Freethought & Rationalism Archive

exapologist · 01-19-2006, 12:12 PM

Hi all,

This is my first post as an ex-apologetically minded evangelical, and newborn agnostic, so please bear with me. The following points are the cause of my transition from an evangelical of 15 years to an agnostic.

The leading historical Jesus researchers -- e.g. E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, etc. -- have completed the project of Albert Schweitzer, viz., showing that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet. Jesus predicted, over and over, that the apocalypse would occur in his apostle's lifetime, and very probably in his own lifetime. E.g., the "little apocalypse" in Mark, and its parallels in Matt. and Luke; his assertions about this generation not passing away, and about his disciples not finishing going through the cities of Israel on their preaching mission, until all of the details of Daniel's apocalyptic vision are fulfilled, etc., but of course Jesus was simply wrong about that.

What is the range of responses to these passages?

The fundamentalist preachers and parishoners: "huh?"

The evangelical scholars:
-I. Howard Marshall: The passages are so few, and it's obsure what Jesus meant by them; so it's unreasonable to hang too much on them. He probably didn't mean what it looks like he means on first appearance. (the gist of his response in "I Believe in the Historical Jesus")

-Craig Blomberg: Yep, it looks like that's what Jesus was saying on first appearance, but we can give plausible interpretations these passages that don't have the implication that he falsely predicted the end in his lifetime. E.g., the passage about some of those standing with Jesus on a particular occasion won't die until they see the Kingdom coming with power can plausibly be seen as a reference to the transfiguration. The passage about the disciples not finishing their preaching mission in the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes can plausibly be construed as a message about the perennially incomplete task of evangelism. The passages of the "little apocalypse" in the synoptics don't mean literally "this generation" -- i.e. "you people in front of me" -- but rather the "generation" of unbelief. Etc. (the gist of his response in "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels")

The "moderate" biblical critics:

-John Meier: Yep, it's inescapable that the synoptics have Jesus predicting the immanent end and the liberation of Israel. But you know what? I have some fancy arguments to show that the early church put these sayings on the lips of Jesus -- he himmself never said them. (the gist of his response in "A Marginal Jew")

The reasonable scholars: Sanders, Meier, Vermes, Fredricksen, etc.: yep, Jesus said those things. But of course he was mistaken.

The Jesus Seminar (except for, e.g., Ludemann): Jesus never said those things. He was not an apocalyptic prophet. Those passages are later interpolations by the early church.

The Mythical Jesus people: What Jesus?

In light of this, it looks like there is no hope for any substantive version of Christianity. Either the passages about the immanent apocalypse and restoration of Israel are authentic or they aren't. If they are, then Jesus was simply wrong about substantive issues, in which case he's not worth listening to as a messenger from God. If they aren't, then since the theme of the immanent end is so fundamental to the NT from beginning to end, then no Bible-based religion is worth taking seriously. What, then, remains of the Christian religion?

Zeichman · 01-19-2006, 12:58 PM

"If they are, then Jesus was simply wrong about substantive issues, in which case he's not worth listening to as a messenger from God."

Schweitzer, who, as you know, championed this position, certainly didn't believe that, and he, having a Ph.D in Theology, and Philosophy (not to mention music) would have been far more qualified than you or I to comment on it.

Revisionist · 01-19-2006, 02:14 PM

Schweitzer's credentials don't impress me. Just look at this terrible passage from his Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Quote:

He sought to make the boundaries of the mythical embrace the widest possible area; and it is clear that he extended them too far.

For one thing, he overestimates the importance of the Old Testament motives in reference to the creative activity of the legend. He does not see that while in many cases he has shown clearly enough the source of the form of the narrative in question, this does not suffice to explain its origin. Doubtless, there is mythical material in the story of the feeding of the multitude. But the existence of the story is not explained by referring to the manna in the desert, or the miraculous feeding of a multitude by Elisha. [1] The story in the Gospel has far too much individuality for that, and stands, moreover, in much too closely articulated an historical connexion. It must have as its basis some historical fact. It is not a myth, though there is myth in it. Similarly with the account of the transfiguration. The substratum of historical fact in the life of Jesus is much more extensive than Strauss is prepared to admit. Sometimes he fails to see the foundations, because he proceeds like an explorer who, in working on the ruins of an Assyrian city, should cover up the most valuable evidence with the rubbish thrown out from another portion of the excavations.

This is a pathetic refutation of Strauss. Why isn't Jesus' feeding miracles just a literary myth from Elisha? Because Schweitzer thinks have "far too much individuality" and that it stands "much too closely articulated [to] an historical connexion." This is sheer gibberish offered as a refutation to Strauss' method, which is still today light-years ahead of most biblical scholars.

Toto · 01-19-2006, 02:53 PM

Thanks for that cite. It helps in another thread.

graehame · 01-19-2006, 02:56 PM

> This is my first post as an ex-apologetically minded evangelical, and
> newborn agnostic
>
This is also my first post, although I tend to be more of a Catholic traditionalist.

> The leading historical Jesus researchers -- e.g. E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, > etc. -- have completed the project of Albert Schweitzer, viz., showing that > Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet.
>
Strongly disagree, but more of that in a moment.

> Jesus predicted, over and over, that the apocalypse would occur in his
> apostle's lifetime, and very probably in his own lifetime.
>
But whatever Jesus said (on this subject as well as many others) has to be interpreted in light of His purpose in coming-- & it's clear that His purpose in coming was primarily to redeem Mankind, & secondarily to establish a community of believers to represent Him down thru the ages (a Church, if you will).
Jesus didn't speak directly to you or me. He spoke to 12 Apostles, about 50 other disciples, maybe 500 or more other followers, & however many other people came to listen to Him. It therefore matters infinitely more what the Apostles, disciples, & other followers of Jesus thought & did about His teachings, than it means what any number of 20th Century experts think. And while it's true that most of our evidence indicates that the Apostles & disciples understood that the Apocalypse was imminent, it is equally true that the First & Second Century Christians did not regard that expectation as central to the Faith, nor did they think that its nonfulfillment was in any way devastating to Christianity. This is possibly because of the obvious suspicion that it was Jesus' intention all along that we should live our lives in the expectation of imminent confrontation with God, but the reason really doesn't matter.
What does matter is that if Jesus failed to get His point across to the Apostles, disciples, etc., then He certainly was a failure. In which case we have a hard time accounting for the rapid growth & worldwide spread of Christianity. That growth itself constitutes evidence of success, from which we can most sensibly conclude that the Apostles & disciples did understand what they were hearing, from which we can most sensibly conclude that the expectation of imminent Apocalypse was neither central, nor was its failure of occurrence devastating.

I've read with careful attention the various responses you cite from those you call fundamentalist preachers, evangelical scholars, etc. I think Howard Marshall & Craig Blomberg may be closest to the mark, while Ludemann & others can't be taken seriously. But none of them approach the subject in quite the right way.
Jesus never intended to offer a panacea. He didn't bring uncontestable proof that would endure for all time, overpowering even the most determined efforts of its critics. Any of us who approach the subject of God, or His Son, or His Church with a truly critical mind will quickly become agnostics. Religion is not science.
What Jesus brought were certain strong indications. Regarding the Resurrection, for example, why didn't the nonbelievers in 29 AD simply say the body was still in the tomb? Why did they insist that the guards must have fallen asleep? And isn't that a ridiculous thing to say, given the noise it must have made to reopen the tomb, & given the likely penalties for sleeping on guard duty? For such an argument even to be advanced, something very peculiar must have happened. If you approach that question critically you can find all kinds of reasons not to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. But if you approach the same subject with an open mind, then you'll quickly discover supporting evidence that leads you straight to God.
What you won't find is proof. God doesn't want you to have proof. Because if you have proof, then you'll have less recourse to His Mercy. Your best answer when you come before God-- the best answer for almost all of us-- might be, "I didn't know, I was weak, & I'm sorry." But if you know, beyond any reasonable doubt, then weakness & sorrow won't be much of an excuse. One of God's greatest acts of mercy towards us all is to deny us proof of His Will.

> In light of this, it looks like there is no hope for any substantive version of > Christianity.
>
I hope the foregoing passages have made it clear why I strongly disagree.

> Either the passages about the immanent apocalypse and restoration of
> Israel are authentic or they aren't. If they are, then Jesus was simply
> wrong about substantive issues, in which case he's not worth listening to
> as a messenger from God.
>
Some of those messages may have been intended figuratively. For example, by restoring Israel Jesus may have been referring to His establishment of a new covenant, thereby "restoring" on Earth a community of the faithful. These believers would therefore constitute not merely a new "Israel", but also a continuation of the old "Israel".

> If they aren't, then since the theme of the immanent end is so fundamental > to the NT from beginning to end, then no Bible-based religion is worth
> taking seriously.
>
That attitude results from trying to impose your desires onto the New Testament. You want it to offer you something God never intended that it should. You want God to run the universe according to a set of rules you can understand. But He doesn't. God does things His Own way. The rules He hands down for you & me don't apply to Him. If you or I destroy a city with all its inhabitants, it's a crime against humanity. If God does it, it is by definition "good", because God is all-good. Maybe it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way it is. He's God, we're not, & we're stuck with Him.
To put it another way, I am a servant of God whether I choose to be or not. My only choices are to be a faithful servant or an unfaithful one. The same choices are available to all of us.

Clivedurdle · 01-19-2006, 03:36 PM

Welcome to both of you! I hope the angels are with you cos you are in the lion's den!

gregor · 01-19-2006, 04:02 PM

Graehame

You're familiar with the circularity of your argument, I suppose.

PostMortem · 01-19-2006, 04:02 PM

Hey, WELCOME the more the merrier!!!:wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Welcome to both of you! I hope the angels are with you cos you are in the lion's den!

I don't think exapologist needs any angels, it looks like he's one of the lions:devil3:. (Great first post BTW)

However, graehame on the other hand..... Hummmm, my best advice for you is: Just don't make any sudden movements

.

Julian · 01-20-2006, 04:27 AM

graehame,
there are so many things wrong with your post that I don't have the patience to point out all your mistakes, however, I will pick just one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by graehame

...for example, why didn't the nonbelievers in 29 AD simply say the body was still in the tomb? Why did they insist that the guards must have fallen asleep? And isn't that a ridiculous thing to say, given the noise it must have made to reopen the tomb, & given the likely penalties for sleeping on guard duty?

What non-believes in 29 AD?

Julian

robto · 01-20-2006, 05:54 AM

exapologist, nice summary. I suggest you try J. D. Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, if you haven't already. He is one of the "liberal" scholars and very precise about his methodology. In his view, the eschatological stuff is not original w/ Jesus, it was added later. The real center of J's teaching was his ethics, embodied in the communal meal where all ate together without distinction of class.

Now, you might see in this a liberal Christian's desparate attempt to salvage a Jesus he can believe in. But Crossan's scholarship is impeccable and it's well worth a read in any case.

01-19-2006, 12:12 PM	#1
exapologist Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: USA Posts: 30	The Findings of the Third Questers: The Real Case Against Christianity Hi all, This is my first post as an ex-apologetically minded evangelical, and newborn agnostic, so please bear with me. The following points are the cause of my transition from an evangelical of 15 years to an agnostic. The leading historical Jesus researchers -- e.g. E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, etc. -- have completed the project of Albert Schweitzer, viz., showing that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet. Jesus predicted, over and over, that the apocalypse would occur in his apostle's lifetime, and very probably in his own lifetime. E.g., the "little apocalypse" in Mark, and its parallels in Matt. and Luke; his assertions about this generation not passing away, and about his disciples not finishing going through the cities of Israel on their preaching mission, until all of the details of Daniel's apocalyptic vision are fulfilled, etc., but of course Jesus was simply wrong about that. What is the range of responses to these passages? The fundamentalist preachers and parishoners: "huh?" The evangelical scholars: -I. Howard Marshall: The passages are so few, and it's obsure what Jesus meant by them; so it's unreasonable to hang too much on them. He probably didn't mean what it looks like he means on first appearance. (the gist of his response in "I Believe in the Historical Jesus") -Craig Blomberg: Yep, it looks like that's what Jesus was saying on first appearance, but we can give plausible interpretations these passages that don't have the implication that he falsely predicted the end in his lifetime. E.g., the passage about some of those standing with Jesus on a particular occasion won't die until they see the Kingdom coming with power can plausibly be seen as a reference to the transfiguration. The passage about the disciples not finishing their preaching mission in the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes can plausibly be construed as a message about the perennially incomplete task of evangelism. The passages of the "little apocalypse" in the synoptics don't mean literally "this generation" -- i.e. "you people in front of me" -- but rather the "generation" of unbelief. Etc. (the gist of his response in "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels") The "moderate" biblical critics: -John Meier: Yep, it's inescapable that the synoptics have Jesus predicting the immanent end and the liberation of Israel. But you know what? I have some fancy arguments to show that the early church put these sayings on the lips of Jesus -- he himmself never said them. (the gist of his response in "A Marginal Jew") The reasonable scholars: Sanders, Meier, Vermes, Fredricksen, etc.: yep, Jesus said those things. But of course he was mistaken. The Jesus Seminar (except for, e.g., Ludemann): Jesus never said those things. He was not an apocalyptic prophet. Those passages are later interpolations by the early church. The Mythical Jesus people: What Jesus? In light of this, it looks like there is no hope for any substantive version of Christianity. Either the passages about the immanent apocalypse and restoration of Israel are authentic or they aren't. If they are, then Jesus was simply wrong about substantive issues, in which case he's not worth listening to as a messenger from God. If they aren't, then since the theme of the immanent end is so fundamental to the NT from beginning to end, then no Bible-based religion is worth taking seriously. What, then, remains of the Christian religion?

01-19-2006, 02:56 PM	#5
graehame Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Louisiana Posts: 7	What remains of the Christian religion. > This is my first post as an ex-apologetically minded evangelical, and > newborn agnostic > This is also my first post, although I tend to be more of a Catholic traditionalist. > The leading historical Jesus researchers -- e.g. E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, > etc. -- have completed the project of Albert Schweitzer, viz., showing that > Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet. > Strongly disagree, but more of that in a moment. > Jesus predicted, over and over, that the apocalypse would occur in his > apostle's lifetime, and very probably in his own lifetime. > But whatever Jesus said (on this subject as well as many others) has to be interpreted in light of His purpose in coming-- & it's clear that His purpose in coming was primarily to redeem Mankind, & secondarily to establish a community of believers to represent Him down thru the ages (a Church, if you will). Jesus didn't speak directly to you or me. He spoke to 12 Apostles, about 50 other disciples, maybe 500 or more other followers, & however many other people came to listen to Him. It therefore matters infinitely more what the Apostles, disciples, & other followers of Jesus thought & did about His teachings, than it means what any number of 20th Century experts think. And while it's true that most of our evidence indicates that the Apostles & disciples understood that the Apocalypse was imminent, it is equally true that the First & Second Century Christians did not regard that expectation as central to the Faith, nor did they think that its nonfulfillment was in any way devastating to Christianity. This is possibly because of the obvious suspicion that it was Jesus' intention all along that we should live our lives in the expectation of imminent confrontation with God, but the reason really doesn't matter. What does matter is that if Jesus failed to get His point across to the Apostles, disciples, etc., then He certainly was a failure. In which case we have a hard time accounting for the rapid growth & worldwide spread of Christianity. That growth itself constitutes evidence of success, from which we can most sensibly conclude that the Apostles & disciples did understand what they were hearing, from which we can most sensibly conclude that the expectation of imminent Apocalypse was neither central, nor was its failure of occurrence devastating. I've read with careful attention the various responses you cite from those you call fundamentalist preachers, evangelical scholars, etc. I think Howard Marshall & Craig Blomberg may be closest to the mark, while Ludemann & others can't be taken seriously. But none of them approach the subject in quite the right way. Jesus never intended to offer a panacea. He didn't bring uncontestable proof that would endure for all time, overpowering even the most determined efforts of its critics. Any of us who approach the subject of God, or His Son, or His Church with a truly critical mind will quickly become agnostics. Religion is not science. What Jesus brought were certain strong indications. Regarding the Resurrection, for example, why didn't the nonbelievers in 29 AD simply say the body was still in the tomb? Why did they insist that the guards must have fallen asleep? And isn't that a ridiculous thing to say, given the noise it must have made to reopen the tomb, & given the likely penalties for sleeping on guard duty? For such an argument even to be advanced, something very peculiar must have happened. If you approach that question critically you can find all kinds of reasons not to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. But if you approach the same subject with an open mind, then you'll quickly discover supporting evidence that leads you straight to God. What you won't find is proof. God doesn't want you to have proof. Because if you have proof, then you'll have less recourse to His Mercy. Your best answer when you come before God-- the best answer for almost all of us-- might be, "I didn't know, I was weak, & I'm sorry." But if you know, beyond any reasonable doubt, then weakness & sorrow won't be much of an excuse. One of God's greatest acts of mercy towards us all is to deny us proof of His Will. > In light of this, it looks like there is no hope for any substantive version of > Christianity. > I hope the foregoing passages have made it clear why I strongly disagree. > Either the passages about the immanent apocalypse and restoration of > Israel are authentic or they aren't. If they are, then Jesus was simply > wrong about substantive issues, in which case he's not worth listening to > as a messenger from God. > Some of those messages may have been intended figuratively. For example, by restoring Israel Jesus may have been referring to His establishment of a new covenant, thereby "restoring" on Earth a community of the faithful. These believers would therefore constitute not merely a new "Israel", but also a continuation of the old "Israel". > If they aren't, then since the theme of the immanent end is so fundamental > to the NT from beginning to end, then no Bible-based religion is worth > taking seriously. > That attitude results from trying to impose your desires onto the New Testament. You want it to offer you something God never intended that it should. You want God to run the universe according to a set of rules you can understand. But He doesn't. God does things His Own way. The rules He hands down for you & me don't apply to Him. If you or I destroy a city with all its inhabitants, it's a crime against humanity. If God does it, it is by definition "good", because God is all-good. Maybe it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way it is. He's God, we're not, & we're stuck with Him. To put it another way, I am a servant of God whether I choose to be or not. My only choices are to be a faithful servant or an unfaithful one. The same choices are available to all of us.

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

01-19-2006, 12:58 PM	#2
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	"If they are, then Jesus was simply wrong about substantive issues, in which case he's not worth listening to as a messenger from God." Schweitzer, who, as you know, championed this position, certainly didn't believe that, and he, having a Ph.D in Theology, and Philosophy (not to mention music) would have been far more qualified than you or I to comment on it.

01-19-2006, 02:53 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Thanks for that cite. It helps in another thread.

01-19-2006, 03:36 PM	#6
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Welcome to both of you! I hope the angels are with you cos you are in the lion's den!

01-19-2006, 04:02 PM	#7
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Graehame You're familiar with the circularity of your argument, I suppose.

01-20-2006, 05:54 AM	#10
robto Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Maryland Posts: 701	exapologist, nice summary. I suggest you try J. D. Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, if you haven't already. He is one of the "liberal" scholars and very precise about his methodology. In his view, the eschatological stuff is not original w/ Jesus, it was added later. The real center of J's teaching was his ethics, embodied in the communal meal where all ate together without distinction of class. Now, you might see in this a liberal Christian's desparate attempt to salvage a Jesus he can believe in. But Crossan's scholarship is impeccable and it's well worth a read in any case.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.