well, i'm back in the blogosphere kids. i'd apologise for the delay but there really can't be anyone left reading this thing so it's really just for me at this point. Three cheers for egotistical self-voyeurism! (as if i don't already know what's going on in my life...)
anyway, on to what i have to say...
So about 2 weeks ago i downloaded a semester's worth of class lectures that were given on the topic of the historical jesus. The lectures were delivered at Standford by Tom Sheehan, and though i'm not sure of the date, by the books and significant figures he mentions i'd have to assume it was in the last 3 years. anyway, Sheehan was at one time part of the Jesus Seminar, a scholarly, if not self aggrandizing, group of researchers who set out to determine what they could about the "Yeshua of History" in the late 80's and early 90's. A fascinating subject to be sure but one which has inevitably taken hold of the gospels and (to borrow a phrase from NT Wright) "dug trenches where once there were gardens." Much of their collective hermeneutic can be traced back to a groundbreaking work by Rudolf Bultman called, "Jesus Christ and Mythology." In the book Bultman pushes for what describes as the need to "de-mythologize" the gospels. The modern mind he argues, cannot accept the accounts given by the gospel writers and therefore we must dig into the heart of the text to discover the true meaning.
At this point most conservatives would begin bashing and showing all the short comings of the jesus seminar, rudolf bultman, tom sheehan, liberals, the DNC, and hilary clinton. And most liberals would probably respond by asking the conservative to hold their IQ up on one hand. However, as i will likely convince neither party to drop their weapons, so to speak, i'd like to sidestep those issues (infinite though they may be) for a moment and focus on a smaller, quieter one... namely, What does it mean to think rightly about god?
You see, liberal scholarship for the last 200 years has approached the truth of god as displayed by the new testament as something to be wrought from its pages and then distilled into an existential truth so bland only an asshole would disagree ("of course peace is a good thing! of course we should respect one another!"). Conservatives on the other hand, largely as a reaction to this liberal shift in theological scholarship, have abandoned anything not printed on the pages of their King James bibles. The truths then that flow beyond the literal reading of the text are cordoned off because anything that's not literally truth is a slippery slope. And worst of all, most of us have been duped into thinking that existential or literal are mutually exclusive options.
So i'll ask you again, "What does it mean to think rightly about god?"... and just to give you a little more to think about, How literal (or non-literal) must your belief be for salvation?... just a thought...
"...Christians, if we are to be Christians, are going to have to stop fudging our belief that Jesus matters." - Stanley Hauerwas
"Is there anyone one who can recall
ever breaking rank at all
for something someone yelled real loud one time" - John Mayer, Belief
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
It is hard for me to tell if you are picking a side or are just simply stating some other people's opinions (however unscriptural they are) or just crapping on conservatives.
"The modern mind he argues, cannot accept the accounts given by the gospel writers and therefore we must dig into the heart of the text to discover the true meaning."
Ofcourse the "modern" mind can't wrap their mind around the accounts given by the gospel writers. Rom. 3:11 says "no one understands, no one seeks after God". The understanding is given by the Holy Spirit. This is taught all through the bible (i.e.John 3, 1 Cor. 2:14,15. John 6:61-65) My point is that it is ultimately the HS that gives us help and understanding, but this does not cancel out our duty to study
You can still believe that the bible is literal and not agree that you have to use only biblical language to defend the meaning of biblical language.
((What does this imply for the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture? That doctrine is based mainly on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Jude 1:3.
The sacred writings . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. . . . Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”).
The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. To be obedient in the sciences we need to read science and study nature. To be obedient in economics we need to read economics and observe the world of business. To be obedient in sports we need to know the rules of the game. To be obedient in marriage we need to know the personality of our spouse. To be obedient as a pilot we need to know how to fly a plane. In other words, the Bible does not tell us all we need to know in order to be obedient stewards of this world.)) (This is from an article of John Pipers called "Thoughts on the sufficiency of scripture")
What is the quote by Hauerwas supposed to mean?
Thanks for blogging agains cause it gives me something to do while I am at work...haha, lets keep it civil
Signed,
headbutt out of nothing (Micheal Smith)
hey mike. thanks for posting. i'm actually doing the second thing you mention (ie laying the groundwork so everybody can be aware of the arguements). i know we have our disagreements but i wouldn't classify myself as liberal or conservative. There are certainly elements of both in my theology but the idea that i have to be one or the other is just silly.
anyway, the point of my post was to get you thinking about people who claim to be christians yet hold a theology that is radically different from our own. Guys like Sheehan claim to be catholic and christian while at the same time denying a bodily resurrection. As far as i know the tomb was empty, but if he misses or misinterprets that piece of theology how does that affect his salvation? What about those people who don't believe in miracles? What about people who believe that the big bang started it all? What about those of us who don't think Calvin had it right (wink, wink)?
Anyway, it's just something that i'm thinking about lately... How orthodox must one's belief be in order to be saved? Since my limited intelligence tells me that all i can do is rely on the mercy and love of god, i think it opens up some interesting possibilities for who is saved and who isnt.
... but that's only what i think while i'm crapping on republi-[cough!], i mean conservatives.
:D
I am glad you are laying down the different arguments and the way people come up with their own opinions of what the bible says. It's fun and it helps to improve on your knowledge of the bible by digging deeper.
But I think that we should expose those beliefs held by Sheehan to be completely and utterly false. Paul even said that if the resurection and our bodily resurection isn't true then our faith is worthless. This is a central issue that if one does not believe in is in a great danger because he probably isn't a believer. I'm not saying he's not but it is dangerous ground to be on.
Matthew's accout says that after Jesus died on the cross many tombs were opened and many who were dead were walking around and were seen by many(which is just a preview of what is to come). Paul, John, Peter,... all had to write their letters to the churches mainly because of false teaching like that and they didn't have kind words for someone who led the body of Christ astray like that. And to even say "well that's what he believes and i respect that eventhough I believe something different" makes us guilty of not exposing false teaching.
There were Jews who were teaching that you had to be circumcised to be saved and Paul could have said that "well that's the way they interpreted the apostles and the letters" but he didn't. He exposed them for what it was and that is false teaching.
I know that there are some issues that people can disagree on, i.e. calvin(cough..biblical..cough) vs arminian, and still be saved. I think that falls under the weak brother in Rom. 14.
We really should talk face to face more often about this stuff. I enjoy it. Earlier I only meant that it seems like you "crap" on Conservs. and take the liberal side more often.
I understand your point Mike, and i certainly agree that we should be willing to engage each other when we see something that we don't agree with but that's really just part of living in a world with people besides ourselves... I basically wrote the same thing in the comments section of an earlier post where drew and i got into it about the role of historical figures in orthodoxy. basically my argument was that just because someone was the best and brightest 500 years ago, doesn't mean that we can't question them now. We know more than we did back then. Not because we're inherently smarter (on a genetic or biological level) but because we've had an extra 500 years to discuss and argue and converse and fight over the issues. maybe something changes and maybe it doesn't but the point is that the extra time dedicated to studying the subject can only lead to a deeper understanding of it and why it's right or wrong or both.
as i see it, theology is not a destination... it's a path which ultimately leads to god. Now, god being beyond comprehension (or even beyond "being" for that matter), it's doubtful that we'll ever reach a place where we have it all right. and that's my point. all of us have our own personal interpretations of god's revelation so what kind of beliefs about that revelation are orthodox enough for a saving grace to be imparted?
...and this is the part where i usually go, "hmph. i'm probably not qualified to make that judgment call." anyway, it makes for an interesting discussion! :)
Hey guys. I thought I would throw in my two cents worth. Brace yourselves, it might be long (and possibly void of any real content:))
First: Tony, conservative or liberal? Pick a side, we are at war.
I think the question of what one must believe or what beliefs are the "crucial" ones is an interesting question. I dont know if I have a complete answer to that question--as a matter of fact, I know I don't. Still, I have a few thoughts...
First, I don't think anyone need believe that the writings we call "scripture" represent anything infallible or literal or inspired or any other phrase you would like to add. This, I think, is exactly what is meant by the quote, "the modern mind can not accept..." The person is trying to express that if we take the Bible as literal and infallible, we run into more problems than we solve.
many take comfort in knowing (with an odd conception of the word 'know')that the Bible is infallible and inspired. However, for me, that is simply not an option because it would force me to believe things that I find absolutly rediculous...not only rediculous, but morally offensive. For instance, I do not believe that many of the stories in the old testament actually took place. And if they did take place, I don't believe God commanded them to happen like a literal view of scripture would force you into believing. we are told in the story of Moses and the Midionites that God commanded the Isrealites, after they had already ransacked the Midionites land, to kill all of the men and take all the women who were not virgins as their sexual partners. Now, I ask you, under what theory of morality is this anything other than deplorable? Keep flipping the pages and you will find the stoy of Lot and how he bargained away his own daughters virginty and then was praised by God for being "rightious." I simply can not believe that a God who is just, loving, all-good,etc, would command something like this to happen. but, if you take a literal view of scripture, you are left with no choice.
Despite the fact that one should not take a literal view of scipture because of what it requires you to believe, there is also simply no good reason (i.e. you aren't justified in believing it) for taking such a view of the writings. It is said that the writings are inspired and infallible. I ask how you could possibly know (emphasis on know) such a thing. We dont even know who wrote the book of Hebrews. there are very persuasive arguments that Paul did not write many of the books with his name on them (They were forged, such as 1 Timothy). How is anyone justified in saying that, despite that fact you dont even know the person who wrote them, that they are the inspired word of God? If you go from not even knowing the name of the person who wrote a letter to somehow knowing (for sure)that the letter is infallible, then you are making an unwaranted epistemic jump indeed. I'll leave this topic for now.
I think the question of whether or not belief in miracles or the resurrection (or Calvin, although he is absurd almost to the point of not deserving to be talked about)is essential is far more interesting. I think this also goes along with the quote about the "modern mind." It seems hard for some of us (myself included) to believe everything we hear in the scriptures. And even if we can get ourselves to believe in them, taking the next step to saying we "know" they are true or happened just that way is even harder. It also doesn't seem to help to rely on the "holy spirit" to help us understand. I don't think I need the holy spirit to help me undertsand how rape and murder and selling your daughter into sodamy are "rightious."
For instance, was the child Christ raised from the dead really dead? I don't know. Any doctor will tell you that even in the past 100 years the definition of "dead" has changed considerably. If a doctor of today had been present at the girl's bed would he have agreed that the child was "dead"? again, I dont know. however, what I do know is that in a pre-scientific world (and even in our world today)people had a tendancy to give God(s) credit for everything they could not explain. One need only look to ancient Athens to see this clearly. If you view the scriptures as what they are--that is, writen by people like you and me who were strugling to understand what was going on in their day and were telling stories passed down through the years, it becomes at least possible that some of the miracles were not in fact miraculous. They were simpy things that had no better explination in that day than, "God did it."
Another example might be that of demon posession and the claims to have "exercised" the demons. This becomes especially suspect given our understanding of the human mind and mental illness. We now know people suffer from things like multiple peronality disorder and epilepsy. When someone has one of these dissorders we no longer need to appeal to some kind of demon posession in order to explain what is going on. We can now point to the spot in the brain that is not working correctly and hopefully correct the problem. the point is that in a pre-scientific world, something like epilepsy would have no other real explanation (or at least no other more persuasive explanation).
So where there really demons that posessed people in the scriptures? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least a possibility that these are nothing more than stories that got passed down orally through the years by people who did not have the right (scientific) tools to explain what was going on in the world around them--so they appealed to the supernatural.
Note that it does not solve the problem to say something like, "well, the miracles must be true because if they aren't true than Christ is not God." or, "well, Paul said that if Christ was not raised from the dead than our faith is worthless so He must have risen." These are just really bad forms of question begging and actually don't prove a thing. the fact that our faith would be worthless if Christ wasn't rasied from the dead, does not in the slightest way prove that Christ in fact was raised from the dead. That is the same thing as saying, "my dog must have gone to doggy heaven because if he didnt then my belief in doggy heaven would be wrong."
Christ either rose from the dead or he did not. This is a fact that has absolutly nothing to do with our belief that he had to have risen from the dead in order for christianity to be real. You simply can't argue that way (despite Mark McLellan's Easter service to the contrary).
Now, I am not saying that I don't believe Christ was raised. I am simply saying that trying to "prove" it like this does more harm than good.
So, now the question remains, "what do we have to believe?" well, like I said, I don't think I know. Is it okay for someone to say that they aren't sure about all the miracles and that every world we find in the Bible might not have been breathed from the mouth of God? I surely hope so. I think it would be odd for God to expect someone who knows what we know today about the world we live in to subscribe to such a belief. Such a belief would be nothing more than ignorant faith. I hope that the God who gave us the powerful tool of our minds would want us to use it and not subscribe to silly things just for the sake of conforming with "orthodoxy." I hope the grace of God reaches to those who say they don't have all the answers and who truly want to be wiser but who also simply can not let themselves believe that this God would command things that go against any reasonable form of morality. I also hope this grace goes to those who admit they can't know for certain about all the claims of miracles or who believe that we should look to science to give us answers about how life formed. I would hope God would not damn someone for simply subscribing to the best explanation for the world we see around us.
I hope the big things that matter are the things that we should expect everyone to get behind. Things like loving the poor, taking care of children and the sickly, and striving for an understanding of God. I hope things like believing that God really rested on the seventh day or believing that the demons really ran into the pigs are less important in the big picture.
what up
There has been a good amount of interesting comments made. The one thing that has been constantly running in my head is the question... If you don't believe that scripture is infallible and God inspired, then why would you pick and choose which scripture you believe to be true? If you don't believe in certain books because we don't know the author and the fact that they are simply opinions from man's own point of view, then why believe Paul or David? Why believe the gospels? They are after all "opinions." Continuing with this train of thought, why believe in anything the bible says at all? If this is the case.... which if you question some scripture you have to question all scripture, and if you don't believe in all scripture, then you "can't" believe in any scripture? Continuing... then what is our faith based on? whatever we want it to be? If there is no reason to believe in the resurrection, then why the crucifiction?
There has to be "truth" founding our faith, not simply opinions.
I hope none of that came across offensive, I am simply thinking out loud. I am enjoying this as well.
Holla,
Johnny
This may be long....
Tony:
Human beings given time will only run further and further away from God. Case in point, you man has had all the time in the world to ponder whether the resurrection is true and has decided on his own human thinking that it is not a literal bodily resurrection. I don't claim to know the mind of God or know everything about his word, but I do know that it teaches that belief in the resurrection is a requirement to be saved and denial of it is probably a sign that you aren't saved. Paul, who saw Jesus, says in Rom. 10:9 that you must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead to be saved.
Theology is the study of God and while studying God and his word is great, it will not ultimately lead you to him. The Pharisees knew the bible front and back, Paul, who was one, says that they even have a zeal for God, but it is not based on right knowledge. It was based on self made righteousness and not the righteousness based on faith, like Abraham's.
I think it is a cop out to say that we can't know much of what the bible tells us and that it is ok to believe whatever "you" think the bible is saying. Most people take the bible and make it fit what they think their idea of God is instead of reading his word and glorifying God for what it says he is. And you need the Holy Spirit for this no matter what Dustin says.
Dustin:
The reason careful exegesis is needed with the Holy Spirit's guidance is shown in your statement about Moses and the Midianites. God told Moses to take full vengeance on the Midianites for the Isrealites. When the commanders didn't do this but brought back the women and children Moses was angry. So he tells them to kill the women who had sex with men because earlier in Ch. 25 they had seduced the men of Israel so that they would worship their false gods. The virgins, who were supposed to have been kill in the initial battle, were shown mercy since they had not taken part in the plan.
The soldiers did not rape the women. They had seen that the Israelites who had slept with those women earlier all were killed and a plagued came upon all people because they had broken the 1st commandment and honored other "gods". This also violated the Levitical law to rape. The virgins were given the opportunity to mourn and given the option to marry(Moses' wife was a Midianite)those who didn't became servants. This was all commanded by God because of the sin the people had commited against Him.
Lot was righteous in the same way Abraham was, eventhough he lied and said Sarah was his sister, in that it was credited to them by God. They were not righteous on their own accord but it was credited to them (Rom. 4) eventhough they weren't perfect human beings. We have all done and said things that are terrible(sin) that is what makes God so awesome in that Christ's righteousness is credited/imputed to us and it is not by anything we have done. Our sin really demands that we be punished but God is merciful. You said that you couln't believe in a God that is just but would declare Lot righteous but isn't that what Romans 4 says that God has done for you and me.(by the way all scholars believe that Romans was written by Paul) So more importantly if you can't believe in a God that would do that for Lot then you can't believe God would do that for you.
Sorry for the sermon but I say all of this to show that you aren't the moral compass. You don't decide what actions by God are "just" and "moral" because you wouldn't event know what was moral if not for what God has set up as wrong and right. It's funny how us human beings want to tell God how he is like...and what he would do and wouldn't do....
Also I agree that God is loving and all good but that is not all that he is. He is also a wrathful and jealous God, who in the ten commandments says he punishes the sins of the fathers on the 3rd and 4th generations. Love is not all that God is and doesn't show all of God's glory. It is hard to imagine His wrath showing his glory but the bible states many misteries that we don't understand but know that they are true(like Him appointing us to go to heaven).
You say that people in old times just passed off stuff they couldn't explain as being God or demon possession. But how do you explain the modern day miracles that are happening today or demon possession that goes on today and doctors try to pass that off. We are not dealing with flesh and blood but with spiritual things. It is hard to quote anything because you have picked and chosen which books of the bible you will believe if in fact you believe any of them.
There is just simply too much for me to say and this is already entirely to long. Everything shown to us through Scripture is important and to say that things like demons and God resting on the third day is not that important is incredibly arrogant for someone to say because those stories give us incredible insight to who God is and gives us a better understading(which is what you seek but dismiss)of God.
Just to let you know, I don't think less of someone because of what they believe. I am just trying to show that as humans with a finite view, we can't dismiss something in the bible because we think that it is impossible to have happened that way or that it doesn't fit our idea of what a just God would do.
Micheal
a quick rebuttal, then on to better things... like tv!
JVO: given that there is a scholarly consensus that the last chapter of Mark, as well as the story of the adulterous woman in John, were not written by the original authors but added by later scribes, you seem to have two basic options (i'm simplifying here) in regards to your response to scripture...
1. The additions were not inspired and therefore you must simply accept that scripture, while it is the most accurate revelation God has given to us, does contain human input.
or 2. that god also inspired the additions. naturally this leads to the conclusion that god occasionally inspires people to write or profess things from him which are "inerrant." if you follow this line of thinking then you also shouldn't really have any problems with the infallibility clause that pope invokes while speaking "ex cathedra."
[please note that there's really no logical way around #2 so if you disagree please just be honest and say you don't believe that because... you just don't.]
Mantronics (such a great tag by the way):
ease up on the rhetoric a bit brother. remember, dustin came up in the same youth group you did and has heard pretty much everything your saying before. Sometimes it's good to be reminded of things, but lets give him some credit and assume that he's thought this thing through and those answers are no longer sufficient. People can reach that point without "abandoning god and forgetting his sovereignty."
as far as man getting further away from god as time goes... Take a minute to think about that. Do you really believe, as a whole, that as time goes on man becomes any more sinful? Granted, we no longer live in a defacto theocracy but i would argue that that is a wonderful opportunity for the church. if we're just getting worse off then Augustine was worse off than Paul, Aquinas worse off than Augustine, Luther worse off than Aquinas, and [gasp!] Calvin was worse off than Luther!!! LOL! I realize that sounds silly (and it really is) but that's the conclusion you have to draw if you say man is growing further away from god as time passes. I don't see that you can exempt the church either because it's made up of men!... and women.
please also realize that you're condemning interpretations that don't line up with... your interpretation. Regardless of what you say about that being a cop-out I really don't know how you can argue around that. That the true church has always interpreted the entire bible literally is one of the big lies of fundamentalism as it's existed for the last 200 years. Theological approaches have come and gone, some more adequate, some less adequate, but in the end all you can do is your best to love God insofar as he has reveled himself to you...
... and that's kinda the point of this original post.
i'm reading through what i just posted and i'm realizing that the last sentence i wrote supports Mike's Calvinist leanings. DANG!
well, as far as your two options go..... i don't know how i feel about what the pope says, never even thought about that, interesting though. But i'm def on the side that believes that the copy of the scriptures we call the bible is God's word.
So that leaves us......where? If you don't believe that which i believe you don't from the looks of things, you are left tryin to research word for word from the original greek and hebrew manuscripts to see what are a part of the "original" writings. So what is the implication of finding that the adulteress woman or last chapter of Mark was later added from comparing other writings? Does that mean they aren't as much a part of the Word as the "originals?"
If you argue that they are not for some reason just because they aren't from the same person, results in a belief that because it was written by man makes it likely to be errant, which questions whether or not God inspired those men (whoever) some of them might be) to write His Word down accurately which leads me at this...... either you have faith that the copy we have today is in fact the Word of God or you throw out the whole thing. Because if you question the inerrancy of the Word because of man's handywork, then you have to question every hand that had anything to do with what we have from the original authors to the scribes that copied it. And if in fact, for some odd reason you believe that, the very foundation of any belief we have in the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit should be tossed out the window leaving us...... absolutely lost.
And that's where faith comes in.....
Sometimes we are too smart for our own good. That's when we just have faith that God is sovereign over everything.
Next, I do believe that there is one truth. I don't believe God's Word is left up to people to determine which interpretation they want to believe. I believe there is one truth alone. Whether anyone has grasped hold of that yet, i do not know, and that's what keeps us hungry and searching. There is a difference in what we interpret what the Word says and what God is saying. I believe what God says is that truth. To figure out what exactly that means without interpreting for ourselves is easier said than done, but something we must seek after.
Tony, what do you believe is essential for salvation? I don't think you ever answered that.
Dustin, if all we are to concentrate on is just caring for people and loving them, what makes us different than anyone else in this world?
actually johnny, i've answered that multiple times in this post and the answer has always been the same... i don't know.
I don't mean that in an agnostic kind of way, but simply in the "i can't even begin to imagine that at 24 years old i've nailed it" kind of way. simple fact is that just because i question the amount of human input that exists in the scriptures, that doesn't equate to throwing out all the entire bible regardless of how easy that makes the argument for you. I can question everything in there and at the end of the day still have the faith that you claim i'm "throwing out." and yes there is one truth, but pragmatically if we all come to different conclusions about it, what is significant about your interpretation of it?
my point being that "proofs" as such don't mean anything. Most people are able to "prove" anything to anyone given enough time and intelligence. it's in a lifestyle that people see jesus. and that's something you can't fake, prove, or defend your way to. it's also something that we have no right to judge if it falls within the hermeneutic of allowable interpretation.
One last thing for Dustin:
I just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to prove the resurrection by using the bible. Tony asked the question about what is essential to salvation and then mentioned that a man believes he is saved but yet doesn't believe in the resurrection. I am saying that one can't be saved and not believe in the resurrection because that is at the very core of "believing that God raised Him from the dead". This is what Paul says is part believing to become saved in Romans.
Tony:
I might not have been very clear and I appologize. I wasn't saying that man gets more evil as time goes on but that anytime a man is given a choice between God and his own way, he will always choose the way opposite of God. It is through divine providence that we are able to believe.
I also agree with you that a man can only believe as much as what God has revealed to him. But we were also given the bible to reveal that truth and use our minds(love God with all of your mind) to know what truth is and that the bible is it.
The early church did hold a literal view of the bible and we know this from Paul, Peter, John's,..etc writings. When they wrote they quoted the old testament over and over and they quoted it literally. Even when they didn't make clear that it was a quote but simply used it in their thought process, they were quoting straight from the OT. If Paul took the OT literally as the word of God then we know that the NT must be taken the same way. Whenever a verse is used figuratively it explained soon after what was meant by it. Or the writer assumed that what was being talked about was common knowledge and you must simply do some research to figure it out. I am also aware that there are mysteries in the bible. We may know that something is a truth but not understand or been told how it all works.
Jesus and Paul both quoted the OT saying that "God said" when if you look it up it was Moses who was doing the talking. This lets us know that those books where the literal words of God.
Also, I just wanted to say that through a life style someone can see Jesus but that isn't always the case. That is why "truth" from God's word is needed. There are plenty of people who fake being a Christian and can fool me but when their lives are stood up to the bible they are exposed as false. It boils down to that you guys don't think that their is a knowable truth that has been revealed to us. There is a truth out there and it is the bible and it is supposed to be the thing that all other ideas/actions are judged against.
Know that I am praying that God will reveal to all of us the real truth and to him be given all of the glory.
Johnny (and Mike): I think the problem we might be having that is causing you to miss the point I (and Tony) am trying to make is that you aren't asking important questions like, "who wrote the letters we have in the Bible? When did they write the letters? Why did they write the letters? if there were later additions made to the copies we have (which there are) who wrote the additions and why?" All of these questions are extremely important when you are trying to figure out if what we call the Bible is infallible and the actual "word of God."
You say that you are of the belief that the book we call the Bible is the infallible word of God. I'll ask a simple question: how do you know that? Let me make it clear that you can not say that "the Bible must be the word of God or else we wouldn't have anything to base out beliefs on." Like I said earlier, that is begging the question (which is a logical fallacy). We are discussing whether or not the Bible is in fact infallible and the word of God. You can't respond in an attempt to prove that it is by saying that it must be or else we wouldn’t have the word of God and would have to throw the whole thing out. I hope you can see what I am saying here.
You yourself said (and I agree with you) that what we believe has to be based on truth and not just opinion. Well, then if you are going to believe that the Bible is infallible and all the other things you say it is, then you have to have something backing that up. You have to have some reasons.
I have given you some reasons why I don’t think it is all inspired and infallible. Generally when someone says that the bible is infallible it is because of who they believe wrote the letters. For instance, they think Paul (or Moses or David, take your pick) wrote some words down that God inspired him to write and so they say, "God inspired Paul to write these words and so they are the words of God."
Well, the problem we run into (which I tried to make clear last time) is that we simply don't know who wrote a lot of the Bible. is this a problem? YES! This is a problem because you can no longer say, "so and so was inspired by God so these are God's words." why can't you say that? Well, because we don't know who wrote the letters so we aren't in a position to say that they were inspired and writing infallible things.
Take first and second Timothy and Hebrews (and others). We now know that Paul did not in fact write these letters. So what does that mean? it means that we don't know who wrote them and we don't know if this person was inspired by God. So we are not in a position to say that these words are infallible or "God's words." Do you see what I am saying?
Furthermore, there have been additions to the original texts made by scribes and priests. That is the point Tony was trying to make. The point is this: Let's say Paul wrote something in I Corinthians. Let's say for the sake of argument that it was inspired and infallible. Okay, so we have a part of this letter to the corinthians that is from Paul. Then, a couple hundred years later, a scribe (who we don't know) comes along and added something to what Paul wrote. So now what we read today and call I Corinthians is a mixture of some things from Paul and some things from a scribe who added to what paul already wrote. Note that this is not just a hypothetical situation. This actually happened. Paul did not write everything we read in I Corinthians.
Okay, so the question now becomes: what in I corinthians is God's word and infallible? It seems weird (at least to me) to say that everything in I Corinthians is the "word of God." Why? Well, let's say for the sake of argument that Paul was inspired and everything he wrote is actually the word of God. Okay. But wait, Paul didn't write everything in I Corinthians. He wrote some of it. However, there are entire chapters in I corinthians that were added by a priest a few hundred years after Paul was dead. So are these words (i.e. the ones that were added hundreds of years after Paul died) the words of God?
Well, I don't think we can possibly KNOW that they are. Remember, we are saying that what Paul wrote was infallible because he was inspired (or that is what we are told at church). but we can't say this about the scribe who added entire chapters to Paul's letters because we don't know who this scribe was.
What if the scribe added the chapters to Paul's letters because he wanted people in his time to do a certain thing (or not do something)? Maybe he did't want women speaking in church because he thought they were unintelligent. What better way to get people to do what you want then to add it to the words of Paul? Remember at this time that no one actually had a copy of what we call the bible (it did't exist yet) so it would have been really easy to add something to the letters and then just say it had always been there.
So are these additions the "words of God"? Well, no, they are the words of some scribe who didn't want women to talk in church or wanted to make a theological point about the trinity, or wanted to tell a story about how we should forgive people no matter their shortcommings (all of which are examples of things added by scribes hundreds of years after Paul and the other apostles were dead).
Sorry this was so long. however, this is a tricky topic and one not given nearly enough study in our churches. It takes a great deal of time and effort to study this topic and figure out how the Bible was put together. However, doing so would most likely cut into the time we spend eating pizza and playing with bungee chords at church so I can see why the topic has been pushed under the rugg and not discussed. I dont mean for that to be taken the wrong way. I just think this is far more important than most people think it is.
Anyways, sorry again and take it easy, brother.
Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond but my computer has been down and the brewery burning down fried all the computers at work.
Dustin: Can you let me know what your sources/reasons on why you say for certain that Paul didn't write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. I know what other people say about it but would like to hear your reasons for saying these things. I would like to comment on this because there is significant evidence pointing to the fact that Paul did in fact write these letters. Also, what books of the bible, in your opinion, do you find credible? You have said on several occasions which books that you don't believe in but I would like to know which ones you do believe in so that we can talk about those books too.
I find it very hard to believe that someone added text to a letter written a century after it had been written and no one realized this from the original or copies and let these additions just keep on going. The original and copies of that one were floating around and were well known to the churches by this point and for some scribe to add something and this become acceptable to the church is hard to believe. I'm not saying that maybe it didn't happen but I'm sure people have their reasons for believing it.
How do you know that the bible isn't the infallable word of God. You say it is an assumption that we believe that it is but on the other hand it is just as much an assumption to say that it isn't.
I would like to wait on your reply before I discuss it any further.
Hope everything is going well.
Micheal
Hey Micheal. Thanks for the questions and keeping me on my toes. I'll try to adress all of your questions.
As for my reasons for doubting that Paul wrote I Timothy: There are really no scholars today who believe that Paul wrote I Timothy. The reasons for this are numerous and can be read about in plenty of books on the topic. I'll just mention a few of the reasons.
First, it should be noted that Paul's authorship of I Timothy has been doubted, even by those who called themselves christians, for centuries. I say this just to make it clear that this is not some kind of new-age, liberal attempt at smearing the Bible. Early christian writers such as Marcion, Tation and Basilides all thought I Timothy had been written by one of Paul's followers. Marcion even left I Timothy out of his canon of the new testament because he didn't believe it to be inspired or written by Paul.
Yet there are more persuasive reasons for thinking I Timothy was not written by Paul. Most scholars do not believe it was written by Paul because of the language used in the letter. Our earliest and most reliable (i.e. "original") texts of I Timothy are written in a form of greek that Paul never wrote in. Basically, I Timothy was written using a form of greek that Paul didn't speak. Also, the greek found in I Timothy differs widly from the form of greek used throughout the rest of the New Testament.
Furthermore, the vocabulary used in the original greek is not at all what we see in other letters written by Paul. For instance, the syntax that we find in Romans (a book that we know Paul wrote) differs greatly from the syntax found in I Timothy. The way words are used in Romans is completely different from the way words are used in I Timothy. The way sentences are formed are completly different within the two books, etc. Also, the teaching found in I Timothy seems to contradict some of what Paul wrote earlier in some of his letter (i.e., the talk about women keeping silent because they are dumb and will be tricked by the devil if they teach men). These reasons and others, which can be read about, point towards someone other than Paul writting I Timothy.
While we are on the topic of authorship: Maybe you won't agree with me about I Timothy not being written by Paul, so let's just take the book of Hebrews. No one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews. I think we can both agree on this point. It doesn't even have a peron's name on it. Yes, there are people who believe Paul wrote it and there are people who believe Paul didn't write it. These discussions are all very interesting. However, at the end of the day, we still simply do no know who wrote the book of Hebrews.
So I ask you: what is it about that book that makes it the word of God and infallible? I mean really? there is not a person on this planet who knows who wrote that book. I'm not saying it doesn't have some stuff to offer us. Im not saying we should burn all the coppies of it. I'm simply saying there is no way we can possibly know that those are the words of God and that the person who wrote it wasn't wrong about something.
surely you can see my point on this one. What it is that you are relying on for your knowledge and belief that Hebrews is God's word and not just some man's writings about God?
As for your finding it hard to believe that additions were made to the letters: Well, I am sorry if that is hard to believe. I don't know what else to say but that it did happen no matter how hard it might be to believe it.
In the third century, there was a secular writer named Celsus who criticized christianity for exactly this reasons. He argued that the christian texts were extremely unreliable because the copyists changed them at will if they didnt agree with something that was in them. What's even worse than this: the third century church father, Origen, complained that christian copyists were copying the gospels down and making changes "as they please." He then goes on to complain that there were so many changes made to the writings that it became difficult to determine what had actually been written. Remember, this is a christian (not a pagan or secularist) complaining about how christians were going around changing the texts at will. Yes, this is hard to believe, but it happened none the less.
Just an example of one of the numerous changes made by scribes: In our oldest and most reliable copies of the gospel of mark, there is a verse that reads: "as the prophet Isiah says, 'behold I am sending a messanger...make straight his paths.'" However, this is not from Isiah, it is from Exod. and Mal. Realizing that the original author of Mark got his old testament mixed up, a later scribe went into the text and changed it from "Isiah" to "prophets."
This is an example of what Origen and Celsus were complaining about. There was an obvious mistake in the gospel of mark. whoever wrote it had blatantly misquoted scripture. In order to get rid of this problem, a scribe simply wrote it out of the book.
One last example: In I Corinthains 14, there is a verse that talks about women keeping silent in the service and asking their husbands at home if they have any questions. This verse was most likely added by a later scribe who was of the belief that women had no place in the church.
The reason scholars hold this belief is because in our oldest manuscripts of I Corinthians, these verses are shuffled all over the book. Sometimes this verse is found in an earlier chapter. Sometimes it is found in a later chapter, sometimes these verses are not found in I Corinthians at all, and even other times they are written in on the side margin. this all makes it very likely that they were added and not actually written by Paul.
As for your question about what books I do accept: I accept them all for what I think they are--letters written by men who were trying to understand God. I have never been trying to argue that we should throw out the Bible or trying to say that it is worthless. I think there is a lot of knowledge and truth in the Bible. However, that is a different thing from saying that every word it in is literally breathed from the Mouth of God and infallible. I simply can't beleve that and be intellectually honest with myself. There are such glaring problems and inconsistencies with believing that. To believe that would require me to hold a view of morality that I find atrotious at best...and no, I don't agree with you that I would not know what morality is if it wasn't for God. I'll be happy to explain that if you like.
Finally, as for your question about how I know the Bible isn't the word of God. First, I think it is a little unfair to say that it is just as much an assumption that the Bible isn't the word of God. Remember that I am not assuming that. For the majority of my life i believed it was all the things you say it is. Then, I fell in love with learning...not being told what to believe. I spent over a year researching this stuff and challenging myself on everything I believed. I have simply weighed the evidence and concluded that believing that is not an option anymore. It doesnt mean I am an athiest--it simply means I had to adjust my belief according to the evidence.
That is not the same thing as assuming that it isn't the word of God. Assuming that it isn't the word of GOd would be something like, "I don't believe the bible is the word of God because that's what my dad says and I really like my dad." That is not what I have done.
As for the question of how I know it isn't the word of God: well, I have given you reasons for why I don't think it is--numerous reasons. Maybe I am not understanding your question correctly, but I don't see how presenting you with evidence of why the bible is not the word of God is somehow "assuming" that it is not. Furthermore, remember that you are the one making the claim that the bible is infallible. the burden of proof is thus on you to prove that.
Gentlemen,
First let me thank you for the engaging conversation that has been posted on this blog. Hopefully it has served the purpose of reminding us what we long for... namely, the god who is bigger than comprehension yet loving enough to be manifest within us. At this point in time however it seems that the conversation has become a debate. Something i have a love of to be sure, but which is undoubtedly better suited to private discussion. In addition, both parties seem to be talking past each other and this is something which cannot and will not be resolved on this blog. As such I'm officially ending all further comments for this post. Please note that this is not a request... Post something and I'll delete it. Period.
Now onto one final matter. It has come to my attention that the debate surrounding this post became the subject of a discussion at a local bible study recently which some of my readers and/or posters attend. I find this particularly interesting since i've taken measures to assure that those I deem not mature enough to handle its content, and those that may be offended to the point it strains our friendship, are not able to access this site (mainly through blocking the address on my FB profile which is the only public access point). Whether or not this was by accident or on purpose is of little concern. That Dustin & I were not given an invite in order to discuss our views (i don't agree with everything he says, nor he with me, but I put us together for the sake of conciseness) is lazy at best and malicious at worst. I would hope that next time someone would do me the favor of alerting me if i, or my views, are to become the subject of a group discussion.
Post a Comment