Brewmaster

I appreciate everyone’s patience. Again, I am going to try and respond to several of you at once. Also, this will be my last post until January. We are moving and I will not have regular access to the Internet until the middle of the month.

Simian:

As you well know, it is very important in a discussion to define your terms. As I see it, we are going in two different directions. You are arguing that because Christianity is not true it is mythology. I am not arguing, in our particular discussion, that Christianity is true or is not true. I am saying that your classification of Christianity as mythology is wrong as a definition. Mythology is an attempt to relate the immediate phenomenon to some cosmic and eternal scene. The Bible, on the other hand, attests to a God who is never satisfied with the status quo, who constantly changes situations in order to achieve desired goal for humankind. I checked several literary sources (Christian and non-Christian) in regards to this and they collectively define Christianity as a religion, regardless of whether or not it is true.

Concerning your comments about various miracle stories in Mormonism and Hinduism, I do see these stories as false. Mormonism, in its true nature, is a “Christian heresy” and there is much factual data to support this (see Richard Abanes’ One Nation Under Gods). Also, many Hindu scholars reject the account that you mentioned. What I am trying to say is that I do accept, sometimes according to verifiable historical data and sometimes on faith, the claims of Scripture. Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, any claims by any other religions would be, for me, necessarily false.

Some quick comments on other things that you mentioned:
You said that you don’t know how much of the Bible is factual about the life of one particular person. Let me suggest then that you read from the Bible (NIV translation) the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Then, I would suggest you read Jesus Under Fire by Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland.

Also, ‘seeing all the kingdoms of the world’ is metaphorical language.

Shroud – not real
Holy Grail – nope
Heaven/Hell – God, through historical figures in real time-space, told us that they exist outside of real time/space.
Tongues – A charismatic gift given to the first century church, which substantiated the words and teachings of the Apostles to the listening and watching world.
James’ ossuary – see earlier comments

Goliath:

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however, I cannot carry on a discussion with you if you continue on in an irrational manner. Sorry!

LordSnooty:
I appreciate your comments. In fact, I had to do my homework because of you so I commend your attention to detail and insight. I will respond to each individual person mentioned.

Josephus: I always took this for granted until you came on the scene. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities 20:9 is verifiable. Hardly any scholar discounts this. The second reference is more debatable. It does appear that it has been tampered with concerning particular “Christian” wordage, which would have been uncommon for a Jew in that time period to write. However, an Arabic manuscript translates the “Christian” verbiage with ‘perhaps’ and ‘reported’, which would be more inline with what Josephus was trying to communicate. Many Christian, non-Christian, and Jewish scholars agree with this assessment.

Suetonius: “Chrestus” is a variant spelling of Christ and is virtually the same as Tactius Latin spelling. Furthermore, Acts 18.2 also corroborates the account by Suetonius. He also mentions ‘Christians’ later on saying, “After the great fire at Rome…Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Suetonius, Nero, 16.)

Thallus: You are correct that it is mentioned in a later work and that it is no longer extant. However, Africanus’ use of it implies that it was a legitimate document, which presupposed the historical figure of Jesus and the events that took place at his crucifixion. Scholars grant this privilege to other writers in antiquity. Why not Africanus and his use of Thallus?

Taticus: It is irrelevant to me that his entry is minor in reference to ‘Christians’. I was just showing that extra biblical evidence for Jesus existed.

Why I think that my own autonomous understanding is not sufficient?

That is a great question. Imagine that I drew a large circle on a chalkboard, which represented all knowledge that currently exists on earth concerning any and every subject. Now, let’s suppose I had to draw a circle within that circle, which represented what I knew at this very moment in my life. Well, as you can imagine, my circle would be so small it would be microscopic (some would argue beyond even that). As I step back from the chalkboard, I would immediately see the limitations of my own capability to autonomously understand everything (i.e., philosophy, religion, psychology). In other words, it would seem that there is no way that I could truly ever know anything about anything. However, when I look at the Bible I get a completely different picture than the chalkboard. I see a God who, in the person of Jesus Christ, has entered real space-time. I also see a comprehensive, historically unfolding plan of redemption for mankind. Also, the authoritative truth claims of Scripture make sense of this confusing world. Thus, I am willing to submit to a supreme, benevolent God who has spoken and continues to speak to His people through His word. But the question arises concerning why I see/understand verses others who cannot see/understand. Again, His word reveals that, to His people, God has given eyes to see and others, who are not His, suppress the truth that is so obvious in creation.

Mortal Wombat:

First off, let me say that you have misquoted me. You keep arguing that the sources I mentioned previously are not eyewitnesses, however, I do not believe that I said they were eyewitnesses in the first place. I will discuss the individuals you questioned first before moving on to Mark.

Lucian of Samosata: From Lucian’s writings, we see that he affirms Jesus’ life, but refutes his teachings and his followers. It seems to me that if Jesus had not existed, as a historical figure, Lucian would have attacked Christianity concerning this matter.

Josephus: He was one generation removed from Jesus and never presupposes that he did not exist.

Suetonius, Tacitus, and Thallus: see above discussion

Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion: The historical events that he mentions in relation to this ‘wise King’ leaves no doubt in my mind and many historians concur that this is a clear reference to Jesus. Furthermore, the wording concerning Jesus as the King of the Jews is a title that he ascribed to himself at times and is the wording on the titulus placed above him on the cross.

Other examples: The Gospel of Truth, although written by a Gnostic teacher in the mid second century, addresses the subject of the historicity of Jesus in several short passages. It does not hesitate to affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh. The Talmud, which was completed in 200 A.D., was a collection of oral traditions and mentions Yeshu and the crucifixion.

Early Church Fathers: Take for example the early church father Polycarp (one of his many writings is still extant). Irenaeus reports that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and indeed knew others who had seen the Lord in the flesh.

The Gospel of Mark: You are correct that most scholars date it before 70 A.D. and after 60 A.D. I discussed this with a few of my professors and they concurred. However, they also said there was room for a pre-60 dating. And yes, there are some scholars that date it before 60 A.D. (i.e., Dr. D. Guthrie, Dr. Carson, Dr. Moo, etc.). The reasons for this are too long for this format. I suggest you read Donald Guthrie’s Introduction to the New Testament for an example of how it can be dated pre-60 A.D.

Mark 5.1: Many scholars believe that the region of Gerasenes extended from the city to the shore of the lake. For example, I live in the city of Oviedo, which is a suburb of Orlando. When I talk to friends that live elsewhere I tell them I live in Orlando because they are familiar with “Mickey Land” and not Oviedo. I think you see a similar thing going on in this verse.

Mark 7.31: Textual tradition, concerning this verse, does indicate that copyist had a hard time with this unusual journey. However, it is not geographically impossible and we are not told why Jesus made this journey. Perhaps he had a reason for it that Mark has not alluded to in his writings. This is, in a way, typical of Mark’s writing style. He is fast paced and has Jesus constantly on the move.

Brewmaster

Hobbs:

First, I am sorry that you thought my last post to you was rude. I did not intend for it to come across in such a manner and for that I apologize. Also, you criticized me for not coming up with any real evidence that could withstand real scrutiny. Therefore, I reread your previous post and my previous post and to the best of my knowledge I answered your questions. Here again, the problem remains that you believe the New Testament is not a viable witness to the life and divinity of Jesus Christ whereas I do. As I stated earlier, I believe the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God, which reveals His Lordship attributes.

Some thoughts concerning various things you said -

You said that the Gospels are not firsthand accounts like the Pauline Epistles. But Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, informs Theophilus that this is an orderly account of the ministry of Jesus.

Discrepancies you mentioned (this answer belongs to a friend of mine) -

I suspect you are wondering who saw Jesus first, how many angels there were, etc.

According to John 20:1ff., the order of events was as follows:
1. Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb.
2. Mary Magdalene told the disciples Jesus' body was missing.
3. Simon Peter and John went to the empty tomb.
4. Simon Peter and John left.
5. Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb and saw two angels and Jesus.
6. Mary Magdalene told the disciples she had seen Jesus.
7. The disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene's report.
Luke 24:1ff. lists the order of events as follows:
1. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women who had come from Galilee with Joseph of Arimathea went to the empty tomb and saw two angels.
2. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women who had come from Galilee with Joseph of Arimathea told the disciples what they had seen.
Matthew 28:1ff. lists the following order of events:
1.Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the empty tomb and saw an angel.
2.Mary Magdalene and the other Mary encountered Jesus.
3.Mary Magdalene and the other Mary told the disciples.
Mark 16:1-8 lists this order of events:
1. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the empty tomb and saw and angel.
2. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome did not tell the disciples.
Mark 16:9ff. is probably not original to the text, but notice that it does not contradict Mark 16:1-8. The addition of Mark 16:9ff. indicates one possible reading of Mark 16:1-8: those verses describe Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb, not her second (compare John's account). John's account, in turn, does not deny that Mary Magdalene had company. He merely tells the story from her perspective without listing the other women. John also does not deny that Mary may have seen an angel during her first.

The details of Luke's and Matthew's accounts correspond without difficulty to the details of Mary's Magdalene's second visit to the tomb listed by John. The fact that some accounts mention one angel while others mention two is easily explained by saying that there were two angels, but that Matthew and Mark wrote only of the angel who spoke these particular words. Neither Matthew nor Mark denied that any other angels were present.

The details of Mark's account correspond without difficulty to Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb mentioned by John, except for the statement that the women didn't tell anyone what they had seen. John claims that Mary told the disciples about her first visit to the tomb, while Mark says that she told no one. It is certainly possible, however, that Mary at first told no one, but then told the disciples after her fear had left her. The fact that Mary's first report to Peter does not match the angel's report to her may simply reflect the fact that Mary did not believe the angel at first.

There are other possible solutions to these apparent discrepancies as well. The important thing to keep in mind is that all these accounts are very short, and none attempts to give us the full picture. Moreover, none of these accounts contradicts another. For example, "there was an angel" does not contradict, "there were two angels." To establish a contradiction, one must first establish that two accounts speak of the same visit to the tomb, and then establish that one account denies what another affirms. If one account said "there was only ever one angel at the tomb," while another said "there were two angels at the tomb," that would establish a contradiction -- but such is not the case.

The burden of proof in these instances is on the critic of the Bible. The critic must demonstrate that the only possible reading of the texts necessitates a contradiction. No critic has ever been able to do this. The most they have been able to do is to insist that the correct interpretations of the passages are contradictory. Their flaw is that they cannot prove that these contradictory interpretations are correct.

Dating of Mark –

See above discussion. Also, I am not willing to die in battle over a pre-60 date for Mark. It is not THAT big of a deal to me.

The Gospel of Thomas and Peter -

In short, these are byproducts of Gnosticism and date to the mid second century.
(a) The Gospel of Thomas is dependent on the Gospels, but not vice versa
(b) They portray second century Gnosticism.
(c) The Canonical Gospels are historically trustworthier.
(d) The early church fathers support the Canonical Gospels and not the Gnostic Gospels.
(e) If you would like further info on this I can get you the names of two great books. I cannot, at the moment, remember their names.

Also, you asked me to defend the canon. I am afraid my answer would be too long. Dr. Darrell Bock, a New Testament scholar, has written a short booklet discussing this very issue called Can I Trust the Bible. You can get a copy at <a href="http://www.rzim.org." target="_blank">www.rzim.org.</a>

Matthew writing his own account -

As the old saying goes, there is no use recreating the wheel. Seriously, Matthew did rely on Mark and Q, but it is clear that he did not rewrite, as you suppose, the Gospel of Mark. Matthew has his own style and characteristics and his purpose and the themes he addresses are wholly different than the Gospel of Mark (see the Message of Matthew by Dr. Michael Green senior fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, England).

Comments –

You said that I believe only because I want it to be true, not because the evidence actually points that way.

(1) Can one truly know/understand all the evidence?
(2) If we could possibly ascertain all the evidence would that be enough. For example, before Columbus arrived there would have been no possible way the people of North America could have proved that Caucasian people existed. The evidence would have proved otherwise.
(3) I could as easily say that you don’t believe because you don’t want it to be true.

Your testimony -

It was hard to follow because I was not sure what the person you were responding to said previously. Anyway, I would argue, according to Scripture, that you were never a believer. You were like the seed thrown on the rock that sprouted up and then withered away and died. I don’t mean that to be critical, or insulting but that is a how I, and most theologians, would interpret your testimony. Further, you said that if there is a God then he has a hell of a lot to answer for before you would judge him to be worthy of anyone’s worship. I assume this was tongue in cheek. I find it incredulous that if you really did come face to face with God (and lived) that you would try and judge God. That statement alone tells me a great deal about you and what you believe concerning the world, life, and religion.

Pluralism –

If I had my way, I would make it so anyone who believed anything remotely virtuous would go to Heaven. I would like to see my Muslim, Mormon, and Hindu brothers in eternity. However, I also believe in Jesus (simply stated) and he has said in his word that no one comes to the Father except through Him. He is my Lord and I must submit to that statement in my finite understanding of reality and eternity. Lastly, there is nothing special about me. I am a sinner saved by grace. In other words, a beggar telling other beggars where to find food. It is that simple. It is that complex.

atheist_in_foxhole

Volestrangler

Neither Matthew nor Mark denied that a dragon was present. So that might be true.

You want to claim evidence by omission? I can continue to make up things that neither Matthew nor Mark denied happened as long as you want, and by your own logic, you cannot deny that these things are possible.

How about this. An invisible orchestra of satyrs were present playing Beethoven's Fifth symphony. Neither Mattew nor Mark deny that this happened, therefore it might be true.

Ridiculous? Yes. But so is your claim that because Matthew and Mark don't state it, therefore it might be true.