Jesus is not a legend

[Publisher]

Yes I have read many of his books. They were okay, but obviously he is going after Christianity. The real turn-off for me was when he decided not to believe in God because of the problem of suffering and evil. I think it’s calledGod’s Problem

I think his interest in Chirstianity is because he was a Christian and “believed the Bible from cover to cover”…“even the cover”. His interest lies in Christianity because he’s from a Christian culture and so much of Western history has been influenced by Christian belief and thought.

The problem of suffering and evil has been a major topic for millenia…men have questioned and sought answers…good men…honest men…I fail to see how an honest seeking of answers to questions that are as old as Job could be a “turn off”…but then…it is the questions of life, more than the pat answers often provided that have the most depth and profundity…not everyone is satisfied by such “pat” answers and devote a lifetime to seek those answers…the Journey is as important…if not more important than the Destination…at least that is how some of us “Seekers” have come to view life.

I am not a Catholic because the “answers” it claims to possess do not satisfy my questions…for friend Bart the questions were of such a concern, he chose to seek the truth no matter where it took him…he chose to seek rather than be a hypocrite and turn a blind eye to quetions that haunt him. I find such honesty admirable…I understand that such honesty is not always viewed as “admirable” by the “faithful.”

 

[rom422]

We all know “word of mouth” passed down over and over and over takes on a life of it’s own. That’s why it’s called “tradition”…it is the pious belief of the body of people who hold it…not historical fact.

I agree, that when a message is allowed to circulate freely by word of mouth, it will very likely be distorted. However, I do not think that this is the case with religious truths transmitted in oral tradition. Because we have the Apostles, the elders, the bishops, the priests and deacons whom they ordained, who alone were allowed to preach the message in the name of the Church. Therefore, unlike a gossip that circulates freely, the message of the gospel was being transmitted and guarded zealously by the Church of Christ. Also, let us not forget that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to watch the Church and to teach Her all things needful for our salvation. So, because the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit, She is able to preserve the faith in her traditions. With the help of the Holy Spirit the Church guided the faithful by teaching and explaining the faith, by defining what books were inspired and which were not, by defining doctrines that belonged to the faith and identifying those that were heretical.

Traditional catholic beliefs might have started as truths transmitted by word of mouth. But somehow they also found their way in written records, such as the inspired writings (Holy Scripture), the writings of the Fathers, the liturgy and prayers of the Church, etc. This is what we call “tradition.” Tradition is not just oral preaching. Now, the fact that the initial information was transmitted by word of mouth is not a good reason for dismissing tradition as unreliable. The truth is, many historical documents were actually compiled, not just from previously written records, but also from oral reports made by others. Consider, for example, the *Antiquities of the Jews *written by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Certainly, Josephus was not an eyewitness to all the events that he described in his books. He actually got most of his information also from other people, sometimes in the form of written testimonies, but sometimes also from oral reports made by others.

Finally, I do not see why what people believed could not also be historical fact. I believe that there were already people in America when Columbus sailed to this continent. But wasn’t that also a historical fact? Sure it is. Therefore, what I believe can also be historical fact. The same is true of many facts in early Christianity. People believed in the resurrection of Christ. But I don’t think that we should regard it as a purely pious belief and, therefore, not also historical. Indeed, if Christ did not really rise from the dead, you will need to explain why the early Christians believed it so passionately, and why even the ruthless Roman persecutions were not able to stop them from believing a lie.

The thing is, the ECF’s were also products of their times. One of the most interesting things I found about the ECF’s in reading “Lost Christianities” was they…“lied” about the moral character of those they sought to vilify. All the “heretics” seem to have been reprobates in one way or another according to the ECF’s. Many of the same accusation against Christians leveled by their pagan neighbors against them, the ECF’s used against the “heretics”. From the historical record we know that many of the Gnostic sects held a strict sexual ethic…not at all “reprobate” as the ECF’s would have us believe.

They were apologists trying to bolster their claims…I have no doubt many of them were sincere in their beliefs…restating what they had heard thru gossip, not at all reflecting the truth of the opposing sects morality and ethics.

This is not relevant to our discussion, but quite interesting. Why don’t you give me an example of a lie made by a Church Father, preferably with a link to the online document, if available. The writings of the Fathers are mostly available at newadvent.org/fathers/

Be careful that you do not misjudge the Church Fathers. I know that Gnostics are not necessarily criminals or vicious people. However, the “reprobates” by definition are those who have fallen so far away from the faith that salvation becomes very difficult. To call someone a “reprobate,” therefore, does not imply that the person is a criminal or an abominable person. It does imply that he or she had fallen very far away from the faith. In many cases, unfortunately, this falling away from the faith is not a purely intellectual phenomenon, but results from an unrepented life of sin.

Sorry, Publisher, I don’t have much time now, so I will continue to respond to your comments tomorrow. I have so much more to say, but so little time. You don’t have to respond until I have caught up with you (although you are always welcome to do so.)

 

[Publisher]

I agree, that when a message is allowed to circulate freely by word of mouth, it will very likely be distorted. However, I do not think that this is the case with religious truths transmitted in oral tradition. Because we have the Apostles, the elders, the bishops, the priests and deacons whom they ordained, who alone were allowed to preach the message in the name of the Church. Therefore, unlike a gossip that circulates freely, the message of the gospel was being transmitted and guarded zealously by the Church of Christ. Also, let us not forget that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to watch the Church and to teach Her all things needful for our salvation. So, because the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit, She is able to preserve the faith in her traditions. With the help of the Holy Spirit the Church guided the faithful by teaching and explaining the faith, by defining what books were inspired and which were not, by defining doctrines that belonged to the faith and identifying those that were heretical.

Traditional catholic beliefs might have started as truths transmitted by word of mouth. But somehow they also found their way in written records, such as the inspired writings (Holy Scripture), the writings of the Fathers, the liturgy and prayers of the Church, etc. This is what we call “tradition.” Tradition is not just oral preaching. Now, the fact that the initial information was transmitted by word of mouth is not a good reason for dismissing tradition as unreliable. The truth is, many historical documents were actually compiled, not just from previously written records, but also from oral reports made by others. Consider, for example, the *Antiquities of the Jews *written by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Certainly, Josephus was not an eyewitness to all the events that he described in his books. He actually got most of his information also from other people, sometimes in the form of written testimonies, but sometimes also from oral reports made by others.

Finally, I do not see why what people believed could not also be historical fact. I believe that there were already people in America when Columbus sailed to this continent. But wasn’t that also a historical fact? Sure it is. Therefore, what I believe can also be historical fact. The same is true of many facts in early Christianity. People believed in the resurrection of Christ. But I don’t think that we should regard it as a purely pious belief and, therefore, not also historical. Indeed, if Christ did not really rise from the dead, you will need to explain why the early Christians believed it so passionately, and why even the ruthless Roman persecutions were not able to stop them from believing a lie.

This is not relevant to our discussion, but quite interesting. Why don’t you give me an example of a lie made by a Church Father, preferably with a link to the online document, if available. The writings of the Fathers are mostly available at newadvent.org/fathers/

Be careful that you do not misjudge the Church Fathers. I know that Gnostics are not necessarily criminals or vicious people. However, the “reprobates” by definition are those who have fallen so far away from the faith that salvation becomes very difficult. To call someone a “reprobate,” therefore, does not imply that the person is a criminal or an abominable person. It does imply that he or she had fallen very far away from the faith. In many cases, unfortunately, this falling away from the faith is not a purely intellectual phenomenon, but results from an unrepented life of sin.

Sorry, Publisher, I don’t have much time now, so I will continue to respond to your comments tomorrow. I have so much more to say, but so little time. You don’t have to respond until I have caught up with you (although you are always welcome to do so.)

Better idea…why don’t you pick up “Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures” and read them for youself then you’ll have the references to review as in depth as you like?

As I said…I’m not out to change your faith tradition affilliation…I’m offering another opinion that for me, has as much validity and historical ‘proof’…if not more so…than the “proto-orthodox/catholic” claims of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Since I don’t believe thatr the apostles ‘passed’ down their teachings to the bishops priests and deacons any more than I beleive the apostles passed down their teachings directly to the leaders of the Gnostic groups and other sects who claim to have received their teachings directly from the apostles…that really isn’t "proof’ to me.

Question…why is it “proof” the Catholics have the teachings of the apostles becasus the ECF’s claim “succession” but it’s not “proof” for the Gnostics and other sects when they made the same claims? They too claimed to get their teachings directly from Paul, Peter, John and Mark as well.

Your responses are welcome…interesting to read…just don’t hold “water” for me…the only way the claims of your group can be substantiated is to claim the “heretics” lied about their own apostolic succession. It just a big vicious circle it seems to me.

Since I do not believe those leaders which came to be seen as the “fathers” of the Orthodox/Catholic churches had any more authority than the Gnostics or other sects of the time…their claims isn’t as much “proof” of those claims as it is “proof” for me Christianity was diverse in belief and practice from the 2nd century on than it is today.

 

[Publisher]

This is not relevant to our discussion, but quite interesting. Why don’t you give me an example of a lie made by a Church Father, preferably with a link to the online document, if available. The writings of the Fathers are mostly available at newadvent.org/fathers/

Be careful that you do not misjudge the Church Fathers. I know that Gnostics are not necessarily criminals or vicious people. However, the “reprobates” by definition are those who have fallen so far away from the faith that salvation becomes very difficult. To call someone a “reprobate,” therefore, does not imply that the person is a criminal or an abominable person. It does imply that he or she had fallen very far away from the faith. In many cases, unfortunately, this falling away from the faith is not a purely intellectual phenomenon, but results from an unrepented life of sin.

Sorry, Publisher, I don’t have much time now, so I will continue to respond to your comments tomorrow. I have so much more to say, but so little time. You don’t have to respond until I have caught up with you (although you are always welcome to do so.)

Stating that people are sexually immoral and engage in all manner of evil practices when not true is a “lie”. If the ECF’s found it appropriate to “lie” about their moral conduct to bolster their own claims…how is that not relevant?

 

[manualman]

You’re presupposing angel visits occur…“actually rational”??? Angels visiting humans…yet Joseph Smith also claimed angel visitations…but those are clearly dismissed…is that “actually rational” if one believes in angel visitations?

You don’t see your circular logic? You start with the assumption that every event has a natural occurrence, then you proceed to evaluate supernatural claims, find them incompatible with your “givens” and conclude that such claims are false. That’s not reason, it’s prejudice.

One can use reason to conclude that Joseph Smith was a fraud without simply assuming it the moment he claimed to have been visited by an angel. Smith claimed historic events and civilizations that can be demonstrated never to have existed. THIS undercuts his credibility, not necessarily his claim to a supernatural vision.

This is the reasonable approach to supernatural claims. Start with the facts and look for contradictions or evidence of fraud or bad faith. Muhammed fails in much the same manner (largely his “divinely guided” decisions that were so obviously self-serving). Jesus passes every such test.

I’ll grant you that one cannot rationally rule out some of the alternate explanations for history and Scripture that have been presented by the unbelievers. But have you considered that perhaps this is precisely by divine intent? God doesn’t want to coerce us into mere obedience. He wants us to love Him. That’s not possible if you’re staring down the barrel of a supernatural gun. So instead, He inserts himself into our lives and our world in ways that CAN be denied by the obstinate, but are plain to see for those who are open to it. I’m surprised and sad that someone clearly as thoughtful as you are is so closed to seeing the ways He has intervened in this world out of love for us. Have you tried asking for help to see?

 

[manualman]

I think his interest in Chirstianity is because he was a Christian and “believed the Bible from cover to cover”…“even the cover”. His interest lies in Christianity because he’s from a Christian culture and so much of Western history has been influenced by Christian belief and thought.

He’s similar in that regard to Dan Barker the atheist, I suspect. In Barker’s case, the animosity clearly arises from the oversimplifications and distortions of the fundamentalist view of history and Scripture he was fed in that faith community. When those distortions came crashing down (7, 24 hour day creation, Noah’s flood covering the entire globe with water, etc), his entire faith went down along with the distortions.

I wonder if Bart has the same problem?

 

[manualman]

Publisher: “We all know “word of mouth” passed down over and over and over takes on a life of it’s own. That’s why it’s called “tradition”…it is the pious belief of the body of people who hold it…not historical fact.”

Fun thought here. Skeptic scholars used to say similar things about the Old Testament in the early days of the atheistic bible scholar movement. They scoffed at the idea that the Old Testament had been faithfully preserved and openly opined that a portion of it had been reworked, modified and crafted to fit christian ideas and sensibilities and bolster the Messianic claims of Jesus (said christians, of course, would have had to destroy the originals in the Jewish populations that they came to dominate).

The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls made a mockery of many of these scholars’ claims. The scrolls are of a wide variety of ages and origins and were stashed away and untouched since right around the time of Christ. They demonstrated that even the OT accounts that had to have been transmitted orally for centuries before durable writing was available were remarkably uniform in message and content even when passage texts appeared to have originated in geographically dispersed areas. The Dead Sea scrolls are still being analyzed, but almost immediately revealed a lot of “smart skeptics” to be mere rationalizers. (My texts are long gone, but my source was a Biblical Archeology class I took at UW-Madison in the 90’s).

I suspect that since skeptics, by definition, don’t think religious revelation is terribly important, they tend to doubt anybody else could really find it to be so important as to ensure faithful memorization and transmittal of details to succeeding generations.

Once again, it’s bias over reason. I wouldn’t be able to do that, therefore nobody could or would…

 

[JesuisSean]

Lots of witness accounts, written down. Named individuals in history. Contemporary references to Jesus in annals of the time (i.e. Josephus, a contemporary Jewish historian).

Even people like Richard Dawkins, author of ‘The God Delusion’ accept that Jesus was a real living breathing historical figure, and he’s about as rabid an atheist as you can get!

I singed up at the Richard Dawkins “http://www.richarddawkins.net/” website.

I couldn’t think of a name to use off hand, so I used Richard Dawkins spelt backwards, thus it became Drahcir Snikwad.

I then posted a comment concerning proof of God and proof of Jesus Christ. Soon afterwards I received this “Your account has been disabled”.

The comment was basically…

God managed to place both proof of his existence, and proof of Jesus Christ’s existence within the Bible, and did so in such a clever yet simple and unique encoded manner.

To see this encoded proof, go to outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

The click on the flashing words “Watch / Listen”, and let the webpage take you on a webpage tour of such proof, and do so via automatic web page scrolling and audio coverage.

At the web site, it is shown that tons of “Proof of GOD” is encoded within the Bible.

Words, and numbers, are used within this encoding system.

For instance, when you search the Bible for a specific word, you may find that word a certain “NUMBER” of times. Thus numbers are involved. Also, you may search the Bible in a special Equidistant Letter Spacing or Sequence manner. Thus you can search for a word and do so by looking at perhaps every 2nd letter or every 47th letter or every 100th letter, etc. Thus here too, numbers are involved.

These numbers represent names. These names are recognized via the use of Code 6 English Gematria. In Code 6 English Gematria, A=6, B=12, C=18, D=24,…Z=156, thus taking the values of letters that a name is composed of, one finds the following, …

GOD = 156, JESUS = 444, CHRIST = 462, JESUS CHRIST = 906, etc.

Taking these specific number values into account, we find the following information encoded within the Bible.

Search for the words “The Father” and sure enough, we find “GOD”.
Search for the words “The Lord” and sure enough, we find “CHRIST”.
Search for the words “The Father”, “The Son”, and “The Holy Spirit”, and sure enough, we find “GOD” and “CHRIST”.

Now we put the ELS ( Equidistant Letter Sequence ) numbers to work and continue…

Set the ELS from the “CHRIST” of yesterday, to the “CHRIST” of today.
Then search for the words “MARK” “OF GOD”, and sure enough, we find “CHRIST” and the “ONE GOD”.

Set the ELS from 1, to the “CHRIST” of today.
Then search for the words “MARK” “OF GOD”, and sure enough, we find the “ONE JESUS”.

Set the ELS from the “CHRIST” of yesterday, to the “ONE JESUS” of today.
Then search for the words “MARK OF” “JESUS” “CHRIST” “AND GOD”, and sure enough, we find “CHRIST”.

Set the ELS from the “JESUS” of yesterday, to the “ONE CHRIST” of today.
Again search for the words “MARK OF” “JESUS” “CHRIST” “AND GOD”, and sure enough, again we find “CHRIST”.

Set the ELS from the “GOD” of yesterday, to the “ONE CHRIST” of today.
Then search for the words “MARK OF” “JESUS” “CHRIST” “AND GOD”, and sure enough, we find “JESUS CHRIST”.

Set the ELS from the “CHRIST” of yesterday, to the “ONE GOD” of today.
Again search for the words “MARK OF” “JESUS” “CHRIST” “AND GOD”, and sure enough, again we find “JESUS CHRIST”.

Set the ELS from the “GOD” of yesterday, to the “ONE JESUS” of today.
Then search for the words “MARK OF” “GOD AND” “JESUS” “CHRIST”, and sure enough, we find the “ONE JESUS CHRIST”.

Set the ELS from the “CHRIST” of yesterday, to the “ONE GOD” of today.
Again search for the words “MARK OF” “GOD AND” “JESUS” “CHRIST”, and sure enough, again we find the “ONE JESUS CHRIST”.

And the list goes on…

 

[Publisher]

You don’t see your circular logic? You start with the assumption that every event has a natural occurrence, then you proceed to evaluate supernatural claims, find them incompatible with your “givens” and conclude that such claims are false. That’s not reason, it’s prejudice.

One can use reason to conclude that Joseph Smith was a fraud without simply assuming it the moment he claimed to have been visited by an angel. Smith claimed historic events and civilizations that can be demonstrated never to have existed. THIS undercuts his credibility, not necessarily his claim to a supernatural vision.

This is the reasonable approach to supernatural claims. Start with the facts and look for contradictions or evidence of fraud or bad faith. Muhammed fails in much the same manner (largely his “divinely guided” decisions that were so obviously self-serving). Jesus passes every such test.

I’ll grant you that one cannot rationally rule out some of the alternate explanations for history and Scripture that have been presented by the unbelievers. But have you considered that perhaps this is precisely by divine intent? God doesn’t want to coerce us into mere obedience. He wants us to love Him. That’s not possible if you’re staring down the barrel of a supernatural gun. So instead, He inserts himself into our lives and our world in ways that CAN be denied by the obstinate, but are plain to see for those who are open to it. I’m surprised and sad that someone clearly as thoughtful as you are is so closed to seeing the ways He has intervened in this world out of love for us. Have you tried asking for help to see?

I make no “circular” arguement…I think Joseph Smith’s vision no more credible than any of the “authorized” visions and apparitions by any other faith community…I believe God works within His creation, but does not suspend those natural laws of physics He placed within His creation.

I do not view “visions” “apparations” “audible celestial voices” to be anything more than humans trying to put into words, thoughts, ideas their experiences…dead people don’t appear in visions and give instructions…be they Catholic, Mormon, or Quaker.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher: “We all know “word of mouth” passed down over and over and over takes on a life of it’s own. That’s why it’s called “tradition”…it is the pious belief of the body of people who hold it…not historical fact.”

Fun thought here. Skeptic scholars used to say similar things about the Old Testament in the early days of the atheistic bible scholar movement. They scoffed at the idea that the Old Testament had been faithfully preserved and openly opined that a portion of it had been reworked, modified and crafted to fit christian ideas and sensibilities and bolster the Messianic claims of Jesus (said christians, of course, would have had to destroy the originals in the Jewish populations that they came to dominate).

The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls made a mockery of many of these scholars’ claims. The scrolls are of a wide variety of ages and origins and were stashed away and untouched since right around the time of Christ. They demonstrated that even the OT accounts that had to have been transmitted orally for centuries before durable writing was available were remarkably uniform in message and content even when passage texts appeared to have originated in geographically dispersed areas. The Dead Sea scrolls are still being analyzed, but almost immediately revealed a lot of “smart skeptics” to be mere rationalizers. (My texts are long gone, but my source was a Biblical Archeology class I took at UW-Madison in the 90’s).

I suspect that since skeptics, by definition, don’t think religious revelation is terribly important, they tend to doubt anybody else could really find it to be so important as to ensure faithful memorization and transmittal of details to succeeding generations.

Once again, it’s bias over reason. I wouldn’t be able to do that, therefore nobody could or would…

More credible thought from my point of view…the writers of the gospels used OT stories to develop their story of Jesus, based his life upon existing scriptures to give continuity to Israel’s history and experience with God now thru Jesus of Nazareth.

The OT scriptures were redacted and fleshed out to pretty close to their current form after the Return from Exile…the Pentatuch took on most of it’s present form around 600BCE and gave the Jewish nation it’s identity…one they almost lost during the Exile.

 

[manualman]

I make no “circular” arguement…I think Joseph Smith’s vision no more credible than any of the “authorized” visions and apparitions by any other faith community…I believe God works within His creation, but does not suspend those natural laws of physics He placed within His creation.

I do not view “visions” “apparations” “audible celestial voices” to be anything more than humans trying to put into words, thoughts, ideas their experiences…dead people don’t appear in visions and give instructions…be they Catholic, Mormon, or Quaker.

You may not like the label “circular logic” but your explanation of your reasoning is the definition of it. Sorry.

You start with your belief (disbelief, actually) and then discount the veracity of any testimony incompatible with it because it conflicts with your starting place. Nice. But what if you’re wrong? What if God DOES work miracles out of love for humanity? What will you do when Jesus demands that you insert your fingers through the holes in his hands and probe the wound in his side? Tell him he’s not really there? Yikes.

 

[rom422]

Irenaeus may have been a pupil of Polycarp there is no historical proof that Polycarp was a disciple of John…

According to Tertullian, in the book Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32, the apostle John ordained St. Polycarp and assigned him to the church of Smyrna. (See newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm ). Now, apostles and bishops train those whom they ordain. Therefore, since St. John ordained St. Polycarp, we may conclude that St. Polycarp was taught by St. John. Is that not evidence enough? Even if we grant that Tertullian learned this fact from other sources, the fact that he wrote it in his book means that St. Polycarp’s reputation and relationship to St. John was already a well-known and undisputed fact at that time. Actually, I know no one who disputed and challenged Tertullian in this regard.

many of the Gnostic groups also claimed to be taught by John, Paul, Peter…yet their claims are dismissed completely…why is that?

Many heretics, including some Gnostic groups, did claim to have been taught also by the Apostles. However, if they subsequently abandoned the Apostles’ teachings and started teaching their own brand of doctrine, then their new teachings could no longer justly be called “Apostolic,” now could they? Indeed, that is the reason why they were called “heretics,” because they had departed from the teachings of the Apostles. No wonder their claims to authenticity were forcefully being dismissed. In the link I provided above (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, Ch. 32 and following chapters), you can also read how Tertullian censured the heretics because their teachings no longer reflected the faith of the Apostles.

Fact, “John’s gospel” was anonymous…as were the synoptics…but pious believers put names to them. Just as some of the pastoral letters hold the name of “Paul” and “Peter”…

True, the Church had in the course of time identified the authors of the four gospels. However, I don’t agree that the author-names that were added to distinguish the different gospels were assigned arbitrarily, as if they had no historical bases. We in the present world often have no access anymore to materials available to the Early Church Fathers. So we have difficulty in tracing who the authors were. But the early Christians had better information than we do. So, I trust them when they say that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively. Also, I disagree that the ECFs assigned these names only to increase the credibility of the gospel texts. That was just pure speculation without proof.

yet most scholars now agree linguistically and content point to these documents being written long after the ascribed author’s death.

Most scholars? Unless you have made an actual count of the bible scholars who actually doubt the dating and identification of authors with each gospel, how do you know that they constitute the majority? Besides, truth is not a matter of head-counting. There may be 1000 present-day scholars rejecting the traditional authorship and dating of the gospels, and only 1 present-day scholar accepting them. So what? One thousand modern-day scholars cannot counterbalance one excellent master. This is also the reason why I think that the biblical commentaries of our doctors and saints are far more valuable than the spurious speculations and hypotheses that now abound in many contemporary books and journals. Besides, I have reviewed some of the modern arguments advanced by contemporary scholars. Sad to report this, but to me their arguments appear to be very SHALLOW – with bold capital letters!

 

[rom422]

You may not like the label “circular logic” but your explanation of your reasoning is the definition of it. Sorry.

You start with your belief (disbelief, actually) and then discount the veracity of any testimony incompatible with it because it conflicts with your starting place. Nice. But what if you’re wrong? What if God DOES work miracles out of love for humanity? What will you do when Jesus demands that you insert your fingers through the holes in his hands and probe the wound in his side? Tell him he’s not really there? Yikes.

LOL

 

[Publisher]

You may not like the label “circular logic” but your explanation of your reasoning is the definition of it. Sorry.

You start with your belief (disbelief, actually) and then discount the veracity of any testimony incompatible with it because it conflicts with your starting place. Nice. But what if you’re wrong? What if God DOES work miracles out of love for humanity? What will you do when Jesus demands that you insert your fingers through the holes in his hands and probe the wound in his side? Tell him he’s not really there? Yikes.

Good words…seem to fit your stance as well…so I’ll use them.
"You start with your belief and then discount the veracity of any testimony incompatible with it because it conflicts with your starting place. Nice. But what if you’re wrong? "

If I’m wrong it is of no real consequence. I’m not worried in “ticking off” some deity that can be offended by honest sincere seeking after truth.

I don’t find 'fear" much of a motive to accept the beliefs in talking snakes and donkeys, parting seas and rivers, floating axeheads and sticks that turn to serpents…let alone what will happen when I stand in the Presence of the One who loves me most and knows me best.

 

[Publisher]

According to Tertullian, in the book Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32, the apostle John ordained St. Polycarp and assigned him to the church of Smyrna. (See newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm ). Now, apostles and bishops train those whom they ordain. Therefore, since St. John ordained St. Polycarp, we may conclude that St. Polycarp was taught by St. John. Is that not evidence enough? Even if we grant that Tertullian learned this fact from other sources, the fact that he wrote it in his book means that St. Polycarp’s reputation and relationship to St. John was already a well-known and undisputed fact at that time. Actually, I know no one who disputed and challenged Tertullian in this regard.

Many heretics, including some Gnostic groups, did claim to have been taught also by the Apostles. However, if they subsequently abandoned the Apostles’ teachings and started teaching their own brand of doctrine, then their new teachings could no longer justly be called “Apostolic,” now could they? Indeed, that is the reason why they were called “heretics,” because they had departed from the teachings of the Apostles. No wonder their claims to authenticity were forcefully being dismissed. In the link I provided above (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, Ch. 32 and following chapters), you can also read how Tertullian censured the heretics because their teachings no longer reflected the faith of the Apostles.

True, the Church had in the course of time identified the authors of the four gospels. However, I don’t agree that the author-names that were added to distinguish the different gospels were assigned arbitrarily, as if they had no historical bases. We in the present world often have no access anymore to materials available to the Early Church Fathers. So we have difficulty in tracing who the authors were. But the early Christians had better information than we do. So, I trust them when they say that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively. Also, I disagree that the ECFs assigned these names only to increase the credibility of the gospel texts. That was just pure speculation without proof.

Most scholars? Unless you have made an actual count of the bible scholars who actually doubt the dating and identification of authors with each gospel, how do you know that they constitute the majority? Besides, truth is not a matter of head-counting. There may be 1000 present-day scholars rejecting the traditional authorship and dating of the gospels, and only 1 present-day scholar accepting them. So what? One thousand modern-day scholars cannot counterbalance one excellent master. This is also the reason why I think that the biblical commentaries of our doctors and saints are far more valuable than the spurious speculations and hypotheses that now abound in many contemporary books and journals. Besides, I have reviewed some of the modern arguments advanced by contemporary scholars. Sad to report this, but to me their arguments appear to be very SHALLOW – with bold capital letters!

Friend, if you are comfortable believing Iraneaes and Tertullians testimony which really has no historical proof other than their claim to have known the apostles…then discount the very same claims by stating that the other sects of Christianity abandoned the apostles teachings…perhaps it was Iranaeus and Tertullian who abandoned the apostles teachings…each are making the same claims…each are within similar time frames…each sect claimed to be the “authentic” expression of the teaching of the apostles…yet we have no real record of any apostles teachings other than Pauls authentic letters…which the other sects also used to bolster their own claims. Christianity was a minor Jewish sect until the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE…the only writings that came out of the first century by an “authentic” apostle was Paul…the other books and letters that claim apostolic names are either anonymous…forgeries…as is 2 Peter, and 2 Timothy or written by someone bearing a common name of that era such as “James” or “John the Elder”.

I simply do not find the evidence compelling to accept the claims of the ECF’s as anything more than the “winners” of the battle for the dominant form of Christianity…which developed into the Orthodox and Catholic bodies…and I’m very comfortable believing that and find it historical credible more than the Catholic/Orthodox claims.

As I’ve said…there is another side and many of us have chosen to explore that “other side” and have not found it’s credibility stretched to breaking. I find the conservative claims lacking in credibility…my world doesn’t operate under the conditions I find expounded on. The views of Erhman, Pagels, Spong, Borg, Crossan, O’Grady, Mack seem more plausible…can’t help it…they just do.

I just can’t get my mind around the “conservative” take base on “faith stories” as historical fact.

 

[manualman]

Good words…seem to fit your stance as well…so I’ll use them.
"You start with your belief and then discount the veracity of any testimony incompatible with it because it conflicts with your starting place. Nice. But what if you’re wrong? "

If I’m wrong it is of no real consequence. I’m not worried in “ticking off” some deity that can be offended by honest sincere seeking after truth.

I don’t find 'fear" much of a motive to accept the beliefs in talking snakes and donkeys, parting seas and rivers, floating axeheads and sticks that turn to serpents…let alone what will happen when I stand in the Presence of the One who loves me most and knows me best.

You’re consistent, I’ll grant you that! But I wonder if you’ve ever noticed how universal the human capacity for rationalization is. The problem with “sincerely seeking” while discounting all sources of authority outside oneself is precisely one of rationalizing. Humans are amazing at it. Whether they be 1940’s Germans who “didn’t know” what was happening at the nearby camps, modern Americans who “don’t know” that a fetus before birth is an actual human being or 1800’s Westerner’s who “didn’t know” that black people were as fully human as any white guy, “sincere intentions” are rarely any sort of match for rationalization. I’ll grant you that Quakers have a better record than many for cutting through self deception to ugly truths, but that has more to do with the way you guys value silence and reflection than any intrinsic value of rejecting all external sources of authority.

Your response reminds me of the rich man in hell who asks God to be merciful to his friends and family and send Lazarus to warn them of the danger of ignoring the covenant. God replies (paraphrasing from memory, look it up if you like) “I’ve already sent them Moses, the prophets and the law. If they have deceived themselves into ignoring these messages, they will deceive themselves into ignoring a man risen from the dead as well.” (Mind you, the skeptic scholars will pronounce this to be a NON-authentic parable of Jesus since it alludes to why people reject the gospel after the resurrection. Clearly it was made up AFTER the christians concucted the resurrection of Christ, right? ) Or perhaps CS Lewis put it more succintly in the Narnia series: “He’s not a TAME lion!” Just ask the guy in the OT who seemingly innocently tried to prevent the ark of the covenant from falling to the ground, but was struck dead for touching it though he was not a priest. God loves us, but He IS GOD. That means rather more than being your magic genie in a bottle or your self-help guru.

We’ll have to agree to disagree and I’ll part with an offer of a deal for you. Play to your strengths. Ask yourself and God in prayer if genuine love really sits by and offers no direct aid to those beloved. If God is real, why would He do nothing in human history outside the hearts of people? Don’t just wonder, ASK Him. My part of the deal is that I’ll ponder in silence ideas you suggest.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

He’s similar in that regard to Dan Barker the atheist, I suspect. In Barker’s case, the animosity clearly arises from the oversimplifications and distortions of the fundamentalist view of history and Scripture he was fed in that faith community. When those distortions came crashing down (7, 24 hour day creation, Noah’s flood covering the entire globe with water, etc), his entire faith went down along with the distortions.

I wonder if Bart has the same problem?

I believe that could be it. Fundamentalism is as far from the truth as adamant atheism in my opinion. The trouble is, both of them are so noisy and far-fetched that they get all the news coverage, and people end up thinking they have to choose one or the other. Of course, most people are not that outrageous in their beliefs.

 

[Publisher]

. Ask yourself and God in prayer if genuine love really sits by and** offers no direct aid to those beloved**. If God is real, why would He do nothing in human history outside the hearts of people? Don’t just wonder, ASK Him. My part of the deal is that I’ll ponder in silence ideas you suggest.

That’s what God has us for…to respond to the needs of those beloved.

I like the “poem” by Annie Flint

"Christ has no hands today but ours to do His work.

He has no feet but our feet to lead men in the way

He has no tongue but our tongue to tell men how He died

He has no help but our help to bring them to His side.

We are the only Bible the careless world will read,

We are the sinner’s gospel; we are the scoffer’s creed;

We are the Lord’s last message, given in word and deed;

What if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred?

What if our hands are busy with other work than His?

What if our feet are walking where sin’s allurement is?

What if our tongue is speaking of things His lips would spurn?

How can we hope to help Him or welcome His return?"

—Annie Johnston Flint

 

[manualman]

And how good a job will we do being Christ’s hands, feet, lips, etc if we’re each making it up for ourselves as we go?

It’s a great reflection as a call to mission, but it’s a lousy theological description of God (if that’s how you’re taking it). Christ doesn’t LACK those things, He’s just called us to be so joined to Him that ours are His. Part of becoming so joined is surrendering our imagined mastery of perceiving reality from falsehood.

But there I go arguing again. Do we have a deal or no?

 

[rom422]

You could, but that simply is not so…many believers do not hold to Johanine authorship and realize there are problems with doing so…

I’m glad you said that. It means that holding Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel and believing in tradition are two different things. You cannot justly say that those who hold Johannine authorship do so only because they are believers in tradition to begin with. That is not necessarily the case. It is one thing to believe in tradition in general; but to hold Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel is another step, and requires a different set of evidences.

John was not written some 25 years after the death of James…but more like 50-80 years later.

I meant to type 52, not 25. My bad. St. John’s gospel was written at least in 96 A.D., while St. James was martyred in 44 A.D.

It makes no difference to me if you wish to believe John, son of Zebedee wrote “John”…

Of course, it won’t make a difference if I believe that John wrote “John,” or not. However, it would make a difference if John actually wrote “John,” or not. Because the reason we started talking about this in the first place was your statement that we didn’t have even one eyewitness account about Christ (Post #17). And I insisted that we have an eyewitness account in the gospel of St. John.

Actually, the gospel record itself provides an abundance of details indicating that the author was an eyewitness. Examples:

1. In John 1:39 the author specified the time of day when he and Andrew first met Christ (“It was about the tenth hour”). This is very striking, for it is like a man remembering the very first time he met his wife. It wasn’t particularly a very significant detail in the story, but it argues strongly for the eyewitness nature of the account.
2. In John 12:3, writing about Mary’s anointing of Christ’s feet with ointment, the author noted how the house was filled by the odor of the ointment. (Must be very strong odor!) To be sure, this had nothing to do with Mary’s gesture, but the fact that this insignificant detail was added indicates how much it affected the author, who therefore must have been present at the event.
3. Also, do you remember the incident when Christ fed a multitude of people with loaves and fishes? St. Matthew mentioned the five loaves and two fishes (Matthew 14:17). So did St. Mark 6:38 and St. Luke 9:13. But it was the fourth gospel that said that Christ multiplied five barley loaves. Not rye, not wheat, not oat, but barley. Does it really matter what kind of bread was used? Not really. But it does indicate that the writer was right at the middle of this event, for he knew what type of bread was used.

Challenge me and I can give you more examples. None of these, taken in isolation, would prove that the author was an eyewitness. But the cumulative weight of evidence is so strong that only a prejudiced person would deny it. So, even if you do not accept the Johannine origin of the gospel manuscripts, the internal evidence is strong that the account was an eyewitness account.

Having said that, I maintain that – even without help from the valuable testimony of the Church Fathers – there is sufficient internal evidence within the fourth gospel itself that it was an eyewitness account. Also, as I have attempted to do in Post #33 above, the account was almost certainly that of the Apostle John.

I am simply offering another…and in my opinion…option to the “faith affirming” traditions which developed over the decades to answer questions no one had answers for…“nature hates a vacuum”…and so does religious people, especially those who want to make sure they can trace their origins to a certain historical figure…however…as much “tradition” exists among the “heretics” that they too were able to trace their origins to the apostles…but THEY aren’t given any credibility becasue they’re…“heretics”.

If you mean to tell me that their heresy originated from the Apostles, then please show me. Here at CAF we should avoid making assertions that we cannot prove. It is a sign of weakness.