aikido7

The wooden plank in my own eye prevents me from divining any gospel writer's intentions. My own intentions were to merely say that the gospels (and especially, but not limited to John's gospel) contain lots of fodder for Christian perversion. If you want to see the actual arguments in the service of perversion, take a look at the Third Reich in the 30's, the present-day Christian Identity Movement or some strains of American evangelical fundamentalism. I am really not interested in trotting all that out in this forum, but believe me, the arguments are there and perenially persuasive to many.

The result of my good intentions has been your misunderstanding and faithful leap to some bad judgements. Since the meaning of one's message is in the response it gets, I need to change what I am doing: I will now try to go into more detail for you, improve the focus and hopefully clear up some issues along the way.

First of all, to repeat my post in another way, I have absolutely no idea whether or not John was an anti-Semite, but I think I have a consensus of opinion to stand on in saying that the community of early Christians that John wrote for (and about) found themselves in mounting opposition to most other Jewish sects during the time his gospel was written.

And of course there is Jesus saying "love one another," etc., but there is also a lot of good old-fashioned invective against "unbelievers" and "the Jews." Any seven-year-old would immediately pick up on the "in-group/out-group" clashes ("We are to love one another but also be mindful that 'the Jews' are 'children of the Devil'"). And I'm afraid it isn't only the seven-year-olds who see it this way. While most simple believers are technically literate, Nomad, many don't really pay close attention to Scripture and are often supported in their prejudices by the church they attend. Biblical illiteracy is in crisis proportions among believers today.

I disagree with you in a fundamental way, Nomad. One does not become more scripturally literate by merely "reading the texts in a plain and simple way." But that is certainly a very good start.

This is exactly where one can explore the difference between what the gospel writers may have intended and with how those intentions (whatever they were) have actually "come across" and have been interpreted by many Christians through history.

Again, intentions don't count, Nomad. Results do.

And by the way, when did you first get the idea that I am anti-Christian, hostile to John or copying Sponges' postings? First, a bit of gentle ribbing: Please provide the date and approximate time (Eastern Standard Time) immediately and then and only then will I dialogue with you!

Nomad, I do not always use the literalist approach to the Bible. I also look for examples of pattern, tone and flavor--a more "right-brained" and intuitive slant. Perhaps that is why you often seem to exhibit such a misunderstanding and defensiveness to my opinions. There were always kids in my high school poetry class who were frustrated and bored. Perhaps you can join me in chalking it up to a simple difference in opinion....

I see the contrast between John's Jesus and the Jesus of the Synoptics as just too great to be explained in any "real world" manner by the left-brained, literal mind.

John's Jesus is clearly an entirely different animal. He talks in long, densely-textured mystical/theological monologues--mostly about himself and how important it is to believe in him. (and, by the way, speaking of "going mental,"-- whoever goes around saying "I am the Lamb of God" or "I am the Light of the World" qualifies as a bit of an eccentric in my opinion!). Missing are the parables and exorcisms and the compassionate concern with human suffering.

So as far as believable speech is concerned, the Synoptics win this year's New Testament Superbowl hands down, 3 to l (even though there is that same guy wearing a rainbow wig behind the home team's goalposts still holding up that "John 3:16" sign!!).

Nomad,I am against ignorance and dogma. I am for cultivating curiousity and common sense. I am for maintaining a healthy tolerance for ambiguity and keeping a close watch on the default "moral" view of the world. I ask for help in the spirit of Jesus for courage in overturning any Temple tables I recognize. I am certainly not against a genuine Christian faith. But again I draw the line against anti-Jewish sentiment extrapolated from literalistic views of some of the verses in John.

As for me seeing or not seeing my own prejudices, I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Jesus' spiritual twin and "baby brother" Frederich Nietzsche:

"A very popular error, having the courage of one's convictions; rather--having the courage to attack one's own convictions!"

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Layman

Which other sources are you thinking about here Toto?

I presume you are referring mainly to Josephus, who was writing a much broader history than the Gospel authors were. Perhaps if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were trying to explain the origins of the Jewish War we would have gotten more of a flavor of Pilate. Or perhaps if Josephus was focused on Pilate's treatment of Jesus he would have written his history a bit differently.

Are you serious? You think the Nicene creed was speaking of Jesus' having to pay too much in taxes under Pilate? Or just having to live under his rule? I find that remarkably unpersuasive. Especially when Jesus spent most of his life and even ministry in Galilee, which was not under the rule of Pilate. Christians haven't even attached any theological significance to the tax rates as far as I can see, but attaches a lot of signifiance to the suffering that Jesus experienced at the hands of the Romans, including his scourging, the crown of thorns, the beating, and the suffering on the cross.

He's debated Craig before, he knew what the arguments would be. You are basically claiming he was at a disadvantage because his opponent's arguments were to ridiculous to refute.


Anyone who wants to see a Craig/Luedemann debate for themselves can check out an earlier round here:

<a href="http://www.thegreatforum.com/archives/ludemann_craig/" target="_blank">http://www.thegreatforum.com/archives/ludemann_craig/</a>

Toto

I guess that is what I think. Craig started the debate by saying that there were four facts that scholars agreed upon, four facts that can only be found in the Gospels. Luedemann started by saying that the Gospels are not reliable historical documents. Neither one addressed the others' basic contention. (It would be hard, if not impossible, to resolve that question in an hour's debate, and Luedemann in any case was not in a confrontational mode.)

I find the idea that the Gospels are historically accurate to be highly improbable. I find the idea that a supernatural explanation is the best way of explaining the "evidence" to be intellectually dishonest.

Craig is extremely articulate and well spoken, which tends to obscure that what he is saying does not really hold any water, unless you start out by accepting his religious beliefs.

On your other points: You are speculating that Josephus ignored a facet of Pilate's personality that was completely at odds with every other action that he took. It's quite a fantasy, whether or not you think Josephus knew about Jesus at all. And I think it can be argued that the writers of the Gospels were explaining the Jewish Wars. Their Falwell-like explanation was that God removed his veil of protection from the Jews because they rejected Jesus. This is what Luedemann is referring to when he talks about the anti-Judaism in the Gospels.

As for the Nicene Creed, I only speculated that it was read as Jesus having suffered during the reign of Pilate, as opposed to fixing personal responsibility for Jesus' death on Pilate. (Just as you might not put personal responsibility on George Bush for every person executed in the United States.) I don't know where you got taxes out of that.

Layman

You are oversimplifying. It is possible that the Gospels are not reliable history but that they do accurately record those four facts. Craig spends a good deal of time explaining, specifically, why he thinks that those four facts are accurate. He never argues that all of the gospels are accurate, or that the gospels are even mostly accurate.

I know you do. But I have little respect for your evaluation of the issues. You went in thinking any argument for the resurrection must be intellectually dishonest because the gospels are not accurate and resurrections simply don't happen.

He'd be the first to admit that a belief in a God is a helpful starting point for his arguments. And in fact he has argued that point on many occasions as well. This debate, however, was focused on the resurreciton.

So is Josephus your only source Toto? I asked what those sources were you were relying on. What are the others?

And I'm not speculating that Josephus ignored a facet of Pilate's personality. I doubt Josephus ever met Pilate or sought to explain to uss every facet of Pilate's personality. Nor have you or anyone else shown that his actions were "completely at odds" with is actions in the Gospels.

Surely you can see some difference in "explaining" the Jewish War and purporting to give a "history" of the Jewish War.

You could argue that the gospels are an explanation of the Jewish War if you want, but believing that the Christians saw some eschatological significance in the destruction of Jerusalem is not the same as their writing a history of the Jewish Wars, as Josephus sought to do. The point, undeniable it seems, is that the gospel authors are focusing on a narrower series of events than Josephus is--with very different agendas.

Of course they were fixing personal responsibility on Pilate. It was Roman soldiers doing the whipping, beating, "crowning," cruficying, mocking, and chucking of spears in the gospels. So when you "speculate" that this only meant to signify the timing of these events--300 years after the fact they are marking time by Pilate's tenure?--you are acting in a bit of a desparate manner.

Toto

I wouldn't say that he spends a great deal of time. He said that the majority of scholars accept them as facts, and he alluded to the usual apologetic explanations of why they were reliable (the criteria of embarassment that we ripped to shreds on this board.)

Craig denies believing that the Bible is inerrant, because that is not a defensible debating position. But he clearly gives more credit to the Gospels as history than a secular historian would.

There are no known cases of resurrections. There are many cases of mass delusion, of fake religious leaders, of instant legends springing up. So I did go in thinking that resurrections just don't happen. But if Craig is going to argue that this resurrection happened (he made a point of saying that resurrections in general do not happen), then he has to confront the difficulties of that proof. He did not. And pretending that his supernatural explanation fit the 5 or 6 criteria for historical explanations was just dishonest.

Jospehus is the only source I have read about, although I understand Philo gives a similar picture of a ruthless tyrant, not a wishy-washy type who would be swayed by a crowd. I doubt that anything would prove to you that the Gospels' portrait of Josephus is completely at odds with Josephus, since it is certainly possible for one person to act inconsistently, and apologists can reconcile anything.

I think that the Gospel writers shared with Josephus the desire to explain the history of the Jews, and the desire to curry favor with the Romans. But my source is Steve Mason's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0943575990/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Josephus and the New Testament</a>. I don't claim any expertise.

Layman

Well you are right. There are time limitations in a debate as we all realize, and Craig does seem to be on good ground for claiming such a consensus--when even atheist historians like Michael Grant accept the empty tomb and resurrection appearances as historical facts. I have to admit to having actually read one of Craig's books, so my reference to his explanations was including a source you apparently are ignorant of. My apologies.

I have seen some discussion of the criteria that most historians use for historical inquiry being attacked on this board, but I find your comment that such as yourself have ripped them "to shreds" to be incredibly self-serving, biased, without foundation, conclusory, and, most of all--untrue.

I actually don't know where he stands on the issue of inerrancy. Other than the fact I've never seen him debate it.

From all I've seen or heard of the man he is widely respected and no one questions his dishonesty but people such as yourself. I think your trouble is that he's obvious intelligent, informed, and articulate, and you simply can't conceive of any such person honestly disagreeing with you on the issue of the resurrection.

Well, I disagree with your assumptions as to my evidentiary standards, but at least you could be fair and give it a shot. With actual quotes and stuff. But yes, you are right that it's possible for one person to act inconsistently. Usually it has to do with the circumstances of the situation, however, and circumstances vary.

That's a fine theory, but it really doesn't respond to the fact that Josephus' topic is different and much broader than the Gospel's topic.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Vorkosigan

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." [William Craig - Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 1994]

Does this make Craig an inerrantist? Hard to say. He seems to be an inerrantist although he does not come right out and say so. When you read this transcript of a debate: <a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/DebatewithCraig.html" target="_blank">http://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/DebatewithCraig.html</a>
he says that "As for contradictions in the Bible, you can pick up biblical commentaries that resolve most of these." This is a typical inerrantist position. His is a more robust form of inerrancy. See his discussion on the long ages in Genesis, which he says refer to "clans."

Michael

Toto

And even Christians like Crossan think that the empty tomb was not a historical fact.

Well that's your opinion, or perhaps you didn't notice.

I'm not talking about financial dishonesty, just his lawyer-like arguments. I wouldn't accuse him of intellectual dishonesty if I didn't think he is intelligent.

You have no basis for claiming that I could not conceive of an intelligent articulate person disagreeing with me on the resurrection. I know lots of intelligent articulate people who honestly disagree with me on a lot of issues. But they are honest about the basis for disagreement. They don't claim that there is overwhelming historical evidence for something, which can only be explained by divine intervention, where there is not.

And I am going to decline your invitation to discuss the contradictions between Josephus' characterization of Pilate and the Gospels' at this time.

Steven Carr

Where does Michael Grant say he is an atheist?

Is this more Christian mythmaking?

Layman

In what way is Crossan a Christian? Since he denies Jesus was even buried, denies the empty tomb, and denies any real resurrection of Jesus, why do you claim he is a Christian?

Which was my point. You voiced your opinion, I voiced mine.

I know what kind of dishonesty you were talking about.

I didn't say you can't disagree with someone and consider them to be dishonest. I was very specific:

I think your trouble is that he's obvious intelligent, informed, and articulate, and you simply can't conceive of any such person honestly disagreeing with you on the issue of the resurrection.

Your statement just supports my point. When it comes to the resurrection, you leave no room for honest disagreement. That makes me, Nomad, Polycarp, Photocrat, and most of all Craig, "dishonest" in your book simply because we disagree with you.

That's fine.