My problem with Christianity

[Ħ]

Or, for another example, Bible translations/resources are much more accessible to churches and individuals today than they were just a short time ago.  Thinking back to the first or second centuries, before everyone had their own complete Bible....I can imagine that it stunted growth quite a bit.

[j]

Actually, that leads to another question I have.  Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology?  By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?

For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it.  Of course, because he was fighting the fight for that specific doctrine, he wasn't able to develop other doctrines that have since been developed.

So...it's almost like one person spends 30 years in study, and plants flags along the way, so it only takes the next generation 5 years to learn everything he did, and they have much more time to spend learning new things.

What do you guys think of that?

That's a tough question.  I think it happens to an extent but I also think there is a foundation that never changes.  For instance I believe the Apostles Creed to be a good foundation of the Christian Faith as it was the culmination of theology in the 4th century to define the Orthodox Christian Faith from the various sects that spun their own theology.  Really this theology has held through the Church's history.  But, there are a whole host of doctrines that come out of the Christian church that seem to ebb and flow over time.  Some are important and some are less important.  For instant the Catholic church prior to the reformation had abandoned the doctrine of Salvation thru faith almost completely which led to the rise of the reformation yet Martin Luther almost swung too far to the other extreme to a point where he was ready to throw the book of James out of the Bible because it emphasized works.

Because Christians view the Bible as a living document and the Church as a living institution I think there will always be changes in theology as study continues, but I also believe that as long as there is a recognition that scripture is inspired and authoritative and a respect for the history of the Christian church I think the foundation will stand.

This is a great answer.  Can't say I buy into bosk's version of things remotely, although I know he's argued for it at length here before.

2. the "rapture" (or the "catching away" to be biblical) vs. an earthly return of Christ (rediscovered 1700ish)

Not to nit-pick, but if understood as a separate event in addition to the second coming, the "rapture" is definitively un-biblical.  Which brings me to another point: the waxing and waning of a doctrine's popularity throughout time hardly necessarily reflects the "truth" of it.

-J

[William Wallace]

Or, for another example, Bible translations/resources are much more accessible to churches and individuals today than they were just a short time ago.  Thinking back to the first or second centuries, before everyone had their own complete Bible....I can imagine that it stunted growth quite a bit.

We have greater access now, but most churches were essentially using all the books that were later canonized by the second century.

[hefdaddy42]

Not really.

Yeah, I'd like an example, Hef.

A few things.

In John, Jesus is presented (in the prologue) as pre-existent, assistant creator of the universe, and himself divine.  In John, Jesus announces that he is the one sent from heaven to proclaim God's truth, and performs signs expressly to demonstrate that he is who he says he is.  At no point in the Synoptic Gospels is Jesus presented as the Word of God, or creator of the universe, or equal to God, or the one sent from heaven, soon to return.  At no point in the Synoptic Gospels does Jesus claim that to see, hear, or reject him is to see, hear, or reject the Father.

Let's look briefly at the Synoptics themselves.  To be sure, they are three different documents written by three different authors to three different audiences, and they reflect these differences.  But they are reflective of each other, even in their differences.  In two of them, Jesus is born in Bethlehem to a virgin.  In all three, his public ministry begins with baptism by John followed by the temptation in the wilderness.  In all three, his main message is the coming kingdom of God, which he usually teaches about in the form of parables (in fact, according to Mark 4:33-34, parables are the ONLY way that Jesus taught the crowds in public).  He also performs a few miracles, mostly healings and exorcisms.  He doesn't discuss his identity very much at all, and commands demons and others who know it to keep silent.  At the end of his ministry, he shares a last meal with his disciples, where he institutes what came to be known as the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.  He then goes to the Garden at Gethsemane, where he prays to God for a stay from the coming Passion.  He is then arrested, stood trial before the Sanhedrin, who turn him over to the Romans for execution.

These stories are the foundation of what we know about Jesus.  But none of those stories are in John.

Only in John do we get more "impressive" miracles (water to wine, the raising of Lazarus).  Only in John do we get the long discourses of Jesus.

Even the things that John shares with the Synoptics are sometimes drastically different.  For example, miracles.  He performs MORE miracles in the Synoptics, but BIGGER ones in John, and in contrast with the Synoptics, the miracles in John are for the express purpose of demonstrating who he is, and he does nothing to hide them.  Compare two superficially similar miracles - the raising of Jairus's daughter from Mark 5:21-43 and the raising of Lazarus from John 11:1-44.  In both, someone is dying, the family sends word to Jesus, he is delayed in getting there, the person dies in the meantime, then Jesus raises them.  However, the differences are staggering.  In Mark, the delay is inadvertent; in John, Jesus intentionally stays away until Lazarus dies.  Jesus intentionally lets Lazarus die so that his raising would be a demonstration of Jesus's power to others.  Also, in the story from Mark, Jesus isn't doing a performance; he heals the girl in private, with only her parents and three disciples with him.  In John, he makes a public spectacle of the raising of Lazarus.  In the Synoptics, Jesus is presented as refusing to do miracles as proof of his identity.  However, in John he performs miracles for precisely that purpose.  In the Synoptics, Jesus hardly ever talks about himself, but rather about God and his kingdom.  In John, he never mentions the kingdom of God, and also never shuts up about himself, and goes to great lengths to demonstrate that he is who he says he is.

The entire presentation of Jesus and his teachings is different in John than it is in the Synoptics.  If it weren't for the Passion narrative, it would be hard to recognize them as talking about the same person.

[hefdaddy42]

Wow, nothing?

[Quadrochosis]

I have nothing to say because I am in complete agreement with you.

[William Wallace]

Wow, nothing?

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I will definitely respond in detail later this week. Though after reading your thoughts, I still think you are greatly overestimating the divergence between John and the Synoptics. For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.

[Quadrochosis]

Wow, nothing?

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I will definitely respond in detail later this week. Though after reading your thoughts, I still think you are greatly overestimating the divergence between John and the Synoptics. For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.

Well, Biographies are not usually touted about as the word of God. You'd think that the life or death situation that Christians create about accepting Jesus would have a more solid foundation, or at least a more consistent one.

[hefdaddy42]

For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.

I don't remember citing order of events as a problem, or the emphasis on different events.  It's the entirely different presentations of the character of who Jesus was and what he taught.

[Ħ]

For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.

I don't remember citing order of events as a problem, or the emphasis on different events.  It's the entirely different presentations of the character of who Jesus was and what he taught.

It's different, yeah, but not entirely different.

[hefdaddy42]

Obviously I disagree, since I've already argued that it is and gave examples.

[William Wallace]

For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.

I don't remember citing order of events as a problem, or the emphasis on different events. 

In the quoted statement I didn't specifically mention order of events, though my wording could be clearer. So here: why is precise agreement between the four Gospels a prerequisite for accepting the reliability of John's Gospel? 

It's the entirely different presentations of the character of who Jesus was and what he taught.

Yes, that's your conclusion, but the evidence - or your interpretation of it - doesn't validate that John took more liberty when penning his Gospel.

Wow, nothing?

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I will definitely respond in detail later this week. Though after reading your thoughts, I still think you are greatly overestimating the divergence between John and the Synoptics. For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.

Well, Biographies are not usually touted about as the word of God. You'd think that the life or death situation that Christians create about accepting Jesus would have a more solid foundation, or at least a more consistent one.

But that's exactly what we're arguing about. John's Gospels is different from the Synoptics. Big deal. Are there reasons why that poses an irreconcilable problem?

 And by the way, critics make a big deal about putting the NT through the ringer of The Historical-Critical method, just as less significant texts are put through it, and then they demand that the nature of the Bible requires a higher standard of evidence. I don't think that's fair, and you've asked precisely for that kind of evidence.

[Quadrochosis]

Well if its the absolute word of God then there should be no issue with it being absolute 100% accurate.

If you don't think it lives up to it then you shouldn't promote it as such.

[contest_sanity]

Can it not be the word of God but also sometimes less than 100% accurate?

I've got room for that in my views at least.

[Quadrochosis]

Can it not be the word of God but also sometimes less than 100% accurate?

I've got room for that in my views at least.

I've got no problem with that view, so long as the holder admits that it's not an accurate, absolute representation of the word of God and can be wrong.

[contest_sanity]

I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy.  It just doesn't seem necessary.  I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible.  Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.

[Adami]

I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy.  It just doesn't seem necessary.  I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible.  Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.

Clearly I don't believe what you do, but I like your perspective on it.

[contest_sanity]

Well thanks. 

[reo73]

I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy.  It just doesn't seem necessary.  I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible.  Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.

This

I think there's a difference between historical inerrancy and theological inerrancy and one can believe in a theological inerrancy, but can dismiss historical inerrancy.  I think the Bible is solid theologically even though some of the facts and figures may be a bit sketchy.  This seems more than plausible to me given that ordinary men pieced the story of Christ together some 30-50 years after the fact.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't buy into inerrancy of the Bible at all, so the differences between John and the Synoptics aren't cataclysmic to me.  But to your point about theological inerrancy - the theology of John seems completely different than the theology of the synoptics.

[William Wallace]

I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy.  It just doesn't seem necessary.  I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible.  Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.

That's right about where I am.

[reo73]

I don't buy into inerrancy of the Bible at all, so the differences between John and the Synoptics aren't cataclysmic to me.  But to your point about theological inerrancy - the theology of John seems completely different than the theology of the synoptics.

I wouldn't say it's completely different in the sense that John somehow contradicts the other Gospels.  Certainly John focuses in on the deity of Christ where the other Gospels focus on the doings of his ministry, but all of them arrive at the same place which is the crucifixion and resurrection, the giving of the great commission, the ascension, and the power to redeem man from sin.

[rumborak]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

[Ħ]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.

[reo73]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

It's impossible to know who exactly wrote what when it comes to the Gospels.  Obviously the text was attributed to the various authors (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) to give them a stronger sense of authority, but as far as the actual text being written by their hand, probably unlikely.  And we know that the Gospels as we read them now went through a series of redactions.  I think Luke has the best case for it actually being his own written text since he was educated, was a contemporary of Paul, and wrote his Gospel in conjunction with Acts.  

[contest_sanity]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

It's impossible to know who exactly wrote what when it comes to the Gospels.  Obviously the text was attributed to the various authors (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) to give them a stronger sense of authority, but as far as the actual text being written by their hand, probably unlikely.  And we know that the Gospels as we read them now went through a series of redactions.  I think Luke has the best case for it actually being his own written text since he was educated, was a contemporary of Paul, and wrote his Gospel in conjunction with Acts.  

Pretty much this.  Either way, one would have to demonstrate the reliability of the oral tradition on which the gospels are based, no matter who the "author" is.

[hefdaddy42]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

I'm not sure that it matters who wrote them, especially since we will never know for sure.

Unless of course by "who" you mean "God or man."  In that case, I definitely think they were written by men, with no intrusion or help from God.

[rumborak]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.

Well, the problem is that the gospel doesn't claim to be by John, but by the "most beloved disciple". So, it could be really have been anyone. (or even no disciple at all, as it seemed to have been practice to falsely attribute accounts to close disciples in order to give them more authority in the eyes of the reader, e.g. in the case of Matthew)

rumborak

[William Wallace]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.

Well, the problem is that the gospel doesn't claim to be by John, but by the "most beloved disciple". So, it could be really have been anyone. (or even no disciple at all, as it seemed to have been practice to falsely attribute accounts to close disciples in order to give them more authority in the eyes of the reader, e.g. in the case of Matthew)

rumborak

Yeah, but even if the author did make such a claim, the argument against traditional authorship would shift to something else. Since when has a claim to authenticity convinced anyone? All of Paul's letters are attributed to him, but he's generally regarded as the author of only seven.

[Ħ]

What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.

rumborak

That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.

Well, the problem is that the gospel doesn't claim to be by John, but by the "most beloved disciple". So, it could be really have been anyone. (or even no disciple at all, as it seemed to have been practice to falsely attribute accounts to close disciples in order to give them more authority in the eyes of the reader, e.g. in the case of Matthew)

rumborak

While I was mostly referring to the epistles, which mostly state the names of their authors in the text itself, I can't say when it comes to the gospels.  But I can say that Matthew is an unlikely disciple to attribute authorship to by a person that wanted to fabricate the book.