Resurrection & gospels as eye-witness account

[seanph]

*******Just to step back, we are talking about in reference to Jesus' physical resurrection. And I disagree. The dead will be raised physically and will be changed. Notice how when these Christians die, they have to be resurrected (they didn't float away in spirit as some contends). The physical act of rising from the dead is clear in Paul's writing in 1 Thes 4:**************

Again, Paul is abundantly clear. We can debate this until the cows come home.

*********Which seminary did you go to? Because your twenty years of research it seems have been somewhat been based on preconceived notions that the supernatural can't happen. As such, the only evidence your quotes suggest is that it couldn't have happened because it shouldn't happen?**********

I did not attend seminary. But a heafty portion of my materials come from professors teaching at Christian institutions--Virginia Theological, Fuller Theological, Notre Dame University, Harvard Seminary, Princeton Seminary, Cambridge Divinity, Oxford University (numerous religious colleges), Claremont School of Theology etc., 100's of texts (CD-ROM DVD lectures as well) and academic web sources.

Myself:

Bc.S. (Bachelor of Science) degree from Ball State University.

Major: Classics & History

Minor: American Studies

Area of interest: Greco-Roman Culture, Early Christianity, Middle Ages

********Do you have any legitimate historical proof that the NT isn't accurate? It's one thing to quote a fifth century bishop, but it's another to substantiate that statement with some sort of evidence.*********

I provided plenty of proof. You have ignored it. Not only did I quote St. Faustus, but John Collins, Notre Dame University and others. Here are a few more ...

Allen D. Callahan: Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School: ...If we want to read the gospels as eyewitness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way ... It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that] ... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things. . . They (gospels) don't claim to be eyewitness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. . .

L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin: The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about...

Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University: The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about Jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. They are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position...

John Dominic Crossan: Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University: ...For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news"... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found...

Steve Mason: Professor of Classics, History and Religious studies at York University in Toronto: All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.

Rudolf Bultmann: University of Marburg, foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926: So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that “we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus."

Here is a link to understanding NT Textual Criticism and Manuscript transmission.

Textual Criticism

http://www.ntgateway.com/resource/textcrit.htm

Textual Criticism

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/textualcriticism

TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

*******I disagree. You would not know better than the early Christian church fathers, who disagree with you. Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John), said the following:

"Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. For that according to John expounds his princely and mighty and glorious birth from the Father, saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' and, 'All things were made by him, and without him nothing was nothing made' . Therefore this Gospel is deserving of all confidence, for such indeed is his person." ********

Oh my. John, please note that Irenaeus lived in the mid-to-late second century (30-200 CE). Christianity was already wildly diverse by the mid-to-late first century (Ehrman), having numerous groups claiming legitimacy--Ebonites, Montanists et al. They each used various texts to embolden their claims. To make a long story short, Irenaeus states his explanation for there being only four gospels ...

"The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers."

He obviously learned that from his mentor, Polycarp. Yeah, that's reliable! So, if that's complete nonsense ... how about the rest? Written by Jesus' followers?

Early Christian Writings

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/newtestament.html

From Jesus to Christ

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/story/

The Identity of the Evangelists: Second Century Guesses

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/guess.html

**********Polycarp (approx 70 and 155 A.D.) lived in the first century,interacted with John, and other first hand witnesses of Jesus. His belief of Jesus divinity affirms that the early apostles preached Jesus' divinity************

John, I never stated that they didn't. I stated that his divine status was achieved after the Easter event. From there it grew and grew until, by the end of the first century, we have Gjohn proclaiming Jesus "logos"! Pretty remarkable when you consider that Mark--the earliest Gospel (70-75CE)--doesn't even contain a birth narative! Oh, how the story has grown!

*********Polycarp who lived in the same century as John disagrees with you. Where is your evidence against John or any other Synoptic Gospels? A quote from the 2nd/3rd century? A quote from a professor in the 20th century? The fact remains, you have not provided evidence but rather showed you can copy and paste.***********

First, Polycarp never mentions by name any of the four gospels. Second, there is little surviving information detailing his relationship with the John. Third, what I showed was consensus amongst scholars and theologians reached through over a century of Biblical and Textual Criticism. They do not come to conclusions such as this haphazardly. And I provided the quotes as evidence. You, again, simply ignored it because it doesn't fit your notion of what should be. Facts are an anathema to the fervently fervently religious.

*********Some say 30 or so, but even using your statements, you're basically saying these gospels have been written when some of the disciples were alive.***********

The Pauline epistles (50's), yes, but probably not the gospels. Mark, the earliest, has a consensus date of 70-75CE. Were the disciples still alive? Well, tradition (and Josephus) say James, Peter and Paul were killed and/or died in the 60's CE. John? Up for debate. Were they even aware of such texts? I certainly do not see any evidence for it--though, John, is a possibility. And were any of the disciples even literate? Almost assuredly no!

********Any divergance from the faith of the apostles (who were still alive) were quickly rebuked as heretics...they should know, since they were the ones that saw Jesus.********

And you know this how? Paul, who never knew Jesus, and received his gospel "not from men (the Disciples)", seems to have slipped through the cracks.

A Brief Narrative of Primitive Christianity from 30 to 70 CE by Professor Gerd Lüdemann

http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/download/ABriefNarrative.pdf

St. Paul versus St. Peter by Professor Michael Goulder

http://www.amazon.com/St-Paul-Versus-Peter...8306&sr=1-1

***********YOUR POINTS:

1. The NT is inaccurate because others said so. Your "twenty years of research" revealed to you that a select number of scholars consider the NT as inaccurate either because they assume the supernatural is impossible or they assert that other people writing the NT and not the disciples based on the evidence of ...(insert evidence here)...*************

I did not give up my faith because a select number considered the NT was inaccurate. It was the overwhelming majority who pointed out numerous flaws--from biblical scholars to theologians. I went where the evidence led me--and it was not an easy journey. I spent nearly three years in a very hellish deconversion.

*********? Ignoring other biblical scholars that disagree with your statements like Dr. Gregory Boyd, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, Dr. Howard Clark Kee, Dr. Niels-Erik Andreasen, Dr. Jon Paulien, etc. is quite convenient (some of which are still actively teaching in their respective seminaries and completely disagree with your evidence of quotes).**************

I'm not ignoring these individuals . Craig--along with Geisler, Strobel, McDowell--were once the glue that held my faith together. They later--particularly Craig--became the major reason why I left Christianity. His/their claims of Biblical innerrancy, gospels as eye-witness accounts so forth and so on, led me to start questioning my beliefs. The ball started rolling ... and it led to the inevitable. I consider Craig and his ilk intellectualy dishonest faith peddlers.

********COUNTER POINT:

1. People that lived in the 1st century disagree with you and consider Jesus as divine/resurrected.***********

People in the first century held wildly diverse views of Jesus. Paul warns of such individuals and teachings in his epistles.

********2. Heretical documents that were written by others were quickly dismissed because some of the witnesses to these events were still alive (ie: John)!**********

Paul warns of such things. 1st and 2nd John, two of the most obscure books in the NT, warns against those who deny Jesus' humanity. Again, scholars agree that 1-2-3/GJohn was not written by "the" John. Of course, you disagree, so there you go. That said, numerous writings circulated during this period (and on)--writings circulated by competing Jesus movements.

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-...0699&sr=8-1

Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-...0699&sr=8-1

Sean

Edited March 19, 2007 by seanph

[seanph]

B. Huston

Sean,

James M. Robinson is unreasonable, on the fringe and is no authority on the Christian faith so to quote you back: believe as you wish.

James Robinson is a Fulbright Scholar and Professor Emeritus at The Claremont Graduate School. He is also a Fellow at the American Council of Learned Societies and the American Association of Theological Schools (University of Heidelberg). He earned his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also recognized as the leading pioneer regarding the Sayings Gospel Q and the Nag Hammadi codices.

Yes, BH, you're right ... What a moron!

Nah. Whether or not you think I fashion anything is irrelevant or whether I think your interpretation of Paul is fanciful is irrelevant. The main thing is truth. Muhammad was hardly moral or truthful. Buddah was hardly truthful. I've also heard that Wicca is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. so your claims about popularity is moot. If truth is decided by the masses then Nazi Germany was a moral, truthful society.

The main thing is truth? So you are able to point to Muhammad, Buddha et al and declare them immoral liars ... while you are the harbinger of absolute truth? Wow!

... The Nazi's had bits of truth (facts) that they cultivated into a worldview that was one giant lie. But the fact that many religions contradict each other does not necessitate that all religions are wrong.

Oh, you mean as religion has done? And the very fact religions contradict each other should raise the intellectual red flag. You would think god could get his message across in a clear concise manner, without ambiguity. Unfortunately, He seems rather schizophrenic.

But I think all are wrong but one, because only one is reasonable and only one liberates the poor, the oppressed and the anxious.

First, how do you know Christianity is the one true religion? How could you possibly know with any degree of certainty? Second, your religion is the only one that liberates the poor, the oppressed and the anxious? Such piety, BH. Last time I checked, Christianity had quite the bloody history. And need I comment on what your religion is doing to the poor people of Africa? Millions upon millions dying of aides ... and the Church denouncing condoms as sinful!

I could go on and on and on ...

But my over-arching concern is first over what is true and not true, not just what makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Actually, your truth is dictated largely by your environment. If you lived in India, you would be a Hindu. If you lived in the ME, Islam would be your religion ... and you would be making the same bold claims.

Sean, again, I think it's very odd you're preaching and contending for aspects of a faith you don't believe in - at least your comments earlier lead one to that conclusion.

And I think it odd that you're doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing! Preaching! That said, I am simply responding to questions and comments (as you are) regarding religion, and doing so from a historical critical approach--nothing more.

Best wishes to you Sean on your search for truth.

Thank you. I have found truth ... and it centers around reason and free-thought, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. That is my truth.

Sean

Edited March 17, 2007 by seanph