Freethought & Rationalism Archive

04-18-2001, 08:05 PM

aikido: I don't wish to make the time to respond point-by-point to your consensus (or is that "consensus"?) of scholars....

SWL: Who said anything about a consensus?

aikido: For now I want to make a few points in a general way.

SWL: Seems to be your style.

aikido: If you feel I have misunderstood your post, have back at me!

Paul's struggles to articulate his version of Jesus' Kingdom of God (by ignoring it completely, in my opinion) were not normative for early Christianity, and this is borne out by the canonical accounts and some non-canonical sources.

SWL: Care to provide support for that statement? Paul's letters certainly ARE indices into the issues of dispute in early Christianity. They are our best indices. Whether or NOT many did or didn't side with Paul on these issues, we don't see many of them addressed either way in the Gospels - a significant point against the thesis of retrojection of the concerns of the Early Church back onto the pre-Easter Jesus. E.P. Sanders has noted especially the Gospels' restraint in the area of a pre-Easter ministry to the Gentiles, given that the evangelists clearly approved of their post-Easter admittance into the movement.

aikido: Either/or is a rather severe methodology to use (EITHER the concerns of the early church are in the earlier gospels OR the idea that the gospels contain community/church development is a grave historical error). The historical truth highlights the opposition of both/all sides of the ancient arguments and factions.

SWL: I don't know what to make of such a vague statement.

aikido: The burden of proof on my shoulders is one I would find impossible to carry. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants; the most I could do would be to look up words and terms in a scholar's index and cut and paste them into the fray to buttress my own feelings and opinions.

SWL: Well, even that would be appreciated.

aikido: One thing I see is that there was no controlling legal authority attempted until Nicea.

SWL: No, you don't see any fact of absence. If anything you could note that you DON'T see the presence of such a controlling "legal" authority. I don't know what you mean by "legal" anyway, or why controlling factors have to BE "legal", but every scrap of evidence we have indicates control. Paul's letters are written as correctives for the most part - a form of control - many times chastizing those abusing traditions (i.e. the Last Supper). Furthermore, you act as if there is no other apostolic control at all. The evidence indicates the opposite:

"The narrative of Acts 1:21-22 indicates that at least to some in the church the role of the apostles was not only that of a witness to the resurrection, but also that of a witness to the life and presumably the teachings of Jesus. It would be hard to believe that men with such a role did not by their presence exert some control upon the development of tradition.

"So long as the apostles existed, then, and particularly so long as the existed in Jerusalem, the respect in which they were held had the effect of dampening variation in the tradition...

"After Easter the early church did take an intense interest in the life and teaching of Jesus� The presence of eyewitnesses of that life up until the period when the written gospels were appearing, witnesses who were in high church positions, must have had a strongly conservative effect on the tradition (remembering that the church as much as the rest of its society valued the authority of elders). The church was clearly conscious that it was passing on tradition, not creating new ex nihilo (cf. even Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1ff., 11:23ff., which are some of the few places where his arguments overlap gospel concerns.)."[Gospel Perspectives, volumes I, II, III. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983.I: 87, 88, 89-90]

Miller discusses further the aspect of apostolic control:

Quote:

[T]he apostolic message 'content' is ALREADY tightly overseen and controlled by the apostolic band. There are a number of indications of relatively CLOSE apostolic oversight of the spread of the gospel content:

1.The early church had a center (Jerusalem) and leaders (apostles).

2.When the church expanded into Samaria, there was interaction with the leaders of the founding church (Acts 8.14): "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them". [By all accounts, Peter and John would have been closest to ANY information about Jesus' acts/words.]

3.When the church expanded into Antioch, we see the same pattern occur (Act 11:22): "News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch."

4.When the issue of circumcision came up, the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas "to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15.2)

5.The first church council was held at Jerusalem (Act 15:23-29)

6.The reference in Acts 15:24--"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you..."--is a STRONG indication of a 'sense of control'!

7....as is 16.6: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. .

8.Paul accepted the importance of the Jerusalem center (Gal 2.1-2): "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain."

9.Davids points out how significant this was [Gospel Perspectives, volumes I, II, III. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham: 1980-1983:I:87f]

"Confirmation of the picture in Acts comes from the fact that even Paul felt the power and authority of the Jerusalem church and the apostles. While Paul insists that his legitimacy as an apostle comes directly from Christ, he still reports that he found it necessary to go to Jerusalem at least twice and on one occasion to seek formal approval of his gospel from the apostles (Gal. 2.1-10). This would be most astounding if Paul did not feel that the apostles had at least some type of authority over the content of the tradition. Thus although Paul refuses to become dependent upon Jerusalem, he has the highest respect for the role of the community as a stronghold of pure doctrine and tradition."

10. At Jrs. Paul was welcomed and sent to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9f): "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

11.Paul (a native of Tarsus!) returned to Jerusalem after EACH missionary journey.

12.Even Peter is subject to the apostles as a group (Acts 8.4).

13.The leading apostles and evangelists had traveling ministries, bringing them into contact with churches and believers everywhere.

14.The early churches did NOT live in a vacuum. They corresponded with each other (cf. I Clement, a letter from Rome to Corinth, a.d. 95, see ATNT:48-49) and exchanged NT documents (cf. Col. 4.16).

15.Bauckham summarizes the authority succinctly:

"The Jerusalem council presupposes the authority of Jerusalem to decide the issue of Gentile Christians' obedience to the Law (Acts 15). Its decision binds not only Antioch and its daughter churches (15.22-31) but also the churches founded by Paul and Barnabas (16.4). When James recalls the decision in 21.25, the effect is to imply that Paul's Gentile mission is still subject to it."[The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Vol 4--Palestinian Setting, ed. R. Bauckham, Eerdmans: 1995, p. 450.]

Notice that every indication we have--from the only sources we have--supports a very narrow range of "content flexibility" by local communities...

The point should be clear--the early church had a significant amount of information exchange, among the leadership, and therefore had major 'feedback controls' which would have corrected significant aberrations early.

Indeed, the exchange of books and literature between the churches DWARFED that of the normal population. Consider this extended description of this by Gamble (BREC:142):

"Second, Christian texts had the advantage of circulation over non-Christian literature by virtue of the geographic dispersion of Christian communities and the relations that obtained between them. By the second half of the firs century Christian congregations had been planted across Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy and could be found in most of the major urban centers of the Mediterranean world--Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome. Soon thereafter the Christian mission successfully penetrated the provincial regions of Egypt, Syria, Gaul, and North Africa. These numerous and far-flung Christian congregations, large and small, nevertheless retained a sharp awareness of their collective identity as the ecclesia katholike and affirmed their mutual relations through frequent communication. The result was a highly reticulated system of local communities that spanned the Mediterranean world but preserved a strong sense of translocal unity and cultivated contacts with each other. Though it was not contrived for the purpose, this network was ideally suited to disseminate texts: it made up a large constituency requiring books and furnished efficient channels to distribute them. Thus, both the motive and the means for the circulation of Christian writings far exceeded those affecting the currency of non-Christian literature, and it was inevitable that the dissemination of Christian writings would outstrip in volume and speed the spread of other literature and more nearly approach something like mass circulation in the Christian setting than did non-Christian texts in society at large.
"As I have shown, the circulation of Christian literature was private, being part and parcel of the constant intercourse between individual congregations. Transmission took place by letter and messenger (letters requiring couriers) throughout the first five centuries of the church. It is no less typical of Augustine in the fifth century than it was of Cyprian in the third century, of Polycarp in the second, or of Paul in the first, to mention only a few examples. The travel of individual Christians or small delegations from one church to another, often over large distances, made the variety and breadth of Christian literature known to the congregations, thus increasing interest and demand, and also served as the efficient vehicle for the brisk movement of texts from one place to another."

aikido: Evolution is not always toward progress but toward complexity. Progress is another dangerous myth from the Enlightenment. There is a development which can be traced in the New Testament; better minds than mine have shown the way. We can speak of "Christianities" rather than "Christianity" in those early days. Paul and John seemed to have won out in the end--but at a price for the faith. Jesus fully human has been lost and/or ignored and most believers walk within a gnostic Christianity, close to the ancient heresy called "Docetism."--Jesus was not really human, he only seemed to be.

SWL: That's a beautiful speech but all the Gospels present a divine Jesus, and certainly Paul's Jesus was equally a human Jesus:

"Paul's Jesus is by no means simply a 'mythic figure.' Jesus is not an otherworldly visitor, or a phantom divine presence masquerading as human. In Paul's letters, the humanity of Jesus is real and specific�

"These letters contain a surprising amount of factual information about Jesus--surprising because of the emphasis Paul places on the present and future significance of Jesus as Lord. Paul does not retell stories about Jesus, and thus his factual references are scattered and out of sequence. If we did not have the Gospel narratives, we probably would not know in what order those references should be placed. Yet the same sentence begins with one of Paul's most 'mythic' statements--namely, 'In the fullness of time God sent his son'--continues, 'born of a woman, born under the law' (Gal. 4:4). For Paul, Jesus was human, and he was Jewish. Furthermore, he came 'to redeem those who were under the law' (Gal. 4:5); in other words, his human mission was first of all to his fellow Jews. Similarly, Paul states in Romans 15:17 that 'Christ became a minister of circumcision to show God's truthfulness.' Jesus was not only Jewish; he had a specific Jewish heritage--"descended from David according to the flesh' (Rom. 1:3; see also 2 Tim. 2:8, 'descended from David according to my gospel')--and ministry.

"Paul knows that Jesus taught, for he refers to 'the word of the Lord' (1 Tess. 4:15) and 'a charge of the Lord' (1 Cor. 7:10) and 'the command of the Lord'(1 Cor. 9:14). Because of the way he connects adoption as sons of God to the Aramaic cry of 'Abba, Father' (Gal. 4:6; see Rom. 8:15), it is likely that he was familiar with a tradition holding that this was Jesus' distinctive way of addressing God (see Mark 14:36). Paul knows that Jesus shared a meal 'on the night he was betrayed [or arrested]" (1 Cor. 11:23), and he connects the death of Jesus to the Passover (1 Cor. 5:7).

"Paul places the death of Jesus in Judea (1 Thess. 2:14) and blames it on the Jews�(1 Thess. 4:15)�But he also blames earthly rulers�(1 Cor. 2:8). In 1Timothy 6:13, he is more precise: 'Christ Jesus�in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession.' Paul obviously knows that Jesus was crucified (1 Cor. 22; Gal. 3:1; Phil. 2:8), and he knows the tradition of Jesus' burial (1 Cor. 15:4) and of appearances after his death to Cephas, James, the Twelve, five hundred at one time, and James, before he also appeared to Paul himself (1 Cor. 15:7).

"This is no small fund of information about the life and death of Jesus. Paul's letters, in fact, are the most comprehensive and reliable source of factual information--apart from the Gospels themselves--about the human Jesus.

"Paul also adds to our knowledge about the sayings of Jesus. Although he does not refer to these sayings often, when he does he treats them as authoritative. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, he does not directly cite Jesus when he refers to a 'word of the Lord,' but the content of his subsequent assertion concerning the 'coming of the Lord' makes it likely that he is referring to an eschatological saying of Jesus such as is found in Matthew 24:30-31 and Mark 13:26-27. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 9:14, he says, 'In the same ay the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living from the gospel,' an apparent allusion to a saying that is now found in Luke 10:7. And in 1 Timothy 5:18 that saying is quoted directly: 'The laborer deserves his wages.' When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 'To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from the husband (but if she does let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that he husband should not divorce his wife,' he is clearly referring to the saying of Jesus as found in Mark 10:2-9.

"The clearest and longest citation from the words of Jesus is found in a narrative fragment cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (see also Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20):

Quote:

[T]he Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed too bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'

"On the basis of these words, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their misbehavior at the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:26-32, RSV)."[Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus p. 106-108.]

Furthermore, John's Jesus, with all His exalted Christology, could be said to be the most human Jesus of all. To reiterate:

Quote:

"In fact, however, John's Jesus is in some ways even more fully rounded in his humanity than the Jesus portrayed by the Synoptics. Jesus is shown experiencing fatigue (4:6) as well as anguish (12:27; 13:21). His whole being is convulsed when he contemplates the death of his friend Lazarus, and he weeps (11:33-35). On one occasion he changes his mind (7:1-10). He converses with real people in real and identifiable places. His conversation with the Samaritan woman, for example, is distinctive, not exchangeable with any other (4:7-26). Rather than issuing punchy one-liners, he enters into conversational exchanges with Nicodemus (3:1-13), the paralytic (5:2-9), the man born blind (9:35-38), his friends Martha and Mary (11:17-37), and his disciples (1:38-51; 4:31-38; 6:66-71; 9:1-5; 11:1-16; 13:31-14:31). His controversies with opponents do not end quickly but demand his continued engagement (6:41-65; 7:14-36; 8:12-58; 10:22-39). This Jesus performs a miracle simply for the pleasure of giving pleasure (2:1-11). He shows irritation (2:4; 6:26; 7:6-8; 8:25) and suspicion (2:24-25). He asks for a positive human response (6:66-71). Jesus has real friends and is involved in their lives (11:1-12:9). He has one disciple whom he loves more than the others (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:20). He cares about his mother (2:1-11) and seeks her welfare before he dies (19:26-27). He asks Simon three times, 'Do you love me more than these?' (21:15-17). And he designates his followers simply as 'friends' (15:13-15). This is a thoroughly human Jesus�"[Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus p. 183]

SecWebLurker

04-18-2001, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
aikido: I don't wish to make the time to respond point-by-point to your consensus (or is that "consensus"?) of scholars....

SWL: Who said anything about a consensus?

I did. You brought to the post a few scholars which you seem to believe support your argument about Pauline Christianity being THE church, while other groups reflected in the sources have no claim on normative Christianity. Maybe "consensus" is the wrong word to bring up to you in this context. Sorry!

aikido: For now I want to make a few points in a general way.

SWL: Seems to be your style.

That sounds like sarcasm, which is always a cover for anger. Did you mean it to come out that way? In useful discussions advocating different points of view, learning and respect are the key! If I have done something to anger you, it was not my intention. I will try to be as specific as I can without proof-texting. I am not good at specifics but I think I do have a good eye and ear for generalizing patterns. Sorry, but detail--while interesting to read--is odious to me! (Forest, not trees!)

Paul's struggles to articulate his version of Jesus' Kingdom of God (by ignoring it completely, in my opinion) were not normative for early Christianity, and this is borne out by the canonical accounts and some non-canonical sources.

SWL: Care to provide support for that statement? Paul's letters certainly ARE indices into the issues of dispute in early Christianity. They are our best indices. Whether or NOT many did or didn't side with Paul on these issues, we don't see many of them addressed either way in the Gospels - a significant point against the thesis of retrojection of the concerns of the Early Church back onto the pre-Easter Jesus. E.P. Sanders has noted especially the Gospels' restraint in the area of a pre-Easter ministry to the Gentiles, given that the evangelists clearly approved of their post-Easter admittance into the movement.

Is the term "early Church" or "early Christianity" defined strictly as Paul's preaching and letter-writing? If so, then you are absolutely correct!

aikido: Either/or is a rather severe methodology to use (EITHER the concerns of the early church are in the earlier gospels OR the idea that the gospels contain community/church development is a grave historical error). The historical truth highlights the opposition of both/all sides of the ancient arguments and factions.

SWL: I don't know what to make of such a vague statement.

Because Paul's concerns are not mentioned in the evangelists' gospels does not show a lack of developing theology in their accounts. The real differences are there for us to read and follow. Paul's emphasis on Jesus as a dying and saving god is available for study as well--unfortunately his letters and the gospels are all located within a larger text we still insist on calling "a book" and have not yet learned how to read and pay attention to what it tells us about the ancient world and our own. It is not a truth of preference we are dealing with--but a truth of complexity. Taking the pages of Scripture as literalist history can only take us so far, especially in regard to the shadowed period between the crucifixion and after Acts.

aikido: The burden of proof on my shoulders is one I would find impossible to carry. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants; the most I could do would be to look up words and terms in a scholar's index and cut and paste them into the fray to buttress my own feelings and opinions.

SWL: Well, even that would be appreciated.

But not morally honest. I could hire a staff of apologists, too!

aikido: One thing I see is that there was no controlling legal authority attempted until Nicea.

SWL: No, you don't see any fact of absence. If anything you could note that you DON'T see the presence of such a controlling "legal" authority. I don't know what you mean by "legal" anyway, or why controlling factors have to BE "legal", but every scrap of evidence we have indicates control. Paul's letters are written as correctives for the most part - a form of control - many times chastizing those abusing traditions (i.e. the Last Supper). Furthermore, you act as if there is no other apostolic control at all. The evidence indicates the opposite....

When then Vice-President Gore was confronted with making campaign contribution-seeking forays by telephone from the Oval Office, his first press conference was noteworthy for several mentionings of "no controlling legal authority." I assumed that most people engaged in our culture would understand my flippant referrence. The point I was making is that the various Christianities were brought under forced harmony in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea but since it could not be consensual or unanimous (control issues again!) the faith suffers from a bit of overt schizophrenia from time to time. Personally, I generalize that split as cutting between gnostic and normative Christainity--where it still cuts today.

As far as "the evidence (indicating) the opposite," one needs to read conservative scholars and liberal ones, Jewish ones and atheistic ones, evangelical ones and underground ones, triumphant and wounded ones, male and female, good ones and bad ones--and then only then one will perhaps get a general idea of the breadth of opinion, debate and even consensus at times. Yes, you are right in that "the evidence indicates the opposite."

But you are only partly right.

Now how's THAT for proving once and for all how Jesus (if he did!} spoke from the cross?

[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 19, 2001).]

04-19-2001, 12:02 AM

Don't really know if this post was directed to me or not, but I love the idea of taking a test tonight.

Originally posted by Hilarius:
(1) What is the precise basis for your sceptical refusal to believe the Gospel accounts of Christ's last words?

It is less about skepticism than about common sense. "Gospel" means "good news"--not CNN live feed. The four gospels have different accounts of Jesus' last words. The four gospels have been dated from as early as 60 to as late as 100. Mark is generally regarded as the earliest. Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their versions--so they are not primary gospels but variations of Mark! The Fourth gospel has an amazingly different view of Jesus. It defintely stands by itself.

(2)Is all history wrong or just biblical history?

The historian's job is to look at evidence, evaluate it and draw reasonable conclusions based on the facts. Good biblical scholars should be up front about their methodology.

(3) Why?

Because, although we can never know what really and exactly happened, we can uncover as many facts as are available and get them out in the open air to the public to peers.

(4) If you have a conspiracy theory about the Bible what is its rational basis as compared to the Gospel accounts taken at face value?

Conspiracy theory? Phrase this question another way; it is unclear to me.

(5) What would be your answer to anyone who was sceptical of your conspiracy theory?

(See answer above)

(6) Are you sceptical about the recorded manner of death of anyone else in history and their recorded last words?

If there were divergent accounts, I might be curious.

(7) What do you assess is the likelihood that your scepticism may obscure the truth in relation to Christ's death and last words on a scale from 0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely?

A little bit of a loaded one to end on:
Curiosity and common sense--not skepticism--lead to something close to the truth in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 19, 2001).]

04-19-2001, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Refusal to consider the study of New Testament scholars noted.

*Chuckle*.

Refusal to post sources that substantiate claim is noted. You alleged the following:

Quote:

Most scholars have discarded that notion as an inaccurate and theologically naive product of the Protestant Reformation.

But, as usual, you fail to provide any documentation to buttress this assertion.

So (to paraphrase the milk commercial):
Got sources?

Given your debate style and your intellectual character, I highly doubt it.

04-19-2001, 03:40 AM

aikido: I don't wish to make the time to respond point-by-point to your consensus (or is that "consensus"?) of scholars....

SWL: Who said anything about a consensus?

aikido: I did. You brought to the post a few scholars which you seem to believe support your argument about Pauline Christianity being THE church, while other groups reflected in the sources have no claim on normative Christianity.

SWL: Actually I haven't made any such claims. Certainly the Churches we have knowledge of from Paul's letters reflect a very large portion of early Christianity though.

aikido: Maybe "consensus" is the wrong word to bring up to you in this context. Sorry!

SWL: It just doesn't have any relevance here.

aikido: For now I want to make a few points in a general way.

SWL: Seems to be your style.

aikido: That sounds like sarcasm, which is always a cover for anger. Did you mean it to come out that way? In useful discussions advocating different points of view, learning and respect are the key! If I have done something to anger you, it was not my intention. I will try to be as specific as I can without proof-texting. I am not good at specifics but I think I do have a good eye and ear for generalizing patterns. Sorry, but detail--while interesting to read--is odious to me! (Forest, not trees!)

SWL: Well, the consensus red herring was a little annoying, and the quotation marks around it even moreso. But, I'm actually just a sarcastic person. Hope you don't mind. And my statement just seems to me to be accurate.

aikido: Paul's struggles to articulate his version of Jesus' Kingdom of God (by ignoring it completely, in my opinion) were not normative for early Christianity, and this is borne out by the canonical accounts and some non-canonical sources.

SWL: Care to provide support for that statement? Paul's letters certainly ARE indices into the issues of dispute in early Christianity. They are our best indices. Whether or NOT many did or didn't side with Paul on these issues, we don't see many of them addressed either way in the Gospels - a significant point against the thesis of retrojection of the concerns of the Early Church back onto the pre-Easter Jesus. E.P. Sanders has noted especially the Gospels' restraint in the area of a pre-Easter ministry to the Gentiles, given that the evangelists clearly approved of their post-Easter admittance into the movement.

aikido: Is the term "early Church" or "early Christianity" defined strictly as Paul's preaching and letter-writing? If so, then you are absolutely correct!

SWL: NO, not defined STRICTLY as - just a very significant portion of Early Christianity. But you still haven't provided support for your statement, as I asked.

aikido: Either/or is a rather severe methodology to use (EITHER the concerns of the early church are in the earlier gospels OR the idea that the gospels contain community/church development is a grave historical error). The historical truth highlights the opposition of both/all sides of the ancient arguments and factions.

SWL: I don't know what to make of such a vague statement.

aikido: Because Paul's concerns are not mentioned in the evangelists' gospels does not show a lack of developing theology in their accounts.

SWL: Actually, what we see in Paul's letters reflects a lot more than just Paul's concerns. The struggles and disputes of a very large portion of early Christianity are reflected therein. But as concerns developing theology, in the context that you proposed it (retrojection of post-Easter Christ back onto pre-Easter stories of Christ), I attempted to show why I start froma skeptical stance. The burden of proof is on you. You've made the claim...

aikido: The real differences are there for us to read and follow. Paul's emphasis on Jesus as a dying and saving god is available for study as well--unfortunately his letters and the gospels are all located within a larger text we still insist on calling "a book" and have not yet learned how to read and pay attention to what it tells us about the ancient world and our own. It is not a truth of preference we are dealing with--but a truth of complexity. Taking the pages of Scripture as literalist history can only take us so far, especially in regard to the shadowed period between the crucifixion and after Acts.

SWL: Thanks again for the vague and somewhat condescending generalizations. I'll just assume you aren't speaking to me here.

aikido: The burden of proof on my shoulders is one I would find impossible to carry. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants; the most I could do would be to look up words and terms in a scholar's index and cut and paste them into the fray to buttress my own feelings and opinions.

SWL: Well, even that would be appreciated.

aikido: But not morally honest. I could hire a staff of apologists, too!

SWL: Not morally honest to actually provide some references to the primary literature? To actually support your arguments with some data? Wow, I feel the opposite.

aikido: One thing I see is that there was no controlling legal authority attempted until Nicea.

SWL: No, you don't see any fact of absence. If anything you could note that you DON'T see the presence of such a controlling "legal" authority. I don't know what you mean by "legal" anyway, or why controlling factors have to BE "legal", but every scrap of evidence we have indicates control. Paul's letters are written as correctives for the most part - a form of control - many times chastizing those abusing traditions (i.e. the Last Supper). Furthermore, you act as if there is no other apostolic control at all. The evidence indicates the opposite....

aikido: When then Vice-President Gore was confronted with making campaign contribution-seeking forays by telephone from the Oval Office, his first press conference was noteworthy for several mentionings of "no controlling legal authority." I assumed that most people engaged in our culture would understand my flippant referrence. The point I was making is that the various Christianities were brought under forced harmony in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea but since it could not be consensual or unanimous (control issues again!) the faith suffers from a bit of overt schizophrenia from time to time. Personally, I generalize that split as cutting between gnostic and normative Christainity--where it still cuts today.

SWL: All of which has nothing to do with apostolic control of the early Jesus tradition in its formative years.

aikido: As far as "the evidence (indicating) the opposite," one needs to read conservative scholars and liberal ones, Jewish ones and atheistic ones, evangelical ones and underground ones, triumphant and wounded ones, male and female, good ones and bad ones--and then only then one will perhaps get a general idea of the breadth of opinion, debate and even consensus at times. Yes, you are right in that "the evidence indicates the opposite."

But you are only partly right.

SWL: AAAhahahahha! Gee thanks, Yoda! Trouble is - I read plenty of liberal scholars. Why, right at this moment there's my good buddy Crossan's "Birth of Christianity" sitting on next to me on my desk, right next to my own personal copy of the Seminar's "The Acts of Jesus". Who are those authors on my library shelf? Mack, Funk, Borg? All the greats...What conservatives and moderates have you read?

Please, I'd really rather not waste time blathering back and forth with someone who makes such vague/condescending assertions. You made some claims. If you wish to continue the convo., please support them.

SecWebLurker

04-19-2001, 05:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Quoting Critical Thinking made EZ:

Was the Bible written for Scholars or the common man?

===========================================
CT, it's very gratifying to see you implicitly denigrating scholars. This is one of the most common tactics we've all come to expect from bible-thumpers and ideologues and others who are afraid of what scholars and scientists might say.

04-19-2001, 08:41 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Skeptic22:

Quote:

Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Quoting Critical Thinking made EZ:

Was the Bible written for Scholars or the common man?

===========================================
CT, it's very gratifying to see you implicitly denigrating scholars. This is one of the most common tactics we've all come to expect from bible-thumpers and ideologues and others who are afraid of what scholars and scientists might say.

Quote:

I'm afraid that "CT" is one of yours Mr.22. Not one of ours.

04-19-2001, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Omnedon1:
But, as usual, you fail to provide any documentation to buttress this assertion.

So (to paraphrase the milk commercial):
Got sources?

Given your debate style and your intellectual character, I highly doubt it.

You might not understand this Omnedon, but because I am unwilling to invent support for my statements-as you have done--it sometimes takes longer to provide them. Nevertheless, here is a link which discusses E.P. Sanders and N.T.Wright, and what the link hosts call, "The New Perspective."

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/

04-19-2001, 10:20 AM

Quote:

But, as usual, you fail to provide any documentation to buttress this assertion.
So (to paraphrase the milk commercial):
Got sources?

Given your debate style and your intellectual character, I highly doubt it.

You might not understand this Omnedon, but because I am unwilling to invent support for my statements-as you have done--it sometimes takes longer to provide them.

What I understand here, deLayman, is that you made the claim BEFORE having sources for it.

You claimed the following:

Quote:

Most scholars have discarded that notion as an inaccurate and theologically naive product of the Protestant Reformation.

Now you're telling me that it's taking you a long time to find the sources for this claim.

You've just admitted to us that you made the claim first, before having any sources to back it up.

Quote:

Nevertheless, here is a link which discusses E.P. Sanders and N.T.Wright, and what the link hosts call, "The New Perspective."
http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/

That's nice. However, your claim was specific:

Quote:

Most scholars have discarded that notion as an inaccurate and theologically naive product of the Protestant Reformation.

Nothing in the link you provided supports this sweeping claim you made. You need to show, by a majority of the evidence, that most scholars support this position you detailed above.

Try again.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 19, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 19, 2001).]

04-19-2001, 10:40 AM

Quote:

What I understand here, deLayman, is that you made the claim BEFORE having sources for it.

Don't be silly. How on earth would you understand that?

In the related thread on this issue, I specifically mentioned two of the three scholars featured in the link I have since provided. I also mentioned another New Testament scholar, Ben Witherington. Please see our discussion at: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000420.html

N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington are two of my favorite scholars who have both put forth great books on Paul. I have read Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said & Witherington's The Paul Quest. I also have read E.P. Sander's Paul, a short but informative book. All three authors have expressed this view. So, if you recheck the thread you will see that I indeed did mention them.

Most of us don't keep our libraries at work. But then, unlike you, many of us have libraries bigger than the Oxford Companion to the Bible.

I based my comments, and characterization of the state of Pauline studies, on my reading of the above mentioned scholars, among others. Unfortunately, I don't have all of my books at the office, I don't always remember to bring my books in, and I have other priorities.

Quote:

Nothing in the link you provided supports this sweeping claim you made. You need to show, by a majority of the evidence, that most scholars support this position you detailed above.

Sigh.

You know very well that my claim was not just that a majority of scholars agreed with me. What we were engaged in was a discussion of whether Paul was "wracked" with guilt. In the coursse of the dicsussion I made the above statement. I was characterizing the state of Pauline studies based on my reading of some of the leaders in the field.

As Kate and I discussed the issue of Paul's guilt, I clarified my point:

Quote:

Let me be more specific. Some have argued that before Paul's conversion he was racked with guilt, and Christ offered him a way out, grace.

While I don't deny that grace is an important part of Paul's theology, he was not "racked with guilt." By all accounts he believed himself a rather remarkable Jew who was "blameles" before the law.

I could go home. Get the quotes from Wright and Witherington where they talk about the change in New Testament studies and the modern understanding of Paul, but it wouldn't do any good.

Why? Because all threads with you devolve into your selective quotations, demands of "a majority of evidence" on tangential claims, the inventing by you of evidence which supposedly supports your position, name-calling, and a general ignoring of Biblical Criticism and Archeolgoy (which is what I am here to discuss).

You aren't worth the time or consternation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2001, 12:02 AM	#43
Guest Posts: n/a	Don't really know if this post was directed to me or not, but I love the idea of taking a test tonight. Originally posted by Hilarius: (1) What is the precise basis for your sceptical refusal to believe the Gospel accounts of Christ's last words? It is less about skepticism than about common sense. "Gospel" means "good news"--not CNN live feed. The four gospels have different accounts of Jesus' last words. The four gospels have been dated from as early as 60 to as late as 100. Mark is generally regarded as the earliest. Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their versions--so they are not primary gospels but variations of Mark! The Fourth gospel has an amazingly different view of Jesus. It defintely stands by itself. (2)Is all history wrong or just biblical history? The historian's job is to look at evidence, evaluate it and draw reasonable conclusions based on the facts. Good biblical scholars should be up front about their methodology. (3) Why? Because, although we can never know what really and exactly happened, we can uncover as many facts as are available and get them out in the open air to the public to peers. (4) If you have a conspiracy theory about the Bible what is its rational basis as compared to the Gospel accounts taken at face value? Conspiracy theory? Phrase this question another way; it is unclear to me. (5) What would be your answer to anyone who was sceptical of your conspiracy theory? (See answer above) (6) Are you sceptical about the recorded manner of death of anyone else in history and their recorded last words? If there were divergent accounts, I might be curious. (7) What do you assess is the likelihood that your scepticism may obscure the truth in relation to Christ's death and last words on a scale from 0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely? A little bit of a loaded one to end on: Curiosity and common sense--not skepticism--lead to something close to the truth in my opinion. [This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 19, 2001).]

04-19-2001, 03:40 AM	#45
Guest Posts: n/a	aikido: I don't wish to make the time to respond point-by-point to your consensus (or is that "consensus"?) of scholars.... SWL: Who said anything about a consensus? aikido: I did. You brought to the post a few scholars which you seem to believe support your argument about Pauline Christianity being THE church, while other groups reflected in the sources have no claim on normative Christianity. SWL: Actually I haven't made any such claims. Certainly the Churches we have knowledge of from Paul's letters reflect a very large portion of early Christianity though. aikido: Maybe "consensus" is the wrong word to bring up to you in this context. Sorry! SWL: It just doesn't have any relevance here. aikido: For now I want to make a few points in a general way. SWL: Seems to be your style. aikido: That sounds like sarcasm, which is always a cover for anger. Did you mean it to come out that way? In useful discussions advocating different points of view, learning and respect are the key! If I have done something to anger you, it was not my intention. I will try to be as specific as I can without proof-texting. I am not good at specifics but I think I do have a good eye and ear for generalizing patterns. Sorry, but detail--while interesting to read--is odious to me! (Forest, not trees!) SWL: Well, the consensus red herring was a little annoying, and the quotation marks around it even moreso. But, I'm actually just a sarcastic person. Hope you don't mind. And my statement just seems to me to be accurate. aikido: Paul's struggles to articulate his version of Jesus' Kingdom of God (by ignoring it completely, in my opinion) were not normative for early Christianity, and this is borne out by the canonical accounts and some non-canonical sources. SWL: Care to provide support for that statement? Paul's letters certainly ARE indices into the issues of dispute in early Christianity. They are our best indices. Whether or NOT many did or didn't side with Paul on these issues, we don't see many of them addressed either way in the Gospels - a significant point against the thesis of retrojection of the concerns of the Early Church back onto the pre-Easter Jesus. E.P. Sanders has noted especially the Gospels' restraint in the area of a pre-Easter ministry to the Gentiles, given that the evangelists clearly approved of their post-Easter admittance into the movement. aikido: Is the term "early Church" or "early Christianity" defined strictly as Paul's preaching and letter-writing? If so, then you are absolutely correct! SWL: NO, not defined STRICTLY as - just a very significant portion of Early Christianity. But you still haven't provided support for your statement, as I asked. aikido: Either/or is a rather severe methodology to use (EITHER the concerns of the early church are in the earlier gospels OR the idea that the gospels contain community/church development is a grave historical error). The historical truth highlights the opposition of both/all sides of the ancient arguments and factions. SWL: I don't know what to make of such a vague statement. aikido: Because Paul's concerns are not mentioned in the evangelists' gospels does not show a lack of developing theology in their accounts. SWL: Actually, what we see in Paul's letters reflects a lot more than just Paul's concerns. The struggles and disputes of a very large portion of early Christianity are reflected therein. But as concerns developing theology, in the context that you proposed it (retrojection of post-Easter Christ back onto pre-Easter stories of Christ), I attempted to show why I start froma skeptical stance. The burden of proof is on you. You've made the claim... aikido: The real differences are there for us to read and follow. Paul's emphasis on Jesus as a dying and saving god is available for study as well--unfortunately his letters and the gospels are all located within a larger text we still insist on calling "a book" and have not yet learned how to read and pay attention to what it tells us about the ancient world and our own. It is not a truth of preference we are dealing with--but a truth of complexity. Taking the pages of Scripture as literalist history can only take us so far, especially in regard to the shadowed period between the crucifixion and after Acts. SWL: Thanks again for the vague and somewhat condescending generalizations. I'll just assume you aren't speaking to me here. aikido: The burden of proof on my shoulders is one I would find impossible to carry. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants; the most I could do would be to look up words and terms in a scholar's index and cut and paste them into the fray to buttress my own feelings and opinions. SWL: Well, even that would be appreciated. aikido: But not morally honest. I could hire a staff of apologists, too! SWL: Not morally honest to actually provide some references to the primary literature? To actually support your arguments with some data? Wow, I feel the opposite. aikido: One thing I see is that there was no controlling legal authority attempted until Nicea. SWL: No, you don't see any fact of absence. If anything you could note that you DON'T see the presence of such a controlling "legal" authority. I don't know what you mean by "legal" anyway, or why controlling factors have to BE "legal", but every scrap of evidence we have indicates control. Paul's letters are written as correctives for the most part - a form of control - many times chastizing those abusing traditions (i.e. the Last Supper). Furthermore, you act as if there is no other apostolic control at all. The evidence indicates the opposite.... aikido: When then Vice-President Gore was confronted with making campaign contribution-seeking forays by telephone from the Oval Office, his first press conference was noteworthy for several mentionings of "no controlling legal authority." I assumed that most people engaged in our culture would understand my flippant referrence. The point I was making is that the various Christianities were brought under forced harmony in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea but since it could not be consensual or unanimous (control issues again!) the faith suffers from a bit of overt schizophrenia from time to time. Personally, I generalize that split as cutting between gnostic and normative Christainity--where it still cuts today. SWL: All of which has nothing to do with apostolic control of the early Jesus tradition in its formative years. aikido: As far as "the evidence (indicating) the opposite," one needs to read conservative scholars and liberal ones, Jewish ones and atheistic ones, evangelical ones and underground ones, triumphant and wounded ones, male and female, good ones and bad ones--and then only then one will perhaps get a general idea of the breadth of opinion, debate and even consensus at times. Yes, you are right in that "the evidence indicates the opposite." But you are only partly right. SWL: AAAhahahahha! Gee thanks, Yoda! Trouble is - I read plenty of liberal scholars. Why, right at this moment there's my good buddy Crossan's "Birth of Christianity" sitting on next to me on my desk, right next to my own personal copy of the Seminar's "The Acts of Jesus". Who are those authors on my library shelf? Mack, Funk, Borg? All the greats...What conservatives and moderates have you read? Please, I'd really rather not waste time blathering back and forth with someone who makes such vague/condescending assertions. You made some claims. If you wish to continue the convo., please support them. SecWebLurker

04-19-2001, 05:19 AM	#46
Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical thinking made ez: Quoting Critical Thinking made EZ: Was the Bible written for Scholars or the common man? =========================================== CT, it's very gratifying to see you implicitly denigrating scholars. This is one of the most common tactics we've all come to expect from bible-thumpers and ideologues and others who are afraid of what scholars and scientists might say.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.