Amaleq13

Is that a term used to describe themselves or one that is applied to them by others?

This would be consistent with a "mystery religion" understanding of gnostics, correct?

cyclone

Originally posted by Amaleq13

It probably doesn't encompass all that was involved in Gnostic belief. But for what is relevant to the discussion, however, it at least involves a sharp distinction between spiritual and physical reality, with the former being good and the latter being evil. As such, the incarnation was rejected on account that it meant God (who is spiritual and good) inhabited the physical world (which is evil), and this was not acceptable.

As for whether Gnostics explained the incarnation as an illusion, I will defer to others with more knowledge in this area. But your second description of Gnosticism sounds similar to what I've read before as well--that salvation basically entails some form of esoteric knowledge that is unavailable to others.

cyclone

Originally posted by mike_decock

Commenting on whether historical precedence is relevant to the question of authority: It may or may not be. How much did Orthodoxy change during the centuries before certain doctrines were declared as orthodox?

I'm taking the position that, from the beginning, most Christians accepted the doctrine of the incarnation. As mentioned before, Habermas cites numerous ancient hymns and non-Christian sources to substantiate this claim, and counter the idea that the doctrine developed much later. Ultimately the question is which teaching best represents that of Jesus and his disciples, and the earliest teaching is most likely to accomplish this.

Commenting again on the question of historical precedence: I don't think it works to establish credibility since orthodoxy had centuries of opportunity to change before it was stabilized.

The question of canonization (though important) is separate from the question of historical precedence. All I'm asking is whether precedence matters, not whether you think certain doctrines were firmly established from the beginning. Of course, at some point I certainly need to establish that these doctrines were widely believed long before the creeds and councils, but for now this is not my agenda.

Again, commenting on the question of precedence: In my opinion, it doesn't mean much unless it can be demonstrated that it reflects the teachings of Jesus and his disciples (which we have no first hand record of).

Right, that is the issue. Now by "first hand record," do you simply mean that we have no original manuscripts in our possession? I don't see this as an insurmountable obstacle to determining what Jesus in fact taught. In fact, I think if you read some of the best apologetic works on this topic, you would find some good reasons for believing that current translations provide us an extremely accurate portrayal of Jesus' words and ministry (and by "the best," I don't mean Josh McDowell and Paul Little).

Amaleq13

I would agree that there is strong evidence the early Christian belief involved a concept of incarnation but it seems to me that there is little reason to assume was a consistent understanding in this same early, shared belief about what that actually meant.

I tend to blame Hellenistic influences (i.e. mystery religions) with all their weird, ambiguous, terminology and hidden meanings.

Paul clearly adopted this kind of vocabulary and that is why he was so popular with gnostics. It is also why so many claim he considered Christianity to be a sort of mystery religion.

IMHO, you can't eliminate the possibility that Paul was simply using terminology he was familiar with because of his birthplace (Tarsus was a major center of mystery religions) and/or was using this sort of terminology intentionally to attract mystery religion participants.

mike_decock

What does the doctrine of incarnation have to do with the teaching of Jesus and his disciples? You seem to be operating under the assumption that the teaching of Jesus was best preserved by those who believed in the incarnation. Even if this was the majority belief, they could also have been the most likely to misunderstand what Jesus was teaching. Just look at the gospels and how the disciples consistently failed to understand his teaching.

I mean we have nothing written by Jesus or the disciples themselves. All we have are some anonymous gospels and a bunch of epistles from someone who never even met Jesus.

The problem with apologists is that their agenda is to arrange the evidence in a manner which supports their position. I'm sure some of them do it quite convincingly. In my opinion, they're not seeking the truth; they're seeking proof for what they already believe. There's non-Christians operating under the opposite bias and I happily avoid them as well.

-Mike...

cyclone

Originally posted by mike_decock



Everything, because the gospel accounts (which represent our primary source of Jesus' teaching) depict him as believing himself to be God incarnate. I know that others have argued this point on the basis that he never explicitly claims to be God, but I think this criticism ignores the subversive strategy that was likely important to Jesus' ministry. Early on, he is constantly warning his disciples not to reveal his true identity to the crowds on account that "it was not yet time." Moreover, in the context of a strict montheistic religious culture, perhaps he felt it was necessary to be more subtle in revealing himself to his followers and critics.

As for these texts that implicitly teach Jesus' divine nature, consider Matthew 26:64, in which Jesus responds to his accusers questions of whether he is the Messiah: "Yes, it is as you say...But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest immediately tore his clothes and declared that Jesus had spoke blasphemy. Why such a reaction? Because Jesus was identifying himself with the heavenly figure in Daniel 7:13, whom Jews had historically taken to refer to God himself. If this figure was merely a man, there would be little reason to accuse Jesus of blasphemy. On the contrary, the high priest and other accusers knew exactly what Jesus meant by this reference.

Another good example is Mark 2:5, in which Jesus heals a paralytic and declares that his "sins are forgiven." The teachers of the law who were present immediately questioned this declaration, precisely because only God could forgive sins. Again, they charge Jesus with blasphemy for implicitly identifying himself with God.

The classic text is John 8:58, where Jesus declares to the Jews, "Before Abraham was born, I am", thus alluding back to God's self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 3. The next verse describes the reaction: "At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Again, the Jews knew exactly what Jesus was implying by this statement.

Of course, I've yet to make an argument which supports the conclusion that these gospel accounts are historically trustworthy in their account of Jesus' teaching. But at the very least, the point can be made, on the basis of these passages, that belief in the divinity of Jesus existed very early in the Christian tradition. In fact, a strong case has been made that the synoptic gospels were written as early as 65 AD, which is still within the lifetime of some of Jesus' followers, who could verify (or falsify) such claims. When one takes into account the extra-biblical sources which I have referenced in previous posts, belief in Christ's divine nature is demonstrated to be much earlier, perhaps within a few years of Jesus' death.

For the most part, what the disciples consistently misunderstood about Jesus' teaching was the reality of his eventual crucifixion. In their minds, the messiah was supposed to be a political savior who would free Israel from Roman oppression, as opposed to a suffering servant. Consider Mark 8:31-32, where it is described that "He [Jesus] then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him."

Also, if the argument can be made that the Gospels represent eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ, then it surely would be erroneous to think that they could misinterpret or forget important aspects of his teaching. But again, this is wrapped up in the question of the Gospels' historical reliability, which i haven't really addressed yet.



The fact that you can make this statement tells me that you've never read the best apologetic works on this topic (See Craig Blomberg, N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, etc).



I'm glad that you recognize that some non-Christians operate under the same motivations. It sounds like you are really committed to knowing the truth, and that's quite admirable in these days. You are probably right that many apologists are seeking proof for what they already believe. Perhaps some have already tackled the process of wrestling with these issues OR maybe others have never even questioned whether their beliefs are true in the first place. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't follow that their arguments are unreasonable or untrue. Their arguments must be assessed apart from the motivation for said arguments.

Amaleq13

I don't think that claim holds up if we refuse to unnecessarily limit our information to "apologetic works". It certainly isn't true if we rely on the best scholarship regardless of individual agendas or theological assumptions.

Discovering what Jesus actually said and did (assuming, of course, he existed
), requires an enormous amount of effort identifying of sources, sifting through layers of theological propoganda, editing/revision, and outright fabrication. What is left after all that is a disappointingly small amount of what could generously be considered "historical material".

mike_decock

Who observed the trial? According to the gospels he was taken away from the disciples, but somehow we have an account (well, a few slightly differing accounts) of what was said there. Did the gospel writer interview the priests or refer to court transcripts?

I've never disagreed with that claim. I'm just pointing out that there's good evidence that contradictory beliefs were probably just as early.

I don't think a case for such an early date holds up without resorting to special pleading. I would place gMark around 70-75 and the others between 80-100. Also, keep in mind that the average life span for a first century Jew was only 30-35 years. Even with a date as early as 65, few, if any, disciples would have still been alive at that time.

Take for example the "mini-apocalypse" predicting the destruction of the temple. The apologist takes that prediction as evidence that it was written before 70 but that only stands to reason if you operate from the assumption that Jesus could predict the future. It's circular reasoning I simply don't buy into.

I was mostly referring to how often Jesus has to constantly explain the parables to the disciples.

I think the "eyewitness account" viewpoint is a pretty naive way to view the gospels. After spending a year reading the debates on this forum, I have never seen anyone (Christian or not) operate from that assumption besides the occasional drive-by amateur apologist.

I think you'll find that many of the regular posters in BC&H take a balanced, scholarly approach in this forum. It's why I keep coming back for more. I spend most of my time here lurking and learning and try to fit the occasional BC&H related book in between all the other stuff I read.

Don't you think a biased scholar is more likely to take an unbalanced approach in their arguments? I'm not trying to make a sweeping generalization here as I'm certain there are great exceptions to that rule but in general, I think they do.

-Mike...

cyclone

Originally posted by mike_decock



Look, my only point in referencing these texts is to demonstrate that the Gospel accounts depict Jesus as believing himself to be God incarnate, which is precisely what previous posts have challenged. I haven't yet argued whether these accounts are historically trustworthy.



I can't verify that the average life span for a first century Jew is 30-35 years. However, it is interesting that in 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul makes reference to five hundred people who witnessed the risen Christ and comments "most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." So at least when Paul was writing this epistle, there were many still alive who could verify (or falsify) any claims about Jesus.

Again, I don't think you're reading the best stuff on this subject, because I don't know of any reputable apologist who takes Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple as evidence that it was written before 70 AD. That would definitely be circular reasoning since one first needs to establish that those accounts are historically trustworthy on the teaching of Jesus. A better argument begins by attempting to date the book of Acts. Here is a rough-and-ready example: It was most likely written before 70 AD since it makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem. In addition, it makes no mention of Peter or Paul's martyrdom ( I believe 62 and 64 AD respectively), which would surely be included since these two figures virtually monopolize the story of the early church. From there, we work backwards to Luke's gospel, which was certainly written before Acts. And it's generally accepted that both Mark and Matthew were written before Luke. So a conservative estimate would suggest that the first gospel (probably Mark) was written at least a few years before Luke and Acts, perhaps around 65 AD.



Well, I suppose given what you've apparently been reading (or not reading) on this subject, you're perfectly justified in thinking that any such position is naive. I don't mean to sound rude, like I'm putting you down, it's just that if I were in your place I would want to know that I'm basing my decisions on the best possible arguments. And to be frank, I think some of your objections to the historicity of the Gospels is based on a straw man, as is suggested by the above reference to Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple.

[Quote] Don't you think a biased scholar is more likely to take an unbalanced approach in their arguments? I'm not trying to make a sweeping generalization here as I'm certain there are great exceptions to that rule but in general, I think they do. [Quote]

Yes I agree. But we are still responsible to distinguish between good arguments and bad arguments. Also, do you suggest that someone like Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" is completely unbiased in her approach to this subject? Generally speaking, we all have our presuppositions. The only question is which presuppositions are true.

mike_decock

I wasn't challenging an early belief in Jesus as God incarnate. My only comment was about your assertion that Gnosticism was a late development.

A few observations:

1) This epistle was addressed to the Corinthians who were nowhere close to the 500 to verify (or falsify) Paul's claims about Jesus. They wouldn't have even been able to verify (or falsify) if there were 500 witnesses at that event or if the event ever took place.

2) There is reason to believe that Corinthians 15:3-11 is a post-Pauline interpolation.

a) This remarkable event is not mentioned anywhere else, neither by Paul nor the gospel writers who would have good reason to have used the tradition if they knew of it.

b) According to Acts 1:15, there were only 120 followers at this time.

Apocryphal Apparitions:
1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation

Paul and the Corinthians

The statement "most of whom are still living" appears more as somewhat anachronistic comment when considered under that light.

I don't think it is safe to assume that the execution of Paul would "surely be included". Helmut Koester writes:

"Given the purposes of Luke, it should not be assumed that he would wish to narrate the unjust execution of Paul during the Neronian persecution. Rather, Luke chooses to wrap up his story, planned from the outset, with Paul preaching in the capital without drawing the opprobrium of Roman authority, and with the messianic message of Jesus being presented first to the Jew and then to the Gentile under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

Early Christian Writings

Luke 21:24 alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden
down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

There's also a possibility that Luke used Josephus' Antiquities as a source which places Luke after 93.

At any rate, as interesting as it is, this discussion on the dating of the gospels doesn't shed any light on the development of gnosticism.

What do you mean by "decisions"?

Yeah, it was a bad example, but an argument that I have seen used. Perhaps a strawman, but a memorable one .

I don't think anyone is completely unbiased and that's why I like following the debates on this forum where I can see the arguments and counter-arguments presented in near-real-time.

I cited Pagels (as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia) because it contradicted your assertion that Gnostic Christianity was a late development, not because I'm interested in defending her position, but because I was hoping you would provide evidence to support yours.

-Mike...