Why should we believe the gospels?

[contest_sanity]

I think in his own view, Paul considered himself to be specially set apart as the apostle to the Gentiles.  Of course, this doesn't make him one of the original twelve, but he still saw himself in the special category of people who had met the risen Jesus.  He doesn't invent the idea of "new appointees" so much as emphasize that he is the last person to be included in the group of people who met the risen Jesus.

Anyway, I'm not sure how much of this debate about Paul relates to whether or not the gospels are trustworthy.  Sorry to take us off on a tangent.

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.

But the disciples replaced Judas with Matthias, not Paul (Acts 1:15-26).

[Voyage 34]

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.

But the disciples replaced Judas with Matthias, not Paul (Acts 1:15-26).

Oh sorry, my fault. I guess Paul really does have less of a claim than I thought.

[contest_sanity]

Well he also killed Christians before his "conversion" -- not the best thing to put on a resume when applying for an apostle position.

[rumborak]

Anyway, I'm not sure how much of this debate about Paul relates to whether or not the gospels are trustworthy.  Sorry to take us off on a tangent.

Well, Paul is a huge part of the NT. And his interpretation of Jesus is vastly different from what's in the gospels.
Which, at least to me, indicates that there's really two parts to the NT: Jesus, and Paul. And that you have to consider them essentially separate, one being based on the actual Jesus, the other on Paul's ideas. And when you consider only the synoptic gospels, a very different picture of Jesus emerges.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

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

You're correct to point out that the New Testament has been edited through the centuries. But I think you're overestimating the significance of the variations that have been introduced, as Ehrman does as well. That was one of the biggest issues other scholars pointed out about the book. There simply aren't any startling revelations that have been hidden from the public. What has happened, and I speak as a pastor's son who grew up in the church, is that very little emphasis has been placed on the history of Christianity by most church denominations. That means there are church leaders who know very little about the transmission of the New Testament and, as a result, Christians who know even less.

[Ħ]

That means there are church leaders who know very little about the transmission of the New Testament and, as a result, Christians who know even less.

Well...I wouldn't say that.  A different study of NT history from a perspective I am sure you disagree with (involving inspiration, the Holy Spirit, and prophecy), but history nonetheless.

[William Wallace]

That means there are church leaders who know very little about the transmission of the New Testament and, as a result, Christians who know even less.

Well...I wouldn't say that.  A different study of NT history from a perspective I am sure you disagree with (involving inspiration, the Holy Spirit, and prophecy), but history nonetheless.

I don't understand what you mean.

[Adami]

That means there are church leaders who know very little about the transmission of the New Testament and, as a result, Christians who know even less.

Well...I wouldn't say that.  A different study of NT history from a perspective I am sure you disagree with (involving inspiration, the Holy Spirit, and prophecy), but history nonetheless.

I don't understand what you mean.

I think he's saying that actual history is no more relevant than the history of everything in the bible being perfect because of divine inspiration and whta not.

[Ħ]

Er, yeah.  I mean, these people aren't in the dark when it comes to opposing theories...

It's looking at what is, looking at the evidence, and interpreting it in a different light.

[Adami]

Er, yeah.  I mean, these people aren't in the dark when it comes to opposing theories...

It's looking at what is, looking at the evidence, and interpreting it in a different light.

Isn't it more trying to link A and C by inventing point B?

Like, well they did thise (point A) and it's clearly the 100% infallible truth (point C) therefore it is divine revelation (point B).

[Ħ]

Hm...well, there's no "proving" divine revelation/inspiration from a historical sense.

But, follow this train of thought:

Point A: Demonstrate the resurrection to be true (historically).  I feel like we've discussed this quite a bit, but if you can prove this single event, everything falls into place.

Point B: Give Jesus credibility.  I mean, if he is a guy that rose from the dead, you ought to lend your ear.

Point C: Accept Jesus's stamp of approval on the Old Testament.

Point D: Accept Jesus's prophecy that the Holy Spirit will come again to bring more revelation (which is the New Testament).

Then you can go back and interpret history in the new light of Point C and D.

Of course, everything hinges on Point A...if false, everything crumbles, but if true, everything stands strong.

[contest_sanity]

Hm...well, there's no "proving" divine revelation/inspiration from a historical sense.

But, follow this train of thought:

Point A: Demonstrate the resurrection to be true (historically).  I feel like we've discussed this quite a bit, but if you can prove this single event, everything falls into place.

Sweet -- the best orthodox scholar that I know, N.T. Wright, only took a nearly 800 page academic treatise to try and do that.  No doubt we'll solve the question right here in P/R.

[GuineaPig]

I don't think you can prove the resurrection to be true.  Not that that really matters.

I remember a year ago there was a debate here between a Christian and Muslim over the resurrection.  I just laughed at the premise, because I knew it was going to devolve into a pointless argument.

[yeshaberto]

you can easily prove the resurrection to be false:  find the body.
so far, though, no one has.

[Adami]

you can easily prove the resurrection to be false:  find the body.
so far, though, no one has.

Really? If I tell you right now that in the state of Rhode Island, John Stenson rose from the dead, would you really care enough to grave digging for him? No. And especially many many years later, once christianity actually became something worth worrying about, I doubt it's easy to find a random body.

Also by that logic, no could prove that Buddha didn't ascend either. No one dug up his body. And if Buddha ascended, then Jesus was pretty pointless.

[GuineaPig]

I'm not sure if he was serious.  Because that would mean that everyone people has claimed to have risen from the dead would be included in that argument.

[Adami]

I'm not sure if he was serious.  Because that would mean that everyone people has claimed to have risen from the dead would be included in that argument.

I don't know, I've heard that argument a LOT.

[Ħ]

you can easily prove the resurrection to be false:  find the body.
so far, though, no one has.

I think you meant to say "true".

The thing is, at the time, many people were attempting to crush Christianity.  Those persucutors were the guys in power.  It would have been hecka easy to just take out the body, parade it around, and crush the Christian movement in one swift stroke.

One other problem: you are saying that if, by the same logic and historical methods, you can prove the resurrection of someone else, then that in turn disproves Jesus's resurrection.  That argument is totally flawed.  All you did was historically prove both resurrections.

[Adami]

you can easily prove the resurrection to be false:  find the body.
so far, though, no one has.

I think you meant to say "true".

No he meant false. If someone back then found the body, then the ressurection would be proven false, not true.

[TheVoxyn]

If something disappears that has been alone for two days, it must have been a miracle.

Also, the body argument is a bit silly. Did Jezus have a special body that would allow us to recognize it from the millions of other bodies? Would be cool if he had a tail or something.

[Ħ]

If something disappears that has been alone for two days, it must have been a miracle.

Also, the body argument is a bit silly. Did Jezus have a special body that would allow us to recognize it from the millions of other bodies? Would be cool if he had a tail or something.

Bodies are still recognizable months after they die.  Not to mention all the preservatives and chemicals and junk that would have extended that time even further.

[TheVoxyn]

If something disappears that has been alone for two days, it must have been a miracle.

Also, the body argument is a bit silly. Did Jezus have a special body that would allow us to recognize it from the millions of other bodies? Would be cool if he had a tail or something.

Bodies are still recognizable months after they die.  Not to mention all the preservatives and chemicals and junk that would have extended that time even further.

In that time, it shouldn't be that hard to hide a body. Also, it seems a bit too convenient to take the reasoning that if cannot be proven otherwise, it must have happened.

[Ħ]

If something disappears that has been alone for two days, it must have been a miracle.

Also, the body argument is a bit silly. Did Jezus have a special body that would allow us to recognize it from the millions of other bodies? Would be cool if he had a tail or something.

Bodies are still recognizable months after they die.  Not to mention all the preservatives and chemicals and junk that would have extended that time even further.

In that time, it shouldn't be that hard to hide a body. Also, it seems a bit too convenient to take the reasoning that if cannot be proven otherwise, it must have happened.

1) The body was guarded by non-Christians.  Could be wrong but I think the issue of someone stealing the body is actually addressed somewhere in Acts...

2) The Christian movement was pretty much scattered and ended after Jesus's death.  Even the disciples left each other.

[yeshaberto]

pretty much what adami said...the early first century people would have jumped at the opportunity to shut up the disciples of Jesus by showing off his dead body.  they never did because they never could. 
some might argue that the disciples hid his body really well.  the problem with that, though, is that 11 of the 12 disciples were brutally martyred for their faith.  people are martyred all the time for what they believe is true (even though it is a lie), but rarely will someone die for a lie that they know is a lie

[Adami]

I said a bunch of other stuff too dude lol.

I don't think jesus was as important as you seem to think he was back then. By the time anyone (beyond his few followers) would have cared at all about him, it probably wasn't the easiest thing in the world to find his body.

[GuineaPig]

pretty much what adami said...the early first century people would have jumped at the opportunity to shut up the disciples of Jesus by showing off his dead body.  they never did because they never could. 
some might argue that the disciples hid his body really well.  the problem with that, though, is that 11 of the 12 disciples were brutally martyred for their faith.  people are martyred all the time for what they believe is true (even though it is a lie), but rarely will someone die for a lie that they know is a lie

I don't think you understand the point (or result) of crucifixion. 

[yeshaberto]

pretty much what adami said...the early first century people would have jumped at the opportunity to shut up the disciples of Jesus by showing off his dead body.  they never did because they never could. 
some might argue that the disciples hid his body really well.  the problem with that, though, is that 11 of the 12 disciples were brutally martyred for their faith.  people are martyred all the time for what they believe is true (even though it is a lie), but rarely will someone die for a lie that they know is a lie

I don't think you understand the point (or result) of crucifixion. 

not sure what you mean

[William Wallace]

Er, yeah.  I mean, these people aren't in the dark when it comes to opposing theories...

It's looking at what is, looking at the evidence, and interpreting it in a different light.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[Ħ]

Er, yeah.  I mean, these people aren't in the dark when it comes to opposing theories...

It's looking at what is, looking at the evidence, and interpreting it in a different light.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

One group interprets history from the nonbelieving POV.  The other interprets history from a believing POV.

[William Wallace]

Er, yeah.  I mean, these people aren't in the dark when it comes to opposing theories...

It's looking at what is, looking at the evidence, and interpreting it in a different light.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

One group interprets history from the nonbelieving POV.  The other interprets history from a believing POV.

Oh, got it. We are talking about two different things.

[Ħ]

Are we? I was responding to your claim that church leaders know little about the transmission of the text.  I was saying that they do, but they view the transmission of the text a different way than a skeptic does.

[William Wallace]

Are we? I was responding to your claim that church leaders know little about the transmission of the text.  I was saying that they do, but they view the transmission of the text a different way than a skeptic does.

I'm not a skeptic, at least not in the way the word is popularly used. On the contrary, I think the New Testament is quite reliable. But most churches don't put enough emphasis on history to prepare Christians to answer objections to their faith, and that's likely because pastors don't know enough about the subject to broach it. Rumborak suggested that their was some kind of concerted effort to prevent people from learning that the Bible has been modified. I think it's more ignorance than conspiracy.

[hefdaddy42]

pretty much what adami said...the early first century people would have jumped at the opportunity to shut up the disciples of Jesus by showing off his dead body.  they never did because they never could. 
some might argue that the disciples hid his body really well.  the problem with that, though, is that 11 of the 12 disciples were brutally martyred for their faith.  people are martyred all the time for what they believe is true (even though it is a lie), but rarely will someone die for a lie that they know is a lie

I don't think you understand the point (or result) of crucifixion. 

He means that people who were crucified were almost never taken down off of their crosses.  Their bodies were left on the crosses to be consumed as carrion.  They weren't allowed to be buried.

BrotherH, I think WW is right in that many pastord DO NOT KNOW the history of the transmission of the text of the NT (or the OT, for that matter).  It has nothing to do with "different perspectives."

not sure what you mean

[Ħ]

Many pastors I've spoken to know the theories on alterations to the text.  They know the argument.  What I think is upsetting you and WW is that those pastors don't buy into the theories.

[rumborak]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.
Whether or how much that affects Christology is a very different matter, but again, none of the respectable scholars go down that route anyway. They work on the historical Jesus, and what one wants to paste on on top of that historical Jesus is one's own business.

Rumborak suggested that their was some kind of concerted effort to prevent people from learning that the Bible has been modified. I think it's more ignorance than conspiracy.

I don't think it's "concerted" as in a conspiracy. It's plain pragmatism really. The priest has nothing to gain from raising these issues during mass. It would sow discord, people would get uncertain about what to believe in etc.... People want it to be 100% true, they want their church to be an island of certainty, and the priests give them that. Even if it involves "bending" the truth by omitting issues like alterations, Paul's questionable claim as an apostle etc.
That's why I would love to peek into the mind of someone like the Pope, or any other high-ranking cleric. You can't tell me there isn't some kind of struggle going on inside their head.

rumborak