone could come up with.
How ironic: “In judging of the early evidence it should be borne in mind that all three Epistles claim to be by St. Paul. So when an early writer shows his familiarity with them, quotes them as authoritative and as evidently well known to his readers, it may be taken as a proof not only of the existence and widespread knowledge of the Epistles, but that the writer took them for what they claim to be, genuine Epistles of St. Paul; and if the writer lived in the time of Apostles, of Apostolic men, of disciples of Apostles, and of Timothy and Titus (as did Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement) we may be sure that he was correct in doing so. The evidence of these writers is, however, very unceremoniously brushed aside. The heretic Marcion, about A. D. 150, is held to be of much more weight than all of them put together.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Jason,
The Mormon church took the forgeries of Mr. Hoffman as authentic as well. Are you suggesting that 2nd century Christians had greater forensic capabilities than 20th century Mormons?
Evan,
Answered in the last paragraph of my last post.
Jason, if by "answered" you mean "ignored" you are right.
The 2nd century Christians did not get handwriting analysis and higher textual criticism to evaluate the deuteropauline epistles. The Mormons did.
The Mormons originally accepted the forgeries as genuine, the Christians did too.
Using techniques developed in the 18th to 20th centuries non-Christian scholars are unanimous in not accepting the Pauline authorship of the pastorals and as I have shown above, a majority of Christian scholars, INCLUDING the catholic church scholars (which you seem to enjoy quoting) do not accept them as genuinely Pauline.
Your argument style is really that of a naysaying toddler and you seem smarter than that, so I must be getting the better of your emotions.
For that I apologize, but it's hard being as right as I am about the deuteropauline epistles.
Evan,
Like I said, your question was answered. Did you miss this bit? (it was in the last paragraph of my last post)
“In judging of the early evidence it should be borne in mind that all three Epistles claim to be by St. Paul. So when an early writer shows his familiarity with them, quotes them as authoritative and as evidently well known to his readers, it may be taken as a proof not only of the existence and widespread knowledge of the Epistles, but that the writer took them for what they claim to be, genuine Epistles of St. Paul; and if the writer lived in the time of Apostles, of Apostolic men, of disciples of Apostles, and of Timothy and Titus (as did Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement) we may be sure that he was correct in doing so. The evidence of these writers is, however, very unceremoniously brushed aside."
Arguing the Mormons were fooled by a forgery is a non-sequiter.
Jason, I didn't miss a thing you wrote.
My point is very simple and I hope you can understand it. Joseph Smith died in 1844 and his life's documents and works were collected. There are multiple corroborative accounts in newspapers that exist from that day to his existence and handwriting samples of his work exist to this day. Joseph Smith is extremely well-documented historically and there are multiple avenues of inquiry available to authenticate documents he was purported to write.
Yet for years the LDS church believed the forgeries of Mr. Hoffman to be genuine with all that.
They believed these forgeries to be genuine a scant 130 years after the death of Mr. Smith. They then used modern forensic techniques to determine that they were forgeries and this allowed them to de-canonize those documents and not believe they were from Joseph Smith any more.
Arguing that 2nd century Christians accepted a document as authoritative when they had nothing remotely like 20th century forensics simply because the document claims to be written by Paul ignores the fact that MANY texts that were pseudepigraphal undisputedly existed.
Do you believe the Gospel of Thomas to have been written by him because it says so? Do you believe the Secret Book of James was written by him because it says so? Do you believe the Apocryphon of John was written by him because it says so?
If you do believe the above, then you must accept all those works as canonical also, but I bet you don't. So therefore, you have no technique with which to demonstrate clearly whether something is genuine or a pious forgery, do you?
Evan, the trouble is that Jason doesn't actually believe the bible.
At least, that's the only logical conclusion I can draw, since he denies that the bible explicitly endorses non-lethal slave-beating.
If you want to laugh at his "reasoning", read our conversation on his lonely blog.
Seriously -- how can any of us attempt a reasoned debate against someone so daft as this guy?
Jason, Evan's point is simple. There were plenty of epistles, gospels, and other texts circulated at the time, yet you ignore their claims of authenticity.
In order for your inerrant, inspired bible to remain so, you must also accept that those individuals responsible for canonizing it were also inerrant and inspired -- at least on that day.
You must also deny that any competing texts are inspired or inerrant, and you must do both arbitrarily -- blindly accepting the judgments of countless humans past.
If you cannot see that this is illogical, and if you will not admit error when it is so glaringly obvious, then you are daft.
--
Stan
Evan said:Arguing that 2nd century Christians accepted a document as authoritative when they had nothing remotely like 20th century forensics simply because the document claims to be written by Paul ignores the fact that MANY texts that were pseudepigraphal undisputedly existed.
It’s still a non-sequiter. Just because the Mormons were fooled by forgery isn’t proof of anything other then the Mormons were fooled by forgery.
Do you believe the Gospel of Thomas to have been written by him because it says so? Do you believe the Secret Book of James was written by him because it says so? Do you believe the Apocryphon of John was written by him because it says so?
That’s a heck of a red herring. I’m not the one with the burden of proof here, Evan. 2 Timothy 1:1 states the letter was written by Paul. If you have solid, indisputable evidence that it was written by someone else, let’s hear it. If you don’t, then 2 Timothy is innocent until proven guilty and my point stands that Paul knew he was going to die.
If you do believe the above, then you must accept all those works as canonical also, but I bet you don't.
Um….why would I accept those works as being canonical…?
So therefore, you have no technique with which to demonstrate clearly whether something is genuine or a pious forgery, do you?
You're awfully quick to jump to conclusions, aren't you. Ever heard of textual criticism? Or Scriptural consistency?
In terms of 2 Timothy, all of the conservative commentaries I’ve looked at argue quite convincingly for Pauline authorship. So until you provide some half-decent ammo for your theory, this particular argument doesn’t need to continue.
lol Thanks, Stan. As you were.
Over at Debunking Christianity I was surprised to find someone actually defending Pauline authorship for the pastorals.
Curiously, the argument that the commenter (J) presents involves an imagined 'conspiracy of scholars', one intent on undermining the patristic writers' contributions in the telling of history. . .
read the rest here
peace
Ó
Jason,
The Mormon experience shows that committed believers of a religion can be taken in by pious forgeries. It shows that it is possible for the early Christians to have been accepting a forgery. If you think it has no bearing, all it showing is your inability to use logic.
The apocryphal writings that have been shown to you are indeed very germane to the discussion. You are saying that because 2 Timothy says it was written by Paul, it was. If you believe that, you must also believe that the Gospel of Thomas was written by him. It is in no way a red herring.
If you accept all texts as "truthful" at face value, you have to accept them all. Using your standard the Gospel of Thomas is 100% proven to be by Thomas until proven otherwise. Yet you don't accept that gospel. Why? You give no reason for someone to accept 2 Timothy as anything other than a forgery other than internal textual evidence, but you ignore the same internal textual evidence in other texts.
Your inability to see these facts is really mind-boggling. Hypocrisy is one explanation, the other is willful ignorance.
This isn't hard.
Evan said: The Mormon experience shows that committed believers of a religion can be taken in by pious forgeries. It shows that it is possible for the early Christians to have been accepting a forgery. If you think it has no bearing, all it showing is your inability to use logic.
I've never denied it's not possible. What I'm denying is that just because Mormon's were deceived by a forger must mean 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul. This is a non sequitur. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
The apocryphal writings that have been shown to you are indeed very germane to the discussion. You are saying that because 2 Timothy says it was written by Paul, it was.
No, what I'm saying is 2 Timothy 1:1 says Paul wrote the letter. If you don't have any evidence that definitely proves the author is someone else, why would anyone logically think it was someone else?
If you believe that, you must also believe that the Gospel of Thomas was written by him. It is in no way a red herring.
It is a red herring because you're saying 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul simply because you managed to provide three links that say the author wasn't Paul. See, I can provide three links that say he was. So until you give me good, solid evidence (the same thing you require from Christians to prove their points) to support your claim, on what grounds do you expect me to believe you?
If you accept all texts as "truthful" at face value, you have to accept them all.
I don't accept them at face value. It's that whole textual criticism thing I mentioned in my last post.
You give no reason for someone to accept 2 Timothy as anything other than a forgery other than internal textual evidence, but you ignore the same internal textual evidence in other texts.
No, Evan, you're sadly mistaken. If you want reasons why the other texts aren't part of the canon, I can give them to you. But the discussion is 2 Timothy. Unable to support your claim, you instead pick mindless arguments about unrelated issues.
Your inability to see these facts is really mind-boggling. Hypocrisy is one explanation, the other is willful ignorance.
What are the "facts", Evan?
Post a Comment