Why should we believe the gospels?

[rumborak]

BrotherH, since when has it become "elitist" to be educated about a subject? I mean, you can read up on the arguments they make; you can verify their claims if you want.
Bottom line is, it sounds you just don't like the conclusions they come to, and rather have them go away so you don't have to deal with it.

The only sense of bitterness is right here in this thread.

Exactly that. Were the scholars corroborating their beliefs you'd see a lot of praise in this thread, no doubt.

rumborak

[rumborak]

Another point: Are you really surprised they come to this conclusion? I mean, when you compare the world described in the Bible with today's world, are you really surprised that when digging into it, you find that it's based on a lot of hearsay and second-hand accounts?

rumborak

[Ħ]

Another point: Are you really surprised they come to this conclusion? I mean, when you compare the world described in the Bible with today's world, are you really surprised that when digging into it, you find that it's based on a lot of hearsay and second-hand accounts?

rumborak

No, I'm not surpised they came to that conclusion.  I'm just flustered at the tone they take when they demonstrate their findings...as if you are some kinda moron if you don't buy what they say.

[Adami]

Turn the other cheek, stop getting so angry that people don't agree with you.

[rumborak]

I would also say that the scientific rhetoric of scholars is really nothing compared to the run-of-the-mill "repent ye sinners!" you hear regularly. IF you disagree with scholars all you get thrown at is "well, your opinion is not based on demonstrable facts". If you disagree with a Christian, you'll hear "Well, your soul will burn in hell for all eternity".

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

It's just the attitude of the whole thing.  There is no humble approach about it.  It's very...smug and elitist.  

Like, we scholars have the proper education and training, but you don't, so you'd better listen to us, pedestrian.

Maybe you are right in that they are simply madly in love with history and are having the time of their lives picking the Bible apart, but I get a strong sense of bitterness, cynicism, and even arrogance.

Uhhhhhh, it's typically a good idea to listen to experts in the field.  Now, obviously in matters such as the historicity of the Bible there is a good deal more debate than in other fields of expertise; that doesn't mean that years of education and research are null and void because you disagree with someone.

And I don't think most minimalist historians are motivated by some sense of spite or bitterness.  That's a pretty presumptuous and biased way of looking at things. 

[Perpetual Change]

Well, I'm not sure if what I said early got lost in this discussion or not, but I'm mostly glad for this kind of scholarship. It's allowed me to participate in Christianity again, which I wasn't able to do when I was obsessed about it's 'factuality' and other such nonsense. Not trying to say I'm a perfect Christian or even close to an example of one, but the new perspective which took form as a result of the faith being 'humbled' in so many ways has certainly worked for me.

[Ħ]

It's just the attitude of the whole thing.  There is no humble approach about it.  It's very...smug and elitist. 

Like, we scholars have the proper education and training, but you don't, so you'd better listen to us, pedestrian.

Maybe you are right in that they are simply madly in love with history and are having the time of their lives picking the Bible apart, but I get a strong sense of bitterness, cynicism, and even arrogance.

Uhhhhhh, it's typically a good idea to listen to experts in the field.

Sure it is.  But they are human as much as I am...if they understand something, then I can understand it too, so they'd better show me the evidence before their conclusions.  Oh wait, silly me.  You have to be a member of their society of scholars to handle the primary sources!  Uhhhhhh, I guess I may as well trust what they have to say, then.

[Voyage 34]

It's just the attitude of the whole thing.  There is no humble approach about it.  It's very...smug and elitist. 

Like, we scholars have the proper education and training, but you don't, so you'd better listen to us, pedestrian.

Maybe you are right in that they are simply madly in love with history and are having the time of their lives picking the Bible apart, but I get a strong sense of bitterness, cynicism, and even arrogance.

Uhhhhhh, it's typically a good idea to listen to experts in the field.

Sure it is.  But they are human as much as I am...if they understand something, then I can understand it too, so they'd better show me the evidence before their conclusions.  Oh wait, silly me.  You have to be a member of their society of scholars to handle the primary sources!  Uhhhhhh, I guess I may as well trust what they have to say, then.

You trust what guys who lived 2,000+ years ago say, so what's the problem?

[rumborak]

Oh wait, silly me.  You have to be a member of their society of scholars to handle the primary sources!  Uhhhhhh, I guess I may as well trust what they have to say, then.

Why are you so bitter?
Besides, I don't even know what you're talking about. You can read the primary sources just like everybody else. Just google them, and for a lot of them you can look straight at the scanned in pages.
Unless you're referring to the "elitist" part of having to learn ancient Greek to read them. You can hardly fault the scholars that you've come accustomed to reading a remote translation of the originals.  I hope you're not making the argument that it is sufficient for deciding about Christian theology by reading translated documents.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

I　can agree in part with what brother's saying, actually. A lot of these popular Biblical scholars have really solid research but jump to (best-selling) conclusions like, "well I guess that means Christianity is stupid and has no meaning in today's world." I know that's not ALL of them or even MOST of them, but it does get annoying. I would like to see some conclusions drawn which are a bit more profound at any rate.

[Adami]

Complaining about what a few non christians are saying about christianity is about as stupid as complaining about what a few christians say about the rest of the world.

Unless you want the non christians to come in and flood this thread with Westboro Baptist Church quotes.

[rumborak]

I can't say I've seen much of that from reputable scholars. As an example, Ehrman in his book is very strictly not drawing such conclusions, he leaves that up to the reader.

rumborak

[rumborak]

Also, it would be very blue-eyed to say that Christianity *doesn't* have the problem of having to show its relevance. In a lot of instances of public moral discussions, the Christian voice has often been one that was heavily removed from reality, trying to shoehorn a moral code that was appropriate for Hebrew farmers into the 21st century.
Take the question of how we fit into the grander scheme of the vast universe and its mind-boggling age, and the fact that Evolution shows our species descended from apes. People want to know what to make of that. The answer "the Earth is 6000 years old and there was Adam and Eve" plain begs the question, how is this still relevant?

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

I can't say I've seen much of that from reputable scholars. As an example, Ehrman in his book is very strictly not drawing such conclusions, he leaves that up to the reader.

rumborak

Ehrman's a good one from what I've read.

Also, it would be very blue-eyed to say that Christianity *doesn't* have the problem of having to show its relevance. In a lot of instances of public moral discussions, the Christian voice has often been one that was heavily removed from reality, trying to shoehorn a moral code that was appropriate for Hebrew farmers into the 21st century.
Take the question of how we fit into the grander scheme of the vast universe and its mind-boggling age, and the fact that Evolution shows our species descended from apes. People want to know what to make of that. The answer "the Earth is 6000 years old and there was Adam and Eve" plain begs the question, how is this still relevant?

rumborak

It has that problem because people are still making those claims. I welcome the day when that stops. I just wish people would realize that there's meaning in Christianity (and being part of any religion) beyond all of that.

[William Wallace]

Continuing with Bosk's description of "hip" biblical scholarship, I'd like to point out that many other experts have taken issue with Ehrman's panic button analysis of the gospels, which has probably become so popular among skeptics because they like his conclusion, and have read little else on the subject. The impact of oral tradition on the reliability of Gospels has been oversold by folks who don't want them to be reliable. The same is true of modifications that were made to the stories as they were passed down.

I personally don't think so, partly because it's Christianity we're talking about, meaning Ehrman and the like are surrounded by Christians who look very discerningly at their conclusions. In fact, when reading Ehrman's book I thought it was quite remarkable that he complelely stayed away from bashing the gospels. He pointed out the issues there were with the gospels, but whether or not this meant they can be trusted (religiously) he left up to the reader.

It's not that he is bashing the text, it's more that his analysis, at least in Misquoting Jesus, is really hyperbolic - "we don't have the originals! ect, ect" - and people who want the Bible to be flawed run with his interpretation because he's an expert. And he points out issues that have been long discussed by historians. If you're not familiar with the arguments they seem eye opening, but a little reading of relevant sources easily softens Ehrman's attacks.

I was an altar boy for many years and listened to a lot of sermons in that time. At least from my experience, the community was intentionally kept completely ignorant of any issues regarding the gospels. Everything was sold as 100% accurate, 100% by the authors who they claimed to be. I think it's only now where people are rationally looking at the gospels, armed with modern tools of text analysis and archeology, that we get a more accurate picture of authorships and influences on the accounts of the ministry.

rumborak

I agree, mostly. It's not that the congregation is intentionally kept in the dark; it's more that the pastors aren't informed enough themselves about the history of the gospels.

[Progmetty]

I'm pretty sure muslims believe it was written by man, but directly told to by a prophet.

If you mean they believe a man wrote it down on paper then you're correct but if you mean written as in "a-man-made-it-up" then no, they don't believe that, they believe it was told to the Prophet -who couldn't read or write- by an angel named Gabriel and the Prophet told it to the people.
The main activity of the Arabs at the time -and still now in a lot of places around the Gulf- was poetry contests, second only to horse races, so they were high on memorizing and reciting insanely long stanzas of poetry and pronouncing it correctly by the guide of signs above the words that tells stuff about how the words should sound. (I exhausted my vocabulary and can't really tell you what the signs are for heh)
So those who entered the faith memorized it -in parts, the Quran was delivered over the course of many year but I don't recall how many- and a few years after the prophet's passing; the Khalifa ordered it to be written on paper for future generations, it had 184 men confirming it's accuracy at the time before making it available to people.
Khalifa is the direct translation of successor, Western people refuse to translate it into English for some reason, just like they don't translate Allah into God which is also the direct translation.
The "message" was finished just before the Prophet died and he told the people that he "Delivered the message", Muslims call the Prophet "The Messenger" in Arabic "Al-Rasul".

[ack44]

Khalifa is the direct translation of successor, Western people refuse to translate it into English for some reason, just like they don't translate Allah into God which is also the direct translation.

This is pretty weird, since I've never seen a version of the OT that that translates YHWH anything other than The LORD (or does the King James use Jehovah?). Then again, English speaking Muslims seem to prefer "Allah" to "God"... or is that just an indicating that they are more fundamentalist leaning?

[hefdaddy42]

Another point: Are you really surprised they come to this conclusion? I mean, when you compare the world described in the Bible with today's world, are you really surprised that when digging into it, you find that it's based on a lot of hearsay and second-hand accounts?

rumborak

No, I'm not surpised they came to that conclusion.  I'm just flustered at the tone they take when they demonstrate their findings...as if you are some kinda moron if you don't buy what they say.

What scholars are you talking about?

It's just the attitude of the whole thing.  There is no humble approach about it.  It's very...smug and elitist. 

Like, we scholars have the proper education and training, but you don't, so you'd better listen to us, pedestrian.

Maybe you are right in that they are simply madly in love with history and are having the time of their lives picking the Bible apart, but I get a strong sense of bitterness, cynicism, and even arrogance.

Uhhhhhh, it's typically a good idea to listen to experts in the field.

Sure it is.  But they are human as much as I am...if they understand something, then I can understand it too, so they'd better show me the evidence before their conclusions.  Oh wait, silly me.  You have to be a member of their society of scholars to handle the primary sources!  Uhhhhhh, I guess I may as well trust what they have to say, then.

The primary sources are the original texts of the NT in Greek.  These are published, anyone can purchase them.  You just need to learn Greek.  Other than that, scholarly texts explain their reasoning, and you can read their reasoning - that is why they are scholarly texts, their research is right there.  You don't have to "trust what they have to say" - you can read their research and decide for yourself.

I'm really not sure what you're going on about.  These scholars you are railing against - which ones are they, and have you actually ready their stuff?

[Perpetual Change]

Khalifa is the direct translation of successor, Western people refuse to translate it into English for some reason, just like they don't translate Allah into God which is also the direct translation.

This is pretty weird, since I've never seen a version of the OT that that translates YHWH anything other than The LORD (or does the King James use Jehovah?). Then again, English speaking Muslims seem to prefer "Allah" to "God"... or is that just an indicating that they are more fundamentalist leaning?

That is strange, given this.

You know, if you replaced "Allah" with "God" and Anglecized the Koran's names, it might sound a heck of a lot less "foreign and scary" to most people. I wonder...

[GuineaPig]

Khalifa is the direct translation of successor, Western people refuse to translate it into English for some reason, just like they don't translate Allah into God which is also the direct translation.

This is pretty weird, since I've never seen a version of the OT that that translates YHWH anything other than The LORD (or does the King James use Jehovah?). Then again, English speaking Muslims seem to prefer "Allah" to "God"... or is that just an indicating that they are more fundamentalist leaning?

That is strange, given this.

You know, if you replaced "Allah" with "God" and Anglecized the Koran's names, it might sound a heck of a lot less "foreign and scary" to most people. I wonder...

The Koran for Dummies?

[Progmetty]

Khalifa is the direct translation of successor, Western people refuse to translate it into English for some reason, just like they don't translate Allah into God which is also the direct translation.

This is pretty weird, since I've never seen a version of the OT that that translates YHWH anything other than The LORD (or does the King James use Jehovah?). Then again, English speaking Muslims seem to prefer "Allah" to "God"... or is that just an indicating that they are more fundamentalist leaning?

English speaking Muslims tend to follow in the steps of Western media rules, usually so they wouldn't swim against the tides and confuse people with what they're saying, for example pronouncing al-Qaeda the way Western people do even though the real pronunciation is so different from it, like how Germans and Austrians say Munich is very different from how English speakers say it.

[rumborak]

It's not that he is bashing the text, it's more that his analysis, at least in Misquoting Jesus, is really hyperbolic - "we don't have the originals! ect, ect" - and people who want the Bible to be flawed run with his interpretation because he's an expert. And he points out issues that have been long discussed by historians. If you're not familiar with the arguments they seem eye opening, but a little reading of relevant sources easily softens Ehrman's attacks.

I personally did not have that impression really when reading the book. What Ehrman's book does, IMHO, is to separate the wheat from the chaff. It illustrates that a lot of the extraordinary claims in the Bible were later additions. That is, that there is a very sharp distinction between the account of Jesus' actual ministry, and what later scribes and writers made of it, and that readers these days (because they were steered by their churches to do so) conflate the two into an amalgam that hides said distinction.
I mean, take the fact that Paul never met Jesus. How many people do you think know that?

rumborak

[j]

Well then I can only 'defend' this by pointing to the the people who practice Christianity and feel their life is better for it regardless of the presence of absolute proof.

This is not a defense.  Lots of people's lives are made better through other religions and practices too.  Lots of Christians live miserable lives.

You may be right that people who ask for proof before believing in something simply don't understand the "point" of belief.  I'm not sure what that point is supposed to be, though.

It has that problem because people are still making those claims. I welcome the day when that stops. I just wish people would realize that there's meaning in Christianity (and being part of any religion) beyond all of that.

I agree with you that there is "meaning" in the Bible, and some good truths about humanity to be found, directly or indirectly.  But taking that position leaves you in a camp between Christians--who say that it isn't enough to think that, you have to buy into the whole package as they've interpreted it--and those who think Christianity is 100% a load of garbage.  I don't think any non-Christian here would have any problem with looking at the Bible and taking the good stuff to heart, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian who would approve of such picking and choosing (even though they do it themselves).

-J

[ReaPsTA]

Seemingly obvious question - What books have been written arguing against claims made by those such as Ehrman which are actually good?

[Adami]

I'm pretty sure muslims believe it was written by man, but directly told to by a prophet.

If you mean they believe a man wrote it down on paper then you're correct but if you mean written as in "a-man-made-it-up" then no, they don't believe that, they believe it was told to the Prophet -who couldn't read or write- by an angel named Gabriel and the Prophet told it to the people.
The main activity of the Arabs at the time -and still now in a lot of places around the Gulf- was poetry contests, second only to horse races, so they were high on memorizing and reciting insanely long stanzas of poetry and pronouncing it correctly by the guide of signs above the words that tells stuff about how the words should sound. (I exhausted my vocabulary and can't really tell you what the signs are for heh)
So those who entered the faith memorized it -in parts, the Quran was delivered over the course of many year but I don't recall how many- and a few years after the prophet's passing; the Khalifa ordered it to be written on paper for future generations, it had 184 men confirming it's accuracy at the time before making it available to people.
Khalifa is the direct translation of successor, Western people refuse to translate it into English for some reason, just like they don't translate Allah into God which is also the direct translation.
The "message" was finished just before the Prophet died and he told the people that he "Delivered the message", Muslims call the Prophet "The Messenger" in Arabic "Al-Rasul".

I meant the first point. I mean I personally believe man made it up too, but I know muslims don't.


And not to split hairs, but technically Allah translates into The God. 

[contest_sanity]

Seemingly obvious question - What books have been written arguing against claims made by those such as Ehrman which are actually good?

For my money, the best academic book on the question of the historical Jesus from a more orthodox perspective is N.T. Wright's Jesus And The Victory Of God.  For something at a more popular level, his The Challenge Of Jesus is great.  Also, if you want to read the 2 sides debate in a single text, check out N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg's The Meaning Of Jesus: Two Visions.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Victory-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626826/ref=pd_sim_b_5

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Jesus-DVD-N-Wright/dp/0830838325/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295290683&sr=1-12

https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Jesus-Two-Visions-Plus/dp/0061285544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295290558&sr=8-1

[contest_sanity]

I mean, take the fact that Paul never met Jesus. How many people do you think know that?

rumborak

I don't know any Christians who believe Paul and Jesus hung out like friends or did ministry together, if that's what you mean.  However, Paul himself claims to have met the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:

"he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (v. 4-8)

That's not a gospel tradition or a later edition from a subsequent scribe.  Therefore, even if you discount Paul's conversion story in Acts, there is still direct proof that he at least thought himself to have met the risen Jesus.  I haven't read Ehrman's book, but I am not quite sure what his basis is for saying that Paul never met Jesus.

[rumborak]

What I'm saying is, look at this list of caveats. Paul never met Jesus in real life, instead he claims he had a vision of the resurrected Jesus. Now, visions don't usually last more than a few minutes, meaning Paul in the end still based all his theology (and he is hands-down the designer of modern Christianity) on hearsay and other people's documents. And if you compare the more mundane account of Jesus' ministry (e.g. synoptic gospels), it shows how Paul took large liberties with the interpretation of what Jesus Christ was.
All I'm saying is, these are rather important caveats that are worth pointing out. The bedrock of Christianity is based on someone who claims to have seen Jesus in a vision. Claims to have seen. Consider how many people say they have visions in modern days. Quite a few, but they get dismissed. Why is Paul special in this regard? Just because nobody was around, we have to assume it was all correct?
That's the stuff scriptural criticism points out. What your conclusion is from it is another matter.

rumborak

[contest_sanity]

Well, I don't think Paul would agree that he only saw Jesus in a vision.  Rather, he equates himself with all of those eyewitnesses who saw Jesus in his risen flesh after Easter.  He also calls himself an apostle, the least of all the apostles, actually, but still an apostle because he did meet Jesus in the flesh, however briefly.

[rumborak]

I know, but don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to equate yourself to an apostle if all you had was a vision? That's like saying you were part of the New England Patriots because you bought a ticket for a game.
Either way, as a non-believer I can't shake the "me too!!" feeling when reading Paul's account of his conversion. He knows about Jesus' life extensively, he knows that supposedly some people saw him after resurrection, and Lo and behold, he does too.

rumborak

[Adami]

Also CS, I'm just curious if I understood you correctly. Did you imply that Paul met jesus in real life simply because he uses the word Apostle?

[contest_sanity]

But I don't believe Paul himself thought he only had a vision.  He thought he really met Jesus.  We may disagree, for whatever reason, but his deliberate point is that he saw Jesus too.  He doesn't make any distinction between how Jesus appeared to the others previously and how Jesus appeared to him.

@ Adami -- you'll have to forgive me if I'm getting it wrong (it's been a few years since my temporary stay in seminary, and now I don't read biblical scholarship nearly as much), but I believe Paul is using "apostle" in a more specialized, almost technical sense to indicate people who actually had met the risen Jesus.  And he includes himself in this category.

[rumborak]

But I don't believe Paul himself thought he only had a vision.  He thought he really met Jesus.  We may disagree, for whatever reason, but his deliberate point is that he saw Jesus too.  He doesn't make any distinction between how Jesus appeared to the others previously and how Jesus appeared to him.

It's just something that is in stark difference to Jesus' recorded practice of appointing Apostles. Jesus specifically chose 12 people from his disciples, not more, not less. Paul essentially single-handedly invented the idea of "new appointees" and declared himself to be the first.

rumborak

[Voyage 34]

But I don't believe Paul himself thought he only had a vision.  He thought he really met Jesus.  We may disagree, for whatever reason, but his deliberate point is that he saw Jesus too.  He doesn't make any distinction between how Jesus appeared to the others previously and how Jesus appeared to him.

It's just something that is in stark difference to Jesus' recorded practice of appointing Apostles. Jesus specifically chose 12 people from his disciples, not more, not less. Paul essentially single-handedly invented the idea of "new appointees" and declared himself to be the first.

rumborak

The idea is that since Judas was an asshat Paul replaced him as one of the 12, and his vision was his selection by Jesus. You are completely right though, he never met Jesus in the flesh, only in a vision, and then he basically went about creating the religion.