Infidelettante

This may not be specific enough but my vote goes to the invasion of Canaan. Much death an bloodshed. You'd think it could have been done better.

Magus55

They aren't conflicting geneologies - they are just analyzed from different points in the bloodline. I would find it odd if the two geneologies were exactly identical because then it would be pretty suspicious of whether the Aspotles copied each other.

keyser_soze

Congratulations on your newfound freedom. I personally have always enjoyed your posts, there is a certain lack of blindfolded bigotry in your thinking. We may not always agree on method, but I cannot fault your logic.

Mike Rosoft

They aren't conflicting genealogies - they are just analyzed from different points in the bloodline.

Are you going to tell me that one of the genealogies (Luke's one, if I recall correctly) is for Mary, even though both of them say that they refer to Joseph? Or what is your explanation?

I would find it odd if the two genealogies were exactly identical because then it would be pretty suspicious of whether the Apostles copied each other.

And I would expect the genealogies to be identical - it is the only way for both of them being correct. (Feel free to prove me wrong.)

And in fact, the gospel writers probably did copy from each other - both Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a source.


Mike Rosoft

Qinopio

I don't know that I'd come at it from an "immorality" viewpoint, at least not as far as anything God was supposed to have done. If sin is going against God, then it doesn't matter if God did X, Y, and Z, because it's not sin no matter what.

Maybe a point of attack from God saying one thing about himself and doing/commanding contradictory acts would be more effective. The same instances would probably apply either way, it's just the angle that I'm questioning.

Vinnie

Hi Tercel. Its good to hear from you again. Your 7 points are right up my alley with the possible exception of number three.

Your 7 summary reasons do not say anything about Jesus. I have to admit several views I now take for granted:

Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be God's agent.

Jesus called a Gentile woman a dog. Since the church-period Mark comes from was highly Gentile this accoutn goes against the theological grain of the Gospel. Mark would not have created this account from whole cloth. It is one of the most certain things we can know about the Historical Jesus.

In all honestly, this is not what I consider to be a comment to a woman from a "sinless" man.

If the accounts are accurate, Jesus made mistakes. He accepted the Garden story (he appealed to two early verses from Genesis when questioned by Pharisees on Divorce). He also referenced Noah. I believe Jesus took these events literally just as Paul did. In Rom 4-6 Paul mentions Adam as a literal being just as he believed Abraham was a real person. I have no reason to believe Jesus even entertained then notuion that the Garden story was not history.

Since both the flood of Noah and Gen. 1-3 do not have a chance in hell of being history, Jesus must have been mistaken on both.

I concede that it may be possible to salvage a kenotic view of divinity from this but at what point is enough enough?

Further, I no longer can subscribe to an interventionist God. I am a panentheist-Christian. Meta thinks panentheism is consistent in some form with interventionism but I personally find interventionism too hard to swallow. God made an axhead float but didn't stop the Holocaust? God raised Lazarus but stood by during Hurricane Mitch? Claimed miracles and intervention by God are stiffled by empirical obsrvations in my opinion. I cannot imagine a God out there choosing to make Balam's ass talk or heal a person from cancer but letting millions die from natural disasters that are a part of God's world??? This is the primary objection offered against prayer studies as well IMO.

Personally, I now favor an open view of God. I do not think he knows the future. I think God learns. I'm coming closer and closer to process theology if I understand it correctly. But I don't think God interacts in such ways as the bible describes cover to cover.

Further, as a panentheist who believes God is right here in all things it makes little sense for me to understand God incarnating himself and coming here when he is already always here. Meta thinks this can be salvaged by claiming it was not Jesus' flesh but his spirit that was divine. Even if this is possible (and christians do stress immancence!), what evidence suggests I should believe it?

The rest of you comments deserve consideration and a response. I will try to get back here later in the week and address them. Thanks for the response.

Vinnie

Tercel

I was intrigued by this debate at TheologyWeb, in which "judge" argues in his first post that if you look at the Aramaic version, Matthew's Gospel appears to be giving Mary's genealogy.

Tercel

That's because the Evangelicals are pretty much orthodox in their views on Jesus, ie I largely agree with them.

I see little reason to believe that Jesus never spoke the words "I AM". Sure, I don't agree that he went around saying it every two seconds like John's gospel would have us believe. But even in Mark he is presented as conscious of his own divinity and after feeding 5000, then walking on water, then calming the storm pronounces it (6:50), and then Mark, to drive the point home, comments wryly that the disciples' minds had not been able to grasp this truth.

~shrug~ I am skeptical that it can be shown to any remote level of certainty that Jesus indeed did phrase whatever it was he said in such a way that it was sinful. I doubt Mark created any of his account out of whole cloth, but that does not mean that all the accounts that had reached him from the earlier -Jewish- Church were true or fully accurate.
BTW I consider the search for the "Historical Jesus" largely a waste of time. Not because I think such a person never existed (indeed, I think people who think that are amusing curiousities) but because, once the Gospels are dismissed, the "Historical Jesus" people find is the one they want to find because IMO they invent him themselves. Instead of playing a game of scholarly arguing in circles, I prefer to focus on what we can know for sure, and that is: what the beliefs of the early Christian Church were.

I have no real reason to believe he did take them literally and no real reason to believe he didn't. Your argument that he did is founded upon a couple of brief references passed down to us through people who almost certainly did take their existence literally. Your argument relies on us having accurately received something close to the exact words of Jesus or close enough.
I don't think anyone can know whether Jesus did or didn't take them literally, and I don't really care. I, like most other learned Christians, believe Genesis 1-11 are not literally true and that's enough for me. (And I happen to believe the writer probably knew and intended this, but I can't of course prove that! )

I don't know. I had an argument with Brian Trafford a while back in which I defended the view that it was possible for Jesus to make mistakes. While I am not convinced that this view is entirely theologically sound, neither am I convinced it is black heresy.
What I wish to query however, is at what point do you cease with the nth-degree historical arguments built like skyscrapers made out of straw and accept or reject instead the truth of Christian teaching? That is to say: I can see the methodology you are following in forming your beliefs is to use scientific methodology down to its absolute last point where you have stretched it as absolutely far as it absolutely will go, and then based your beliefs on the results of that. Now I'm all for using science and logic to a point (Gee I never thought I'd say this after almost tearing my hair out many a time at illogical Bible-believers!). But past a certain point it just gets silly, the uncertainty in the conclusions rises exponentially as each new argument is based on uncertain previous conclusions. At some point the consideration of the question "Is Christianity as a whole true?" begins to far outweigh the force of tiny uncertain historical arguments. At some point the scientific arguments just get silly and need to be given away in favour of the big question.

Since I think all Christians are panentheists, this doesn’t really make much sense to me. I think belief in over-interventionism is another failing of the Evangelicals. However, I suspect interventionsim only becomes hard to swallow once you get rid of the idea that there are real spiritual evil forces active and that God does restrict His own activities to a very great extent. I don’t think God goes out and stomps on evil, but I do think He restrains it and works for good with those who love him.

I’m extremely unsure whether to accept the Open View or the Classical View of foreknowledge. I don’t really care.

Well I don’t understand process theology at all (mainly ‘cos I haven’t read anything about it), and the assertion that “God learns” doesn’t correspond to any meaningful idea to me (probably for the same reason), hence I can’t really comment.

Hmm, an interesting argument... I’ll have to think about it...

Vinnie

Tercel, I am going really fast as my time is limited so pardon any choppiness or spelling errors.

I am not agnostic on all these HJ issues as you appear to be. I find your stance of agnosticism on troubling issues to be very convenient. This is simply avoiding the issue IMO. You say, "I don't think anyone can know whether Jesus did or didn't take them literally, and I don't really care." and also you circumvented the issue of the Gentiel-dog comment with "shrug~ I am skeptical that it can be shown to any remote level of certainty that Jesus indeed did phrase whatever it was he said in such a way that it was sinful. I doubt Mark created any of his account out of whole cloth, but that does not mean that all the accounts that had reached him from the earlier -Jewish- Church were true or fully accurate."

But I am willing to work with this position. Since you are so skeptical of what many might consider some very simple HJ datums (especially the latter according to some scholars) on what grounds could you even begin dreaming that Jesus is God or why should I believe that Jesus is God? What evidence is there for such a view if we have no certainty on anything else? Pulling divinity from the Bible or NT (which is hardly a reliable source as you've just stated) is very difficult.

The problem with the I am sayings is that it is not my job to demonstrate Jesus did not say them. I can demonstrate that you have no valid evidence that Jesus ever spoke as such and GJohn contradicts them essage of the canonicals at several points as my articlee demonstrates. Its your job to provide positive evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. If you can't you should be agnostic on the issue rather than support divinity!

When you are agnotic on so many HJ issues one wonders why you view Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate? That I guess is the simplest question I could ask you? Why?

Vinnie

Tercel

On historical grounds alone, how is it possible to ever prove Jesus was God? I don't think it is. Scientific historical methods are for sorting everyday fact out reports. When it comes to dealing with miraculous things they can't help much - the best we could say was that "people believed Jesus did miracles", but whether or not miracles can actually occur (and hence whether Jesus actually did any) is not a question within the scope of historical methods. The question "was Jesus God-incarnate?" is therefore as far outside the bounds of historical methods as it is possible to get.

In short: I cannot prove Jesus divinity from the Bible. Belief, or lack of it, in Jesus' divinity depends on out acceptence, or lack of it, of Christianity. If we come to believe that Christianity as a whole is generally true, then we will be inclined to accept the claim that Jesus' divinity is true. The Christian Church teaches what it teaches, and we can either accept what it teaches or not. The most obvious lines of evidence for Christianity are:
* the occurance of miracles within the Christian Tradition (given you subscribe to non-interventionism, this isn't going to help you much, though perhaps you might be more inclined to accept the claims of mystical experiences inside the Christian Tradition?)
* the internal logical consistency of the Christian worldview, its philosophical evidences, and its accurate correspondence to the world. (You obviously accept much of this since you believe in God)