Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: I apologise if I was not clear enough in what I was trying to communicate. I don't mean to say the later answer is wrong. What I was trying to say if you read the context of Matthew clearly, the meeting in Galiliee is meant to be the first one after resurrection. The flow of the passage indicates that. The message from the angel in both Matthew and and Mark reinforces the idea. If you read Matthew on it's own, the idea that the meeting in Gailiee is not the first one would never occur to you unless you are trying to reconcile it with other resurrection accounts. That's why my friend in a seven hour conversation with me, gave every possible explanation except that one i.e. it is not the first meeting. The answer is very contrived unless you suppose Matthew is not an eyewitness nor divinely inspired and merely reporting hearsay. But the would destroy the crediblity of the Bible as the world of God and severely weaken the resurrection accounts as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus

OK. So if I’m talking to my friend from Afghanistan and I say, “The Baltimore Ravens went 12-4 last season, and then won the Super Bowl.”, but then a few days later my Afghani friend is talking to someone else who says, “The Ravens had to win three playoff games before making it to the Super Bowl last year.”, does this prove the Ravens did NOT win the most recent Super Bowl?

Here are a few things to ponder… First, the background of the listener/reader is important to remember. The gospel authors were writing to Christians who were already aware of the resurrection story. It wasn’t as if most of the readers were learning it for the first time when reading the gospels. They already knew the story. Therefore, it wasn’t necessary to relay every single minute detail.

Second, terminology is important. Look at the second quote above in which it says, “last year”. Few people would call this a mistake, but technically it is. The most recent Super Bowl was played in 2001, but since it was played during the last football season most people call it “last year”.

Both statements above concerning the Ravens are true, yet a person lacking background knowledge of football would be thoroughly confused. If they only heard the first statement (without detailed explanation), they would probably conclude that the Super Bowl was played immediately after the season. They would have no knowledge of the three playoff games. And so forth…

Peace,

Polycarp

Benjamin Franklin

I understood the part about the background knowledge but I did not understand the SuperBowl analogy. You could say it proves your point but I don't see the relevance of background knowledge to Galilee meeting being the first one. I agree that it is not necessary to mention every detail but in the context of Matthew, after mentioning the empty tomb, the angel's message, the next most important/natural thing is to mention the first meeting with disciples. Sure the writer could have described the angels message and then moved on to the last meeting 40 days later, just before the ascension but it would not make much sense in the context of the whole narration of discovering the empty tomb and then seeing Jesus.The passage in Matthew indicates that the disciples went to Gailiee immediately in response to both the angel's and Jesus' message in contrast to Luke where the disciples were in state of confusion as to what to do. Futhermore, on the day the discples are supposed to have met Jesus in Jeruslem according to Luke, the angel said that Jesus has gone ahead of the disciples to Galilee and even Jesus told the women "As my disciples to go to Galilee; there they will see me"
To explain the meeting in Jesuslam, I see three possibilities.
1.The angel and Jesus gave the wrong message
2 Jesus, being God and omnipotent, knowing everying that is going to happen in the future, knew he was going to change his mind, but went ahead and gave the Galilee message.
3 Third, Jesus decide to surprise his disciples by telling them to go to Galilee and meeting them in Jersualem

All three possilibty does not seem very likely and in Acts, the author is very clear that certain meeings were not the first one whereas Matthew gives a vey misleading impression. If the purpose is to spread the good news to the future generations so that those who believe will be saved and those who do not believe will be condemnedd, it does a very bad job really, unless God expects everyone to get a PHD in New Testament Studies. I end with this quotation from G.A Wells essay : a resurrection debate
"One of the most conclusive results of contemporary redactional studies of the New Testament traditions of the appearances, no less than of the empty tomb, is that an original nucleus of tradition has been developed during the course of its transmissions and that the resulting diversity can be explained by reference to apologetic motives and concerns along the way; the modification of the tradition is an inevitable by-product of the attempt to communicate and defend resurrection belief in different contexts to different people with different preconceptions and concerns. All this conditions what is said. The diversity of the resulting traditions cannot just be added together to form one synthetic account of what is supposed to have happened at the first Easter. (pp. 67-8)

He also finds that 'fundamentalist writers and ultra-conservative popularisers of the Easter faith do the church no lasting service by nervously seeking to defend a superficial harmony of the gospel narratives' (p. 27")"

Puttz

AS a person who is studying the greek language for purposes of translating the new testament let me just say that some of this arguement would be unnecessary if people understood the way the greek and english languages differ.

In regards to the niv, the translators tried to take the greek and make it understanable to the common man. The kjv sticks a little more to a literal translation.

You may want to check out the New American Standard Version for a more literal translation that is easier than the kjv. It has some words that are a little tough, but it does a much better job with the text.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: To explain the meeting in Jesuslam, I see three possibilities. 1.The angel and Jesus gave the wrong message 2 Jesus, being God and omnipotent, knowing everying that is going to happen in the future, knew he was going to change his mind, but went ahead and gave the Galilee message. 3 Third, Jesus decide to surprise his disciples by telling them to go to Galilee and meeting them in Jersualem All three possilibty does not seem very likely and in Acts, the author is very clear that certain meeings were not the first one whereas Matthew gives a vey misleading impression.

I think there are other possibilities.

4. Matt wanted to emphasize the appearance in Galilee, so he put words into the mouth of Jesus as a storytelling technique. If he was relying on Mark’s gospel for info, he may have just inferred that Jesus said something like this based on Mark 16:7. Matt may have ignored a Jerusalem appearance.
5. There was no appearance in Galilee, only in Jerusalem.
6. Luke made up his story.
7. Jesus never actually existed.
8. And so on and so on…

Quote:

If the purpose is to spread the good news to the future generations so that those who believe will be saved and those who do not believe will be condemnedd, it does a very bad job really, unless God expects everyone to get a PHD in New Testament Studies.

I don’t think this is an accurate description. Christianity doesn’t teach that God will quiz you at the pearly gates with the question, “What is the correct chronological narrative of the post-resurrection events?”. This isn’t the basis for God’s judgement of our salvation. I know of no Christian group that teaches such a thing. If you do, I’d be curious to know who they are.

Quote:

I end with this quotation from G.A Wells essay : a resurrection debate "One of the most conclusive results of contemporary redactional studies of the New Testament traditions of the appearances, no less than of the empty tomb, is that an original nucleus of tradition has been developed during the course of its transmissions and that the resulting diversity can be explained by reference to apologetic motives and concerns along the way; the modification of the tradition is an inevitable by-product of the attempt to communicate and defend resurrection belief in different contexts to different people with different preconceptions and concerns. All this conditions what is said. The diversity of the resulting traditions cannot just be added together to form one synthetic account of what is supposed to have happened at the first Easter. (pp. 67-8) He also finds that 'fundamentalist writers and ultra-conservative popularisers of the Easter faith do the church no lasting service by nervously seeking to defend a superficial harmony of the gospel narratives' (p. 27")"

I basically agree with those two statements. So what’s keeping you from becoming a Christian?


Peace,

Polycarp

Benjamin Franklin

Before I answer the question, Polycrap, I would like to know what is your definiton of Christianity and what you think the salvation criteria is. Would people like Buddha/Ghandi go to hell for rejecting God/resurrection and divinity of Christ

And what is your stand on the inerrancy of the bible

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: Before I answer the question, Polycrap, I would like to know what is your definiton of Christianity and what you think the salvation criteria is. Would people like Buddha/Ghandi go to hell for rejecting God/resurrection and divinity of Christ And what is your stand on the inerrancy of the bible

First of all, the name is "Polycarp" not "Polycrap". Maybe you're merely allowing a Freudian slip in this, or at least I hope you're not being intentionally rude. While many would vouch for the truth of the connotations of calling me "Polycrap", I'd prefer we use real monikers when addressing others. Moving on to more important things...

I'm finding four very good questions addressed to me. I'll briefly address them.

1. What is my definition of "Christianity"?

Answer: Belief in Jesus as the divine revelation of God sent to this world to save us from the mess we're in, while teaching us how to bring about God's will on earth.

2. What are my criteria for salvation?

Answer: I struggle with this issue. Since only God alone knows, I refuse to label people. I don't have the knowledge necessary to say this person goes to heaven, but that one doesn't. The one sure way to know we have salvation is through trust in Jesus. Will there be other people in heaven who don't meet this criteria? Yes, I think there will be, but I don't know all the loopholes. I see no need to look or hope for a loophole when I know the real deal. It doesn't make sense to look for an alternate route if I already know a sure way.

3. Would people like Buddha/Ghandi go to hell for rejecting God/resurrection and divinity of Christ?

Answer: I hope I covered this in my answer to the previous question, but I'll elaborate more. I don't know who is in heaven or hell, only God does. Heaven isn't obtained through having all of the proper doctrines. There isn't a theology exam at the gates of heaven where we are tested on our beliefs. I hate to quote Bible verses in a context like this, but there is one that just sticks out for me in an issue like this. It's Jeremiah 29:13: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

I think this statement is very true. Those who are doing everything they can to find God WILL find him. However, if we set up a bunch of standards that our god must meet in order for us to believe in him/her, then we are not seeking god with all of our heart. The problem in answering your question is that we have no way of knowing who is "seeking God with all their heart". I'm convinced there are millions of self-professed Christians who are not "seeking God with all their heart". I hope this answers your question. I don't have all the answers and wouldn't pretend to know something as great as who is in heaven and who isn't.

4. What is my stand on the inerrancy of the Bible?

Answer: The Bible has errors in it. However, everything necessary for finding God's revelation of Himself and our salvation is available in the Bible. Just as we do not say algebra is non-existent because of some errors in a textbook, so I do not claim Christianity is false because of a few mistakes in the Bible.

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain myself. Let me know what you think of these answers. I'd be interested to hear your views on this.

Peace,

Polycarp

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Polycarp

I apologise for mispelling your name. I am in the midst of trying to do a mhpil in cambridge and meeting job application deadlines. (lame excuse but aren't most excuses lame by definition)

I won't comment on your answers yet becuase I am still in the midst of exploring liberal Christainity (tried to post something on the miscelleanous forum but was not successful)

My purpose on debating the contradictions of resurrection accounts is becuase my inerrantist Christian friends like to tell me that it makes sense that people like Ghandi and Buddha would burn in hell because there is beyond reasonable doubt that Christ resurrect or there is more historical evidence for the reurrrection of Christ than the existence of Julius Ceaser

That is one of my main reasons for rejecting Christianity. Which is why I said that God cannot expect us to get a PHD in history to earn salvation because given that there is lack of scholarly consensus on the resurrection of Christ, one would have to get a PHD in history to validate all the claims made by both side. There are other reasons why I reject Chrisitianity but most of them presuppose inerrancy of the bible.

What do you think is the source of inerrancy of the bible. Inerrantists claim that it is due to translation and transcription errors and there are no major doctrinal disputes. Some liberals think the bible is written by inspired but fallible man who sometimes attribute their barabaric attitudes to God

Tjun Kiat

Nomad

Hello Tjun, and I hope you do not mind my jumping in here. First, while I think that the evidence for the Resurrection is good, I do not think that it as good as that for the existence of Julius Caesar, and I do not think that this is even a serious argument. As for trying to justify why Ghandi or Buddha is in Hell, this is pure conjecture, as no one can know the ultimate fate of any other individual. The definition of trusting in God is exactly that, we must trust in Him, and His wisdom and mercy, not our own, to judge all people rightly.

As the largest, and oldest denominations of the Christian faith do not presuppose inerrancy as you have defined it (it is more in accordance with how Polycarp has defined it), I would hope that you would not use this as the standard to reject all of Christianity. Remember, fundamentalism, and inerrancy are very new doctrines, typically dating back no further than the 1800's, and is largely confined to the United States and its Protestant denominations.

I assume you asking about the source of possible errors in the Bible. I will not speak for Polycarp, but I will quote from the web site of the American Orthodox Church (a very NON-liberal Christian source), as it offers one of the clearest and simplest definitions of what traditional Christianity believes about the Bible.

From <a href="http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Bible-and-Church-History/Word-of-God.html" target="_blank">The Orthodox Church of America: The Word of God</a>:

This strikes me as a very good summary of how to view the Bible as the Word of God.

Peace, and be well.

Nomad

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: My purpose on debating the contradictions of resurrection accounts is becuase my inerrantist Christian friends like to tell me that it makes sense that people like Ghandi and Buddha would burn in hell because there is beyond reasonable doubt that Christ resurrect or there is more historical evidence for the reurrrection of Christ than the existence of Julius Ceaser That is one of my main reasons for rejecting Christianity. Which is why I said that God cannot expect us to get a PHD in history to earn salvation because given that there is lack of scholarly consensus on the resurrection of Christ, one would have to get a PHD in history to validate all the claims made by both side. There are other reasons why I reject Chrisitianity but most of them presuppose inerrancy of the bible.

Thanks for your reply. I’m not quite sure that I understand what you’re saying. You seem to be saying that one of the main reasons for your rejection of Christianity is due to the fact that some of your friends, who claim to be Christians, believe in the inerrancy of the bible. In other words, if the bible has errors, then you would say that Christianity must not be true. Am I understanding you correctly? Or would you say that Christianity could be true even if the bible contained mistakes?

I think many people get a false impression of inerrancy because the people who make the most fuss about the issue are those with the most conservative view. This leads a lot of people to conclude that inerrancy and Christianity are bound together, and that its an “either/or” proposition: either both inerrancy and Christianity are true, or both are false. However, I’m telling you this is definitely NOT true.

What do you think of my algebra textbook analogy? Would you say the truthfulness of algebra is refuted if we find mistakes in a textbook?

Quote:

What do you think is the source of inerrancy of the bible. Inerrantists claim that it is due to translation and transcription errors and there are no major doctrinal disputes. Some liberals think the bible is written by inspired but fallible man who sometimes attribute their barabaric attitudes to God

Well… I’m not clear on what you’re asking here. I think there were errors in the original manuscripts, so I wouldn’t buy the argument that says errors are only attributed to translation and transcription errors.

Peace,

Polycarp

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Polycrap

Whenever I debate Christianity, I assume that the other party holds the inerrancy position. I know I am overgeneralising but then again, if the other party does not presuppose inerrancy, it is hard to determine what doctrines the he holds. That's why I am still in the midst of exploring liberal Christianity.

I agree with you that mistakes in the bible does not invalidate the Christian faith but Thomas Seehan's intpretation of Christianity would still be too liberal for many conservative Christians who do not hold the inerrancy doctrine.

That's why it is hard to debate someone who holds a liberal Christian attitude because there are such a wide range of interpetations that one does not know which interpretation one is debating

Tjun Kiat