tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3108506139066036358..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: NT Christology (i.e. Jesus): mythical? made up?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12082673206569627162007-10-04T04:11:00.000-07:002007-10-04T04:11:00.000-07:00Thanks Gummby,As someone who believes this, what's...Thanks Gummby,<BR/>As someone who believes this, what's your point of view - Conscious decision? Unconscious? Can't say?JoshuaChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05684834648218889477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13501715203033754572007-09-27T17:19:00.000-07:002007-09-27T17:19:00.000-07:00I'm pretty sure Dan's basis is the Bible, which sa...I'm pretty sure Dan's basis is the Bible, which says that sin is at the root of unbelief, and that men's hearts are naturally turned toward sin.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2206389453617373952007-09-27T04:25:00.000-07:002007-09-27T04:25:00.000-07:00Jen,Thanks for your reply. I agree with you, no on...Jen,<BR/>Thanks for your reply. I agree with you, no one can know another's motives. <BR/><BR/>I should clarify: I'm not asking to know people's motives, but asking for a clarification from Dan, who claimed to know them: "always... the world, the flesh, and/or the devil... they wanted to think, be or do something they knew was wrong..."<BR/><BR/>Other Christians said similar things in their comments, such as robert: "...the reason people disbelieve is not a lack of understanding or evidence...it's sin...they love sin", so I ask other Christians as well.<BR/><BR/>I ask to understand their claims more deeply, rather than to understand the actual motives of those who leave Christ.JoshuaChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05684834648218889477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51025677912001737982007-09-26T06:38:00.000-07:002007-09-26T06:38:00.000-07:00JoshuaC asks if Christians believe that someone wh...JoshuaC asks if Christians believe that someone who leaves Christ because of the world, the flesh, or the devil, does so from a conscious or unconscious decision?<BR/><BR/>JoshuaC, I would think you would ask that question of those who have left Christ, not of Christians. How are we to determine someone else’s motives, their hearts in the matter?Jen Fishburnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240505611077771944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45671433099983353072007-09-26T01:41:00.000-07:002007-09-26T01:41:00.000-07:00Hi DJP,I've been reading your apologetics posts re...Hi DJP,<BR/><BR/>I've been reading your apologetics posts recently, and I've got a question.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"The real reason [that someone leaves Christ] always comes from the world, the flesh, and/or the devil. Always it's really that they wanted to think, be, or do something they knew was wrong, and they'd feel a lot better about it if there were no living God such as Jesus reveals."<BR/><BR/>My question is, do you believe this is a conscious or unconscious decision? I'd welcome any answers from any of the other Christians who post here, too.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.JoshuaChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05684834648218889477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62720708402420667632007-09-25T11:34:00.000-07:002007-09-25T11:34:00.000-07:00Head Pyro Phil Johnson preached a group of sermons...Head Pyro Phil Johnson preached a group of sermons called <I>A Survey of Heresies</I> a few years back. It's available for listening or download <A HREF="http://www.thegracelifepulpit.com/PJ-CDA04.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70819782118631096382007-09-25T04:55:00.000-07:002007-09-25T04:55:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.JoshuaChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05684834648218889477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21236541699914124412007-09-24T07:57:00.000-07:002007-09-24T07:57:00.000-07:00Gummby I think its a pity that it the end you coul...Gummby I think its a pity that it the end you couldn't get away from apologetics long enough to actually discuss something. I'll respond to your points (for lurkers) since I think I've achieved my original objective of pointing out to people that the version of the mythicist case being originally addressed by Dan was a straw man. I think having a real evangelical / mythicist dialog about biblical interpretation and history where people could have seen both sides presented fully would have been a useful resource. <BR/><BR/><I> But as you yourself point out, you have to read 2 Peter without acknowledging anything that preceded it. </I><BR/><BR/>I never said that. I never said anything remotely like that. In fact I said the exact opposite of that. I consistently mentioned the earlier writings (Paul) I mentioned in my comments to Dan materials from 175 years before 2Peter which came from (possibly) a proto-Christian community. I spoke often of early church fathers. If this dialog had continued I would have mentioned a great deal of literature like Philo, early Sethian literature, middle platonic literature, the writings of the cynics. A whole host of jewish, greek and roman literature that preceded 2Peter. <BR/><BR/>I even am willing to include materials written after 2Peter. What I'm not willing to do is to treat materials that came after 2Peter as if they came before it, but because the events described happened earlier. <BR/><BR/><I> Of course, you must also ignore the fact that those reading the letter would know of Peter and Jesus, and would themselves impute some of the things that are supposedly only added by the Gospels. </I><BR/><BR/>And here again (see above) I'd ask for evidence and be ignored. <BR/><BR/><I> More than that, you must ignore not only the gospels, but Peter's first letter, Paul's epistles, </I><BR/><BR/>This of course is a lie. I actually said the opposite regarding Paul and my 5 questions all addressed Paul. <BR/><BR/><I> Acts, </I><BR/><BR/>I don't ignore Acts at all. We just didn't get to Acts yet. Acts is a mid second century apologetic designed to address issues in that period. Rather than ignore it, it bolsters the case when read in a political context (deconstructed if you will). <BR/><BR/><I> and the testimony of the Old Testament (which was certainly codified by this point in history) regarding the Messiah. </I><BR/><BR/>First off it wasn't codified by "this point". The earliest that anyone suggested anything like the current Jewish canon was about 60 C.E. We have records of debates in the Mishnah on this topic and we suspect 218 or slightly before is when there finally was almost universal acceptance within the Jewish community. <BR/><BR/>The Christianity community however rejected the Jewish canon and utilized a much more inclusive canon until Luther. Luther considered books not found in the Jewish Tanakh to be more questionable (i.e. he agreed with Jerome's position from 405) and created a separate section. The British Bible society in 1826 finally refused to distribute bibles with an Apocrypha section. So arguable the Protestant debate debate on "codification" the old testament didn't end until 1826, and I would argue that the Christian one isn't over today. <BR/><BR/>So no it wasn't finished by that period. <BR/><BR/><I> In other words, the whole of Scripture must be set aside and in its place a completely different context must be imputed to the text. For myself, I'll side with scripture over "mystery" any day of the week. </I><BR/><BR/>Keep telling yourself that's what you are doing. <BR/><BR/><I> The idea that Paul and whomever wrote Hebrews didn't believe in an incarnational Jesus is ridiculous. </I><BR/><BR/>Things that are ridiculous are things that are easy to refute. <BR/><BR/><I> When do you date the gospels? It seems that in order for this assertion to be tenable, you must late date the gospels, </I><BR/><BR/>No, I'm within the skeptical mainstream. Gospels very close to our current gospels are in circulation by 120-140 and are widely accepted by 180. Parts of Q, Mark and Signs might be much earlier. <BR/><BR/>The final versions are the 4th century but between 130 and the 4th century there are no important changes for this debate. <BR/><BR/><I> and must believe in Q (which to me seems far more mystical that anything Jesus did or said). </I><BR/><BR/>If you reject Q, you are correct we have nothing to discuss. Everything else in this argument is going to be far weaker than the case for Q. <BR/><BR/>Rejecting Q amounts to essentially raising Eusebius' claims for authorship of the gospels to the level of irrefutable fact even when the book is obvious propaganda. The case for Q comes entirely from within scripture. Which one of us is rejecting scripture? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I> There are many others on this list better qualified to tackle this point [regaring pagels], and perhaps I should take a lesson from their silence. But if what you say above is true, the only thing Ms. Pagels is teaching is eisegesis. </I><BR/><BR/>First off Pagels is a postmodernist. She would argue that all exegesis is eisegesis. But even if you are modernist, she is teaching literary history not eisegesis. <BR/><BR/><I> More than that, the line you've drawn here between hermenuetics and theology is a distinction without a difference. </I><BR/><BR/>No, its a huge difference. Pagels has never written about what Paul believes but rather what people like Valentinus believed. I don't see any evidence in 2 decades of her writings that she asserts that Paul actually held these beliefs. Moreover in her historical works (like the Origin of Satan) she takes the opposite position and argues that there was substantial development of both Orthodox Christian and Christian Gnostic thought between 70 and 130. <BR/><BR/><I> Whether you say Paul is a gnostic, or merely read him as one, you are teaching theology </I><BR/><BR/>No, Valentinus (et al) is teaching theology. Pagels is teaching Valentinus. While Pagels is Christian and active in Church, I'm not sure she believes there is a god to teach theology about. I certainly can't think of anything in her writings that I would consider an assertion about the nature of god. <BR/><BR/><I> a gospel that Paul himself would call anathema, in fact. </I><BR/><BR/>Lets not forget Valentinus was a student of Theudas (not the one from Acts) who was a student of Paul. While I happen to agree that Paul is not a gnostic, Valentinus has a much better claim to knowing what Paul would or wouldn't do than you do. You and I never met the man, Theudas studied under him for years. Some humility may be in order. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Hopefully next time this turns out better.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1302239825385114502007-09-23T13:02:00.000-07:002007-09-23T13:02:00.000-07:00CD-Host:There's no way that I can respond to all o...<B>CD-Host:</B><BR/><BR/>There's no way that I can respond to all of what you've brought in here. We're obviously dealing with two completely divergent approaches to Scripture which cannot be reconciled. Nevertheless, I'll throw these random bits out there for the (hopeful) edification of anyone still reading this thread. <BR/><BR/><I>You don't read it in the natural way (that is you ignore the mystery religion term that is in the text) because the gospels teach that Peter actually met Jesus in a very physical sense so you end up with a twisted translation.</I><BR/><BR/>I finally figured out what you're saying here. <BR/><BR/>But as you yourself point out, you have to read 2 Peter without acknowledging anything that preceded it. Of course, you must also ignore the fact that those reading the letter would know of Peter and Jesus, and would themselves impute some of the things that are supposedly only added by the Gospels. <BR/><BR/>More than that, you must ignore <I>not only</I> the gospels, but Peter's first letter, Paul's epistles, Acts, and the testimony of the Old Testament (which was certainly codified by this point in history) regarding the Messiah. In other words, the whole of Scripture must be set aside and in its place a completely different context must be imputed to the text. For myself, I'll side with scripture over "mystery" any day of the week. <BR/><BR/><I><B>1) The 1st century literature speaks of a mythical / heavenly being called "Jesus Christ".</B> What is key to the case is not that I don't think he existed its that Paul and the writer of Hebrews doesn't think he actually existed.</I><BR/><BR/>The idea that Paul and whomever wrote Hebrews didn't believe in an incarnational Jesus is ridiculous. If someone is reading of these parts of Scripture is so shallow that this is what they get, only God can help them. <BR/><BR/><I>2) The <B>2nd century Christian literature</B> (which includes the gospels) shows obvious signs of a transition period as <B>belief in an incarnation develops</B>. By the mid 3rd century among the Christian community and by the late 2nd century this belief is universal.</I><BR/><BR/>(I'm assuming that your last sentence should read 4th century--otherwise I'm missing something.)<BR/><BR/>When <I>do</I> you date the gospels? It seems that in order for this assertion to be tenable, you <I>must</I> late date the gospels, and <I>must</I> believe in Q (which to me seems far more mystical that anything Jesus did or said). Since I don't do either one, this may be why I consider the suggestion that early Christians didn't consider Christ to be human to be completely without merit. <BR/><BR/><I>As an aside, Pagels doesn't assert that Paul is a gnostic. What she teaches in Gnostic Exegesis is how to read Paul the way the gnostics read him. That is she is teaching hermeneutics not theology. Regarding a skill / understanding that was lost until recently.</I><BR/><BR/>There are many others on this list better qualified to tackle this point, and perhaps I should take a lesson from their silence. But if what you say above is true, the only thing Ms. Pagels is teaching is eisegesis. More than that, the line you've drawn here between hermenuetics and theology is a distinction without a difference. Whether you <B>say</B> Paul is a gnostic, or merely <B>read</B> him as one, you <I>are</I> teaching theology--a gospel that Paul himself would call anathema, in fact. To say otherwise borders on self-deception.<BR/><BR/>May God through His Spirit grant us both eyes to see the truth, and to set aside any error in our views. <BR/><BR/>Grace and peace to you.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67286239260233602172007-09-22T02:50:00.000-07:002007-09-22T02:50:00.000-07:00Gummby -- 1) Dude, can you run that 2 Peter argume...Gummby --<BR/><BR/><I> 1) Dude, can you run that 2 Peter argument by me again? I'm guessing that you're saying you disagree with the translation I chose, but I don't really get what you're disagreeing with, so I can't really respond to anything. Maybe that was your goal, but I'm hoping you were trying to be clear, and somehow the process (either on your end or on mine) got muddled. </I><BR/><BR/>No I wasn't trying to be vague, but after I read it I realized my debate tactic while cute was perhaps a bit too contextual. <BR/><BR/>1) You had asked for a positive case for the fact that there were no events to be witnessed.<BR/><BR/>2) The mythicists argue the positive case comes from simply reading the epistles in and of themselves. <BR/><BR/>3) In the post above you had used a quote from Peter. Being cute I decided to show you how that very same passage would have been read if you were reading other piece of greek literature. The author of 2Peter is using standard mystery religion terms to describe his particular savior deity. The evidence for this was the use of the word <I>gnoridzo </I>.<BR/><BR/>4) In that context you wouldn't have assumed they were talking about an actual event. And thus you wouldn't have used eyewitness for <I>epoptai </I>. Instead you end up with the whole passage being 2Peter talking about spiritual vision and metaphorical initiation. <BR/><BR/>5) This translation makes verse 19 much more sensible. That is if you assume Peter means "eyewitness" by epoptai you have him saying something rather odd. <BR/><BR/>6) You don't read it in the natural way (that is you ignore the mystery religion term that is in the text) because the gospels teach that Peter actually met Jesus in a very physical sense so you end up with a twisted translation.<BR/><BR/>But as I indicated in my next post. Regardless of how cool the judo was here in taking your example and reversing it this was a more complex example then I should have started with. So then I did 5 easier ones. <BR/><BR/><I> Re: the five "less complex examples"...of what? Are you trying to make the Elaine Pagels "Paul is a gnostic" case? I get that you don't agree with Dan or anyone else that Christ really existed, but beyond that, I don't really follow the thrust of your thinking. </I><BR/><BR/>The mythicist case is:<BR/><BR/>1) <B> The 1st century literature speaks of a mythical / heavenly being called "Jesus Christ". </B> What is key to the case is not that I don't think he existed its that Paul and the writer of Hebrews doesn't think he actually existed. <BR/><BR/>2) The <B>2nd century Christian literature </B> (which includes the gospels) shows obvious signs of a transition period as <B>belief in an incarnation develops</B>. By the mid 3rd century among the Christian community and by the late 2nd century this belief is universal.<BR/><BR/>Everything else is details and evidence for the above. <BR/><BR/>What's complicating the case is 3 things:<BR/><BR/>1) <B>Language preliminaries</B>. Among Christians it is common to speak of the bible (a 4th century collection of 1st and 2nd century literature) as if it existed in the 1st century. There is no serious debate on this point but it keeps getting in the way. <BR/><BR/>2) <B>A desire to go off topic</B>. While not all of academic biblical scholarship is needed (Robertson predated Bultmann for example) the core ideas should be assumed in discussing mythicism. If there was some Matthew following a real Jesus around who then later composed a gospel then mythicism is false. Assuming anything like this occurred is simply begging the question. <BR/>One can discuss Matthew's relationship to Mark and Q without having to take any position on Paul's theology. It is a separate argument and has nothing to do with Shyguy's question. <BR/>So the logical starting place would be to simply utilize Q and Mark (as midrash) and then the question is whether the historical elements are traceable back to the Jesus Christ of Paul or not. <BR/><BR/>3) The use of standard <B>apologetic arguments</B>. Apologetics are designed to avoid understanding not promote it. For example the claim about my "naturalistic assumptions" is a standard apologetic technique. When as I pointed out any Jew, Hindu, animist or stoic could be making the same argument you didn't object because I wasn't actually using any naturalistic assumptions. Its a distractor designed to undermine an argument. The more of those you use the less you will be able to actually converse. <BR/><BR/>As an aside, Pagels doesn't assert that Paul is a gnostic. What she teaches in Gnostic Exegesis is how to read Paul the way the gnostics read him. That is she is teaching hermeneutics not theology. Regarding a skill / understanding that was lost until recently. <BR/><BR/>Be well,<BR/>CD-HostCD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71892703178247625782007-09-21T20:05:00.000-07:002007-09-21T20:05:00.000-07:00CD-Host: 1) Dude, can you run that 2 Peter argumen...<B>CD-Host:</B> <BR/><BR/>1) Dude, can you run that 2 Peter argument by me again? I'm guessing that you're saying you disagree with the translation I chose, but I don't really get what you're disagreeing with, so I can't really respond to anything. Maybe that was your goal, but I'm hoping you were trying to be clear, and somehow the process (either on your end or on mine) got muddled. <BR/><BR/>2) Re: the five "less complex examples"...of what? Are you trying to make the Elaine Pagels "Paul is a gnostic" case? I get that you don't agree with Dan or anyone else that Christ really existed, but beyond that, I don't really follow the thrust of your thinking.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45886608395897170082007-09-21T15:43:00.000-07:002007-09-21T15:43:00.000-07:00It occurs to me my read of 2 Peter may seem like i...It occurs to me my read of 2 Peter may seem like it is coming out of nowhere. The whole core of the mythicist case (which we aren't debating because of getting stuck arguing preliminaries like that fisherman don't write books with 3 levels of conflicting theology and grammar and chop their own sentences). <BR/><BR/>The actual core of the case is fairly simple. That if one reads the epistles they talk about a heavenly being not a person. Even where they seem to talk about physical events they use bizarre language which is not at all consistent with what you would expect to see if they were simply recounting facts. <BR/><BR/>Why does Peter choose gnoridzo?<BR/><BR/>Can Peter really assert that the purpose of the incarnation was to confirm scripture of should we choose the alternate translation? <BR/><BR/>And if we do choose the alternate translation then the word epoptai probably means what it usually does in these contexts.<BR/><BR/>______________<BR/><BR/>So here are some less complex examples:<BR/><BR/>1: Assume for a moment that someone believed that Jesus had lived hundreds of years before Paul, but that people had only recently learned of Jesus and his importance (i.e. the divine mystery Rom 16:25-27, same idea in Titus 1:2-3). Try and find any references in Paul to anything that would disprove this.<BR/><BR/>2: When you read 1Cor 15 Paul makes a complex theological argument that resurrection is possible. Why? Where's Lazarus? Worse yet it seems that Paul is arguing that believing in Jesus's resurrection is a matter of faith and he rhetorically denies it 4 times. Why this very odd way to treat a historical event? <BR/><BR/>3: Paul who spent most of his life preaching about the resurrections comments (Phil 3:10) that he went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter a little. Where is Calvary? In fact where is any mention of any holy place at all in Paul?<BR/><BR/>4: In 1Cor 12:28 Paul talks about how God appointed apostles. 1Col 1:25 he makes a similar comment about himself. Eph 1:1, Eph 3:7, Cor 1:1, 1 Thes 2:4, 2 Cor 3:6, Gal 2:8 its God who appointed Paul (not Jesus). Worse yet in Gal 1:16 its God who told Paul about Jesus. Why wouldn't he have mentioned the road to Damascus? <BR/><BR/>5: Interesting thing about Baptism for Paul. Paul considers it the primary ritual by which men die to sin and our reborn. He talks about it Romans 6-8 for 3 chapters. Where is Jesus's baptism? Why didn't he mention it?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21829821450374341982007-09-21T14:49:00.000-07:002007-09-21T14:49:00.000-07:00gummby --1) See my response Johnny regarding the ...gummby --<BR/><BR/>1) See my response Johnny regarding the assumptions. You are pulling them a bit out of context.<BR/><BR/>But I can put together a positive case. <BR/><BR/><I> That these documents are layered with tradition instead of constructed by 4 individuals <BR/><BR/>That these individuals weren't witnesses to the events they related in a material sense </I><BR/><BR/>The way that Luke and Matthew quote Mark seems to indicate dependency. Similarly with Q (and yes I'm going to assume Q for this discussion along with all the rest of higher criticism. I'm using the same methods I'd use for any other ancient book as per your statements). Those methods get a different debate that have nothing to do with mythicism at all). so that knocks those two out (on the other hand Luke doesn't claim internally to be a direct witness).<BR/><BR/>John is obviously internally layered, which means the gospel we have today had more than one author .... "John" may have written Signs but he did not write "John". Bultmann proved this beyond a reasonable doubt (The Gospel of John) by being able to extract layers directly from the greek. This isn't part of the mythicist case at all so I don't see how it is on topic. <BR/><BR/>That leaves Mark. Mark is virtually structured as "prophecy" throughout the entire book. <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark11a.htm" REL="nofollow">link</A> gives an example with the cult and the donkey. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That there weren't events which could be witnessed. </I><BR/><BR/>Well actually your previous quote does a pretty good job here. You have "Peter" (not that I buy the first century data for 2Peter but in this case it doesn't matter) asserting <BR/><BR/>we made known to you (gnoridzo = imparting a divine mystery)<BR/><BR/> eyewitnesses (Epoptai = eyewitnesses but is also used in Greek literature to for initiates who had experienced theophanies, the perceived presence of the god)<BR/><BR/>and when you translate that way it makes sense. At verse 19 Peter has the scriptures held higher than his vision. But if you don't translate it this way is it really sensible that Peter would be saying (as <A HREF="http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp07.htm" REL="nofollow">Doherty puts it</A>, "eyewitnessed glorification of Jesus of Nazareth into his divine persona, the very voice of God out of heaven acknowledging him as his Son, serves merely to support scripture?"). <BR/><BR/><I> That this is literary form, rather than testimony & narrative. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes. These books all have themes in them. Collections of simple testimony don't have deep themes. With the exception of Mark they all have deep structure....<BR/><BR/><I> This kind of evidence is overwhelmingly in the favor of the Biblical documents. </I><BR/><BR/>(This is in reply to my rejection of Luke at 60). Good then give me a single statement datable to the 1st century which mentions Luke. <BR/><BR/><I> And it is worth pointing out (again) that if the kind of skepticism the Bible enjoys were applied to the rest of historical world literature, we would have no history. The benefit must always go to the document, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. And I haven't seen you give any evidence to the contrary. </I><BR/><BR/>Which document are you talking about? I'm assuming the bible but you are being quite unclear. First off there is no "bible" this early. At best these are the the various books (unless you want to make a claim for the existence of the bible as a whole in which case standard Christian history of the development of the Canon is my counter evidence). As for the compelling evidence, <BR/><BR/>1) we have dateable materials from church fathers. <BR/><BR/>2) Those materials reference various early texts. <BR/><BR/>3) We simply assert that a text exist at time X if it is quoted by a dateable source at or before time X.<BR/><BR/>4) Those texts that are not quoted are suspect but may exist<BR/><BR/>That's it. Not a very complex case. And those are the assumptions that are made with every other historical document. Documents aren't given, "benefit must always go to the document, in the absence of compelling evidence" whose standard is that? <BR/><BR/>So when Dan wants to say Luke exist in the year 60 he needs something dateable that has Luke at 60. Otherwise Luke's first dateable references are that proto-Luke shows up as the Gospel of the Lord around 130, and something similar to canonical Luke around 140. Conversely Clement is dateable to the first century and Clement quotes Paul hence Paul (7 epistles) gets a first century date.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44359215129971486102007-09-21T13:32:00.000-07:002007-09-21T13:32:00.000-07:00CD-Host said: So lets look at the assumptions (not...CD-Host said: <I>So lets look at the assumptions (note none of these proved) in this case:</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, these arguments are stated in such a way that we can restate the contra-assumption:<BR/><BR/>1) That this is literary form, rather than testimony & narrative. <BR/><BR/>2) That these documents are layered with tradition instead of constructed by 4 individuals<BR/><BR/>3) That there <I>weren't</I> events which could be witnessed.<BR/><BR/>4) That these individuals <I>weren't</I> witnesses to the events they related in a material sense<BR/><BR/>There are bold assertions. Do you have any evidence that you're willing to share? I'm looking for specific statements, not "check so-and-so's book," which may be definitive, but can also be used as a cop out to actually avoid making any real points (with all due respect to you, and Dan, but I've seen it too often, and time is too limited to "go read such-and-so book and come back when you're done.")<BR/> <BR/><I>Internal attestation is worthless. I can write a book that claims its from the middle ages. The bible can't date the bible anymore than any other book can date itself.</I><BR/><BR/>Here's why this statement doesn't hold water. If you were to write a book claiming to be from the middle ages, it would be pretty obvious when you printed it out on a laser printer or posted it to your blog that it wasn't from the middle ages. So we wouldn't have to even bother with <I>internal</I> attestation, because we'd have a problem with the <I>external</I> attestation. <BR/><BR/>But let's say you go down to the local taxidermist, and get yourself a nice piece of vellum (or better yet, steal one from a museum, and then scrape it, so it really would look authentic), and find a calligrapher, mix the right ink, etctera and so on. Chances are you wouldn't get everything right. You'd probably misspell words, or use ones that weren't invented yet. It would be pretty clear pretty quickly that you'd made a forgery. <BR/><BR/>This kind of evidence is overwhelmingly in the favor of the Biblical documents. And it is worth pointing out (again) that if the kind of skepticism the Bible enjoys were applied to the rest of historical world literature, we would have no history. The benefit must always go to the document, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. And I haven't seen you give any evidence to the contrary. <BR/><BR/>I would just add that in my experience, the ultimate disbelief of Scripture comes not from problems with the documents themselves, but from the content. The typical atheist line of reasoning that "There's no such thing as the supernatural, therefore the Bible and Christianity are false" is actually an argument from <I>worldview</I>, and has nothing to do with the documents themselves. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I have to admit that there's a certain brilliance in the mythical argument. I saw it during the whole <I>War on Easter</I> campaign. The "Jesus never existed" line of reasoning is a complete presupposition, and allows someone using it to ignore or explain away any and all the evidence. You see the exact same thing with those that deny the Holocaust. It isn't because of <I>lack</I> of evidence; rather, it is a complete <I>disregard</I> for any and all evidence. <BR/><BR/><B>Dan:</B> great post--particularly the part about the behind-the-scenes stuff, the "issue behind the issue." We all need to watch out for that, because it can happen to any of us. It's a good thing to keep in mind. <BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work. Oh, and if you ever get an answer to "what kind of evidence would be sufficient to incite you to believe?" please let me know. I've never gotten a straight answer on that one.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44584480918556814382007-09-21T13:09:00.000-07:002007-09-21T13:09:00.000-07:00Shyguy: In 2 Peter 1, Peter makes an audacious sta...<B>Shyguy:</B> <BR/><BR/>In 2 Peter 1, Peter makes an audacious statement. Listen: <BR/><BR/><I>For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.</I> (2 Peter 1:16-21, ESV)<BR/><BR/>He starts off by saying that he and the other apostles they didn't follow cleverly devised myths. He says, "Hey, this isn't a made up story." "We've seen," he says (v.16), "and we've heard" (v.18). Because of his experience, he was <I>sure</I> of what he said. <BR/><BR/>But then he goes on to make an amazing claim. You might think he'd spend more time talking about his own experience, into more depth as to how it made him sure. Instead, he says that there is something even "more sure," and that something is "the prophetic word." And lest there be any confusion, that's referring to Scripture (cf. v.20). <BR/><BR/>I've often wondered myself whether I might have a stronger faith if I were to travel back to Jesus' day and see things with my own eyes. But the Bible says otherwise; both in the passage mentioned above and in other places, we find that Scripture is sufficient and complete. <BR/><BR/>So let me present this challenge to you. If someone who was there with Jesus said that he valued the written testimony of God over the things he had actually experienced, what more do <I>you</I> need? What else are you seeking to know the truth?Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22501607231290578552007-09-21T12:38:00.000-07:002007-09-21T12:38:00.000-07:00Johnny -- You have done nothing other than attempt...Johnny --<BR/><BR/><I> You have done nothing other than attempt to shift the burden of proof on sub-issues you have designed. Greenleaf's work is solid on what he has addressed. You're criticizing a book he didn't write. </I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. Greenleaf claims to be be writing an article which assumes almost nothing and progresses by virtue of reason. My point was that the argument works by hiding the assumptions which amount to the conclusion. <BR/><BR/>And yes the burdon of proof is on Greenleaf to prove the assumptions he needs. He's asserts for a positive case. <BR/><BR/><I> couple of them are irrelevant (e.g., whether there are "layers of tradition" [how many? How do you identify them?] or not does nothing to disestablish a personal source for the the traditions) </I><BR/><BR/>Of course it does. Eye witness testimony doesn't contain layers. Retellings do. When I tell stories about things that happened to my wife that I wasn't present for, their is a layer that appears in the text of my story. When I tell stories about things that happened to my wife that I was present for that layer isn't there. I.E. the existence of the layer disproves my being present. That is explicitly the claims being made about apostolic authorship for Matthew and John. <BR/><BR/><I>IOW, there's simply way too much YOU have assumed and tossed out. </I><BR/><BR/>Really like what? And on which particular positive claims? <BR/><BR/><I> At base it is the naturalistic presupposition that controls. </I><BR/><BR/>I don't believe I made use of naturalism. One could for example believe in Stoicism, Animism, Hinduism or Judaism and support every aspect of the mythicist argument I've made so far. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, even if that were true I'm not sure that's a problem. Mythicism does not claim to be an apologetic to prove atheism. Rather what it does is offer an explanation for the development of scripture and Christianity within atheist assumptions consistent with the entire historical record. As such its an apologetic for atheism but not by itself a complete argument for that worldview. <BR/><BR/>It doesn't make heavy use of atheism even though its major proponents are atheists. <BR/><BR/><I> Blomberg, cited by sewing, is an excellent source for the other side. He and Greenleaf would have made excellent co-counsel. </I><BR/><BR/>Bloomberg for the other side of what? Which specific point of Wells, Robertson or Doherty is he refuting first?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16977968714567133522007-09-21T10:25:00.000-07:002007-09-21T10:25:00.000-07:00To be fair, tbe cited Blomberg first.To be fair, tbe cited Blomberg first.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78201527699105679952007-09-21T07:20:00.000-07:002007-09-21T07:20:00.000-07:00cd-host, I just wanted to respond to part of your ...cd-host, I just wanted to respond to part of your post. I find your dismissal of Greenleaf less than persuasive. You have done nothing other than attempt to shift the burden of proof on sub-issues you have designed. Greenleaf's work is solid on what he has addressed. You're criticizing a book he didn't write.<BR/><BR/>If you want to try to make the case for each of your propositions, you're free to do so. But it appears to me that a couple of them are irrelevant (e.g., whether there are "layers of tradition" [how many? How do you identify them?] or not does nothing to disestablish a personal source for the the traditions), and the others are a matter of academic debate. Greenleaf was not dealing with any of that, but subsequent scholarship, in my view, actually supports his case.<BR/><BR/>IOW, there's simply way too much YOU have assumed and tossed out. Dealing with it would take a lot more time and tangents than, I think, fit this box.<BR/><BR/>Your criticism reminds me a bit of the Darwinists. They can find ANY human trait (most recently, the moral sense) and claim that there had to be some "adaptive advantage" millions of years ago that explains it. They can then imagine any number of scenarios, which of course cannot be verified. At base it is the naturalistic presupposition that controls.<BR/><BR/>The same with the liberal side of the ledger in biblical scholarship, IMO. <BR/><BR/>Blomberg, cited by sewing, is an excellent source for the other side. He and Greenleaf would have made excellent co-counsel.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27951385544195975922007-09-20T21:01:00.000-07:002007-09-20T21:01:00.000-07:00cd-host: Thanks for the follow-up, as I was going ...cd-host: Thanks for the follow-up, as I was going to mention that the Tektonics site had some of the specific stuff you were looking for.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind, however, that any arguments for the historicity of the Gospels are also directly or indirectly addressing the hypotheses that either:<BR/>(a) Jesus is a purely mythical figure; or<BR/>(b) Jesus is a historical figure, but the Gospels represent mythical accretions.<BR/><BR/>I don't wish to get into a long, drawn-out debate, but I wish you well in reading over this material. The two books, by the way, look to be excellent resources, but alas, one has to pay money and purchase them to read them!Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88996643551718300972007-09-20T20:07:00.000-07:002007-09-20T20:07:00.000-07:00Year 2007:Matthew, Mark, Luke and Johnor...Roberts...Year 2007:<BR/><BR/>Matthew, Mark, Luke and John<BR/><BR/>or...<BR/><BR/>Robertson, Wells and/or Doherty<BR/><BR/>Does anyone have a quarter?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Year 4007 <BR/><BR/>Matthew, Mark, Luke and John<BR/><BR/>or...<BR/><BR/>Who, who and/or who?<BR/><BR/>Does anyone have...Oh, nevermind!<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Matthew 18:4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71143440770886929042007-09-20T19:36:00.000-07:002007-09-20T19:36:00.000-07:00Sewing --As an aside, your last set of links were ...Sewing --<BR/><BR/>As an aside, your last set of links were to J.P. Holding. While his counter arguments are weak, he has quite a bit on <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html" REL="nofollow">Doherty</A> and a small exchange with Wells (<A HREF="http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html" REL="nofollow">Shattering the Christ-Myth </A>, <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html" REL="nofollow">reply by wells</A>, <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wellsga01.html" REL="nofollow">Wells without water a "rebuttal"</A>. <BR/><BR/>As far as I know he has nothing on Robertson. A kissing cousin of these guys who Holden also discusses is Acharya S but she is more fun than scholarly (in some ways an atheist version of pyromaniacs :-) ) so I don't want to add her to this thread.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35595080768935386872007-09-20T18:42:00.000-07:002007-09-20T18:42:00.000-07:00Sewing --OK nice response. The Kirk MacGregor pap...Sewing --<BR/><BR/>OK nice response. The Kirk MacGregor paper doesn't seem to address the mythicist case at all. It argues against the idea of a spiritual resurrection of a physical Jesus. By way of analogy you are proving that Lois Lane really does believe that superman came from kyrpton. When shyguy's position has already conceded that not only Lois believes that but even more-so superman "really is" from kyrpton in every way that superman can really be from anywhere. So the article doesn't address the argument. <BR/><BR/>I couldn't find a single argument of Craig's on the mythicist case. Could you be more specific here? I don't find anything contemporary in his apologetic, most of those arguments are centuries old. <BR/><BR/>Greenleaf fall apart quickly. Lets take a sample: <I> The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the <B>testimony</B> of the Four Evangelists, bringing <B>their narratives</B> to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as <B>having actually occurred</B>, <B>within their own personal knowledge</B>. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to <B>these witnesses</B>. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed. </I><BR/><BR/>So lets look at the assumptions (note none of these proved) in this case:<BR/><BR/>1) That this is testimony rather than another literary form, and moreover a narrative. <BR/><BR/>2) That these documents are constructed by 4 individuals rather than layered with tradition<BR/><BR/>3) That there are events which could be witnessed.<BR/><BR/>4) That these individuals are witnesses to the events they related in a material sense (as Greenleaf is using the terms).<BR/><BR/>And the next few sentences are the same, and those after that. The case is embedded in the assumptions. He sneaks the case in, by scrambling the pieces. Its a nice argument till you see through the technique. <BR/><BR/>Sewing it seems like you actually want an argument on the topic of liberal scholarship not mythicism. I can switch from defending the Doherty, Wells, Robertson position to arguing Bultmann, Sanders, Crossen.... I'd rather do that in a different thread so that things don't get confused. Das Evangelium des Johannes is the greatest Christian book of the 20th century I've read, that's the book that taught me how to really read a text. It changed my life. And while it appears that Bultmann's Christianity is a historical dead end, and Jaspers was right that there is no Christianity outside of myth. I can't help but feel some regret at the death of demythologized Christianity. <BR/><BR/><I> It's not as if we're a bunch of wilfully blind schmucks </I><BR/><BR/>Ah I don't think I've ever said anything like that. This blog is well respected for good reason. I'm shocked that none of the emerging church people have responded to the critique here. <BR/><BR/>That being said I do think you all were setting up a straw man for the mythicist case. Wells and Robertson are dead, Phil Johnson (and certainly MacArthur) are big enough names that I'd assume Doherty would debate them in a heartbeat ( Dan please don't take offense, this is my ignorance in judging, I just don't know your non internet persona) <BR/><BR/>I also don't think you've read the more serious critics, and I think that's unfortunate. This is the sort of place where I think dialogue might be possible.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50429549051490690192007-09-20T17:01:00.000-07:002007-09-20T17:01:00.000-07:00If you want more, here is a recent essay that addr...If you want more, <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> is a recent essay that addresses liberal scholarship on questions of the reliability of the Gospels (were they mere fictional fabrications, or something more?), with individual essays on the dating and authorship of <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html" REL="nofollow">Matthew</A>, <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html" REL="nofollow">Mark</A>, <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html" REL="nofollow">Luke</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html" REL="nofollow">John</A>.<BR/><BR/>Don't be fooled: it's not as if we're a bunch of wilfully blind schmucks who are stuck in our primitive beliefs. Rather than having unexamined beliefs, many of us write with such conviction precisely because we have gone through the wringer in examining, questioning, doubting, abandoning, and reexamining our beliefs. Some of us even started out as atheists, like me. Many of us used to have <B><I>highly</B></I> skeptical views of the Bible, seduced by the confidence of liberal scholars that conservative Christians (who couldn't possibly have an intellectual bone in their body, I thought) have no answer for the challenges of modernism.<BR/><BR/>Nothing could be further from the truth, and the sad joke is on Biblical scholars whose faith in God is so weak that they can't even entertain the possibility that taking the Bible at face value just might be a tenable option.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16823154705493587042007-09-20T16:04:00.000-07:002007-09-20T16:04:00.000-07:00cd-host: If you want contemporary scholarship that...cd-host: If you want contemporary scholarship that is not a response to Dan Brown, various contemporary sources have already been mentioned in this very comment thread.<BR/><BR/>Online, pretty much anything by <A HREF="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html" REL="nofollow">William Lane Craig,</A> including (for starters) <A HREF="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html" REL="nofollow">"Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ."</A> Offline, another commenter already mentioned Craig L. Blomberg's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0877849927" REL="nofollow"><I>The Historical Reliability of the Gospels</I></A>. Another scholarly work that has just come out is <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Legend-Historical-Reliability-Tradition/dp/0801031141" REL="nofollow">The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition</A>, the introduction to which can be viewed <A HREF="http://www.bakeracademic.com/Media/MediaManager/Excerpt_Eddy_JesusLegend.pdf" REL="nofollow">online (PDF)</A>.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200606/ai_n17176289" REL="nofollow">This paper</A> argues that the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (from an epistle you concede to be authentic) is an ancient formula that Paul heard not later than AD 35 (that even the Jesus Seminar dates to not later than AD 33!) and that in the verb used to describe Jesus' being raised after burial, attests to a bodily resurrection, meaning that the whole edifice of Christianity is not merely the fevered imaginings of one Paul of Tarsus.<BR/><BR/>In the 19th century—well after skeptical rationalism had already begun manifesting itself in source criticism and the Deist musings of Thomas Jefferson—Simon Greenleaf, "one of the principal founders of Harvard Law School" attempted to disprove the Gospels on the weight of their alleged internal inconsistencies, and came to a very different conclusion. You may read his work <A HREF="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84253167222342009732007-09-20T15:17:00.000-07:002007-09-20T15:17:00.000-07:00Mike Riccardi,The original source of the Chesterto...Mike Riccardi,<BR/><BR/>The original source of the Chesterton quote is a book of his titled <EM>What's Wrong With the World</EM>.threegirldadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10514416693800430357noreply@blogger.com