I wrote a response to Randy's statements, but I won't frighten the rest of you with it here, or it's length. I'm posting it in the comments of this entry, if you'd like to read it.
First of all, sorry it’s taken me these few days. Apart from work and all that, I wanted to take a few days to really look at what you wrote and write something coherent myself.
Let me first lay to rest your worries that this discussion might be fruitless from the get go and that all I want to do is poke holes in the reasons given. I have to admit, I’m a little but put off by your accusations that I just want to fight something I don’t understand, and that I’m not, in fact, seeking to get closer to the truth. As I said, I think that conversation is the best way to settle differences, and it is also the way we often learn – that and experience of course. I had the experience for 21 years and found it ultimately unconvincing. I don’t feel any real remorse for this, nor do I, I think, feel not at peace with it. I don’t feel I have much of a choice in what reasons I’m convinced by and what I’m not. But I was convinced by conversation to change my beliefs before, and I’m open to it again. Maybe (obviously, you might say) I was missing something before.
But I argue, also, because I think I am right, and I want to win others over to my side, of course. I won’t shirk away from that – I think you or anyone I’ve been talking to would be dishonest to deny that for yourself as well. I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.
But, to the task at hand – poking holes in your reasons. I think I do less poking than just pointing out the holes. And really they’re just holes many many people before me have pointed out, because Christianity was born with plenty of them – the swiss cheese of a social phenomenon if you will. Let me, if I may, condense your reasons – because you have given some, and I appreciate that. You said the real issue is:
-Does God exist and can we know him? -In order to know him, “It would demand He somehow communicate with us in a way that we could comprehend and understand.” -This is not a way of our choosing, because if we could fully understand him by a way of our choosing, he’d cease to be God. -Morality, as well as order in our universe, makes us think that there may be something out there. -Jesus showed us that he is that something. -He did so by miracles and fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible. -The Bible is true.
I hope that’s a fair representation. I’ll work from the bottom up. -The Bible is true. You said, “Now I know that you can suggest that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of writings that were written long after the events and changed and edited to further an idea and depict a fictitious figure around which Christianity grew. Prove it!” I recently read a book by a man that was a fundamentalist when he started looking at this issue that you’re looking at. Barton Ehrman. The book that I read, though he’s written dozens, is called Misquoting Jesus. He is a major biblical scholar, in other words, an expert on the very question you’re posing. I recommend that you just read the book, but I’ll just give you an idea of its content (he does not, however, suggest that Jesus didn’t exist, nor do I. That’s a very fringe argument). From page 10 of the introduction:
“It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’t have the originals – so saying they were inspired doesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals… Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have the copies of the copies of the originals, or the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later – much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” In the concluding chapter he says, “A number of scholars…have even given up thinking that it makes sense to talk about the “original” text.”
So, we don’t have the originals and the copies are riddled with changes and edits, many of the sort you’re suggesting. It seems strange that an all knowing, all powerful God would hinge people’s eternal fate on their acceptance of the words of a book, then not bother to give us a clear indication of what those words are. Bart talks about the kinds of changes, work already done on the subject. He talks about how changes came about, one way is the intentional changes you alluded to, when text was purposefully changed, often to clear up what the scribe thought was ambiguous, or even to change it to how he thought it SHOULD be! Luke 5:38-39 Many scribes took out the last part where Jesus says, “The old is better.” So that it couldn’t be used by heretics to suggest that Jesus’s salvation isn’t superior to the old Jewish establishment. Mark 1:41 Instead of “moved with compassion,” most modern scholars think that the manuscripts for this verse that reads, “moved with anger” is actually the correct reading. They changed this to promote the idea of a loving Jesus, instead of the confusion that would come from Jesus being moved with anger. In Hebrews 2:9 The original says that Christ died, “apart from God.” But in order to preemptively deny Gnostics a tempting justification of their beliefs, the text was changed to say that Christ died, “by the grace of God.” Scribes changed Mark 15:34 to say “My God, my God, why have you mocked me?” for the same reason. I’m sure you know that every good source indicates that the story of Jesus with the woman taken in adultery is complete fabrication, added hundreds of years earlier.
Again, I would recommend reading the book. There are many more changes, some much more significant but too cumbersome to spell out here. And of course these are the changes we know about because of obvious contradictions in large numbers of manuscripts. But I that there is at least enough here to cast doubt on the idea that the scripture you read and base your idea of Christ on, is what was originally written. And what about that Original text? Obviously original text isn’t all you’re looking for. The writings of Scientology and Mormonism are, of course, much more reliable as to their closeness to the originals than the Bible we have today. The question then becomes, even if we had the original text, is it persuasive? Is it good enough to think that this was a book not written by humans, but BY GOD. I’ve pointed out contradictions already – pi, cloven hoofs – maybe you’re not convinced by these. I’d like to talk about this prophecy you’re so convinced by. More specifically – failed prophecy: 2 Chronicles 1:12. God says to Solomon, “And I will also give you wealth, riches and honor, such as no king who was before you ever had and none after you will have.” Joel 3:17 “Then you will know that I, the LORD your God, dwell in Zion, my holy hill. Jerusalem will be holy; never again will foreigners invade her.” Isaiah 17:1 “An oracle concerning Damascus: "See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.” Damascus has been a city for 3500 years. 1 Samuel 9:15-16 “Now the day before Saul came, the LORD had revealed this to Samuel: 16 "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin. Anoint him leader over my people Israel; he will deliver my people from the hand of the Philistines. I have looked upon my people, for their cry has reached me. And a little later 1 Samuel 31:4-7 “4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. 5 When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. 6 So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day. 7 When the Israelites along the valley and those across the Jordan saw that the Israelite army had fled and that Saul and his sons had died, they abandoned their towns and fled. And the Philistines came and occupied them.”
Let’s talk about Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy. I’m going to have to ask you to step outside what you know the Bible says was prophecy and ask yourself, is this really what the Old Testament writer intended? Was this supposed to be prophecy at all?
Hosea 11:1-2 “1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 But the more I [a] called Israel, the further they went from me. [b] They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” Was “fulfilled” in. Matt 2:15 “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."”
Ps 69:21 “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.” Was “fulfilled” in John 19:28 “Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty.”
And again, Ps 69:9 “for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” Was “fulfilled” in John 2:13-17 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" 17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
Again, I have to ask, should other people be convinced by these things? Should you? THIS is what you’re saying your absolute assurance that the Bible is the word of god is based on. I’m sure there are elaborate explanations with all sorts of hoops and leaps and lovely pirouettes, but I really think the wiser ground is the one Bart Ehrman describes early in his book. During his school he wrote a long and complicated paper justifying when, in Mark 2, Jesus refers to David and bread “when Abiathar was the high priest.” When it turns out that he wasn’t the high priest during the instance he’s referring to in 1 Sam 21:1-6. He delved into the meaning of the Greek words and what not, but his professor wrote at the end of the paper. “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” Maybe he did. Maybe this book is more human than it attests to be.
In regards to miracles, let me quote Sam Harris in the debate I was referring to earlier (did you read it?)(Andrew is not, by the way, a homosexual priest, just a homosexual catholic. Comparing him to Hitler is also pretty far off as he’s an advocate of his cause and not an oppressor of it).
“In any case, the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus' life is not as compelling as you seem to suggest. As you know, there is no contemporaneous description of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible or anywhere else. And even if the historical record offered multiple, first-hand accounts of his miracles, this would not constitute sufficient support for the basic claims of Christianity. First-hand reports of miracles are a dime a dozen, even in the 21st century. Many spiritual seekers in India testify to miracles performed by their gurus on a daily basis. These miracles are every bit as outlandish as the miracles attributed to Jesus. I have met literally hundreds of western educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite yogi has magic powers. I remain open to evidence of such powers (and my openness has exposed me to a fair amount of abuse in the atheist community). But as far as I can tell, all of these stories are promulgated by people who desperately want to believe them; all (to my knowledge) lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature's laws have been abrogated in this way; and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations. In any case, stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are being told now. Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his "miracles" on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible.”
I think that with this, I’ve fairly well demonstrated that – 1: We cannot say with any confidence that what we have today are the original words of the Bible. 2: Even if they are the original words, the original words, in prophecy in particular, are faulty and ambiguous enough to question their divine and infallible origin. 3: Likewise, if they are accurate, we have no reason to take their claims for miraculous any more seriously than Joseph Smith’s, Muhammad’s, or Sathya Sai Baba’s.
So if these things are not reasonably reliable, we have no reason to think that Jesus is God.
I’ll leave it here, leaving unaddressed the argument from design, the argument from morality, and the idea that if we could understand God it somehow makes him dependent on us (We understand Mars more fully than we understand the supernatural…if we cease to be, does it cease to be?) And I’ll leave you to your reaction. Obviously these issues are much bigger than I can write in this already long argument. I have read the doctrine and I have implored the maker and it seems to me intellectual dishonesty. It seems to me we’re saying we’re sure of things we can’t possibly be sure of – things it isn’t even nearly reasonable to be sure of. But giving ourselves the license to be not know, or, god forbid, be wrong, is the only way to grow. So I’ll finish with CS Lewis:
“The very man who has argued you down, will sometimes be found, years later, to have been influenced by what you said.”
You stated – “But I argue, also, because I think I am right, and I want to win others over to my side, of course. I won’t shirk away from that – I think you or anyone I’ve been talking to would be dishonest to deny that for yourself as well. I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.”
Thanks for clearing this up Kevin. This is the clearest statement you have ever made as to your motive and proves my point that you aren't as much on a search for truth, but rather convincing others that you are right, in the face of all other arguments to the contrary. You clearly have declared your animosity to Christ and Christianity, and have proven my suggestion that you aren’t really open at all to any of the arguments we have tried to proffer. And yes, I will admit that I am trying to provide some other ideas that might alter your thinking, and in I do so because I think you are heading down a very wrong and dangerous road and makes me very sad for you. I am more convinced than ever that anything I might propose from the vantage point of someone who believes in God and specifically the God of the Bible will be dismissed as bronze age myth and a detriment to society and see no reason to try and answer all your arguments.
I do have to point out that you have yet to answer my simple proposition that God exists or he doesn’t and if He does, it is his responsibility to reveal himself. Of course you wouldn’t know it if he did because you have dismissed the possibility. The problem is, that if one assumes He doesn’t exist, there isn’t much he can do to show them, because he will not override their free will and demand their belief and faith. They will see it all through the lens of unbelief and interpret it in a way that proves their point of view.
This is also why it is of no value to argue with you and those like you who are convinced that we are not just misguided, but in fact a danger to ‘society’. This is why Jesus promised us persecution. We will be seen as holding on to that which would rob society of becoming all it could be, and dangerous to the furtherance of ‘truth’. Of course you won’t see it as persecution, but rather the just ridding society of the ‘negative, antiquated ideas’ that hold back the progress of man, and if some people get hurt in the process it is simply the process of maturity of mankind. That is the justification that every ‘would be world ruler’ has used in pursuit of a ‘higher order’ and a better society for all who follow him. Quite frankly, it is the lie of the devil and you have just placed yourself squarely in his camp. That saddens me more than you can know Kevin.
I have seen what that world offers and I will stick with the world that could be if Jesus and His message were to ever be embraced by all humans. I know it won’t. He already told us that it wouldn’t. Even if I am wrong I will fight for that before I will trust the intellect of any other human being over the truth of Christ. No one who is honest will deny that in the name of Christ and Christianity a lot of terrible things have been done. They don’t represent what I see Jesus as being and I abhor them as much as you. They are not what I believe Jesus taught or wanted. In your intellectual superiority you might want to try and entertain the idea that we aren’t all to be lumped into the same camp, and don’t preach that message of moral superiority or ‘better than everyone else’ mentality. Some of us see that we are all beggars; none better or worse than another. Some of us have found a source of nourishment that satisfies and we are trying to tell everyone else where to get it.
We also believe that some of the ‘progressive ideas’ that are being promoted as enlightenment are very destructive to the individual and society. It isn’t that we are better than anyone else, but rather that we do believe that man has needs and there are right ways and wrong ways to get those needs satisfied. When we attempt to meet those needs in ways that God did not design for us, they lead to – well, pretty much what we see all around us. Christ offered another way – Himself.
But I am wasting my breath here aren’t I? This is more of that bronze age drivel that poisons the progress of man.
You may not ask God to reveal himself to you, but I want you to know that there are a lot of people who are praying to him on your behalf.
Randy, I'm sorry, but your first statement was incredibly dishonest and you apparently ignored the sentence immediately before you started quoting. Of course I think my position is right, and of course you think your position is right. That's what I was pointing out. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is that I think my position is right because I've been convinced by understandable reasons. What I was saying in entirety is that I am NEVERTHELESS not argueing for argument sake, but argueing because I think it helps us to get closer to the truth, and because I know that for myself I have been pursuaded in the past to change my mind. And forgive me, but can you even say the same for yourself? Do you believe because of reasons or do you believe IN SPITE of reasons? Have you ever said, "Nothing could make me turn away from God," and do you still believe it? That makes it impossible for me to say anything that you would listen to, but I have said nothing to suggest that everything you say would be off-handedly dismissed as bronze age myth. If your reasons are poor and/or not coherent I will point out why that is so, but I won't dismiss any of what you say before you start speaking. You've set me up as a straw man unwilling to listen to reason, which is not at all what I was saying. Can you say the same for yourself?
Sadly, your entire post is set up as responding to a Christianity persecutor that won't listen to your reasons anyway. I'm happy to respond to that, if you'd like, but it'll just be house cleaning - pointing out that I'm not the person you're talking to, and why these tyrannies don't reflect me, nor has what I've written suggested that they are. So it's up to you.
“Sadly, your entire post is set up as responding to a Christianity persecutor that won't listen to your reasons anyway…”
You are very right in that I am confused as to whom I am responding to. Are you the innocent sincere seeker of truth with an open mind, or the one who wrote these words?-
“I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.”?
How else am I to read those words? They are not from a neutral stance, or from someone who is simply asking for insight. They do reflect an adversarial tone, and that is what I am addressing. They more than suggest that you dismiss the Christian faith as bronze age myth, that needs to be refuted, they state it clearly.
Those are not words inviting discussion. They are not the words of someone questioning. They are a stand that you demand I, or someone refute with proof other than the reasons we have given. You would like me to believe you are searching for truth and this is just a discussion, but the statements you made aren’t questioning. The explanations of faith offered by me and your friends and family are dismissed as having been overridden by greater thinkers and scholars and science. The only answer I have is the same one I have already given – God isn’t found through intellect or science. He is found by those who know they are poor in spirit, by those who are hungry and thirsty, those who trust Him and in trusting see Him do his work.
You stated in your response; “What I was saying in entirety is that I am NEVERTHELESS not arguing for argument sake, but arguing because I think it helps us to get closer to the truth.” You may see yourself as open minded. But to simply paint this as ‘differences’ is not intellectually honest. This isn’t about exploring differences in the hope of coming to truth. This is not a difference in a strategy on how to proceed in accomplishing some task. This is not a difference of opinion about something. You are arguing a fundamental belief system on which you and I will build our lives, and you have shown your animosity to my side of the argument.
You paint yourself as someone who is simply examining all the various options and wants to see it all before he will believe any differently. But I am saying that is not true. You have come to a firm belief and you are wanting to expose and refute falsity and you are convinced by science and intellect that Christianity is one of, if not the primary falsity.
You said in your last response, “I have said nothing to suggest that everything you say would be off-handedly dismissed as bronze age myth.”
That is exactly what you said, and I quote again! “I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.”?
You ask if I am willing to give up my beliefs in the face of evidence that would prove it false, and by doing so prove I am open minded.
I didn’t ask for this discussion – you did. I wasn’t looking for something that would allow me to make sense of my faith. I am simply trying to respond to your query with what wisdom and insight I have as one who stands on faith in Christ. I am not questioning, and nothing that you and all the great thinkers on the planet point out has made me think otherwise. And yes, I have I heard many of their arguments. As yet I have not found any reason to reject my faith in the sovereign God and His Son. Call that narrow minded if you like, but I don’t trust man and his wisdom and intellect because I am one. I know of what we are made and how corrupt the heart is and I need something more to put my faith in and to change my heart. Christ has done that, and is doing that beyond my greatest hope. Man is self absorbed, self centered, self righteous, selfish and arrogant. His heart is corrupt and in need of one who can change it. Gen. 8: 21 “…the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Psalm 14:1 ‘the fool has said in his heart “there is no God’” My mind isn’t the problem – it’s the heart that needs repair.
I have yet to see why I should deny Christ and all He offers. No, I can’t answer all the questions. I can’t come up with the grand unifying theory of the universe in which God fits and all the pieces make sense and give it to you in a neat formula or perfect word document. I don’t understand how God’s sovereignty and my free will exist together. I don’t understand how God has chosen who will be saved and others not, and yet I am held accountable to my choices. There are a hundred other things that I don’t understand. I am not God! I refer to your statement, and I quote “The point is that I think my position is right because I've been convinced by understandable reasons.”, So because I don’t understand, I must deny the God behind my questions. I have already stated that if I could understand Him He couldn’t by definition be God and He would be of no use to me. God is not dependant on my understanding Him.
You are the one asking and I am responding to the best of my ability and if it isn’t enough, then I have no other answers. I don’t want to get bogged down in the minutia because there is always more minutia, and it simply evades the basic question that once again I pose.
There either is a god or there isn’t. If He exists it is His responsibility to reveal himself. He alone can tell me what my responsibility is to Him. He isn’t in the minutia of point and counterpoint. He isn’t in the ‘proofs’ that science, archeology, or higher criticism which you quote. He isn’t going to be discovered by the powers of my intellect or reasoning. He is the one who comes to those whose hearts are broken and cry out to Him.
Jer 33:3 ‘Call to Me, and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.’
All we can do is point to Him. You keep wanting me to explain God in some way that will convince you, and I have already stated that we can’t. I also say it isn’t necessary to explain Him. He isn’t found in my understanding Him. He is found in faith. When you come to the end of yourself - there is God. That may not be enough. But it is there that I came to believe and have no reason to turn back.
If you don’t believe this then so be it. Go and enjoy your life. I will not judge you or try to convince you differently and will still love you and be your friend.
5 comments:
Randy,
First of all, sorry it’s taken me these few days. Apart from work and all that, I wanted to take a few days to really look at what you wrote and write something coherent myself.
Let me first lay to rest your worries that this discussion might be fruitless from the get go and that all I want to do is poke holes in the reasons given. I have to admit, I’m a little but put off by your accusations that I just want to fight something I don’t understand, and that I’m not, in fact, seeking to get closer to the truth. As I said, I think that conversation is the best way to settle differences, and it is also the way we often learn – that and experience of course. I had the experience for 21 years and found it ultimately unconvincing. I don’t feel any real remorse for this, nor do I, I think, feel not at peace with it. I don’t feel I have much of a choice in what reasons I’m convinced by and what I’m not. But I was convinced by conversation to change my beliefs before, and I’m open to it again. Maybe (obviously, you might say) I was missing something before.
But I argue, also, because I think I am right, and I want to win others over to my side, of course. I won’t shirk away from that – I think you or anyone I’ve been talking to would be dishonest to deny that for yourself as well. I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.
But, to the task at hand – poking holes in your reasons. I think I do less poking than just pointing out the holes. And really they’re just holes many many people before me have pointed out, because Christianity was born with plenty of them – the swiss cheese of a social phenomenon if you will. Let me, if I may, condense your reasons – because you have given some, and I appreciate that. You said the real issue is:
-Does God exist and can we know him?
-In order to know him, “It would demand He somehow communicate with us in a way that we could comprehend and understand.”
-This is not a way of our choosing, because if we could fully understand him by a way of our choosing, he’d cease to be God.
-Morality, as well as order in our universe, makes us think that there may be something out there.
-Jesus showed us that he is that something.
-He did so by miracles and fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible.
-The Bible is true.
I hope that’s a fair representation. I’ll work from the bottom up.
-The Bible is true.
You said, “Now I know that you can suggest that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of writings that were written long after the events and changed and edited to further an idea and depict a fictitious figure around which Christianity grew. Prove it!”
I recently read a book by a man that was a fundamentalist when he started looking at this issue that you’re looking at. Barton Ehrman. The book that I read, though he’s written dozens, is called Misquoting Jesus. He is a major biblical scholar, in other words, an expert on the very question you’re posing. I recommend that you just read the book, but I’ll just give you an idea of its content (he does not, however, suggest that Jesus didn’t exist, nor do I. That’s a very fringe argument). From page 10 of the introduction:
“It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’t have the originals – so saying they were inspired doesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals… Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have the copies of the copies of the originals, or the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later – much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”
In the concluding chapter he says, “A number of scholars…have even given up thinking that it makes sense to talk about the “original” text.”
So, we don’t have the originals and the copies are riddled with changes and edits, many of the sort you’re suggesting. It seems strange that an all knowing, all powerful God would hinge people’s eternal fate on their acceptance of the words of a book, then not bother to give us a clear indication of what those words are. Bart talks about the kinds of changes, work already done on the subject. He talks about how changes came about, one way is the intentional changes you alluded to, when text was purposefully changed, often to clear up what the scribe thought was ambiguous, or even to change it to how he thought it SHOULD be!
Luke 5:38-39 Many scribes took out the last part where Jesus says, “The old is better.” So that it couldn’t be used by heretics to suggest that Jesus’s salvation isn’t superior to the old Jewish establishment.
Mark 1:41 Instead of “moved with compassion,” most modern scholars think that the manuscripts for this verse that reads, “moved with anger” is actually the correct reading. They changed this to promote the idea of a loving Jesus, instead of the confusion that would come from Jesus being moved with anger.
In Hebrews 2:9 The original says that Christ died, “apart from God.” But in order to preemptively deny Gnostics a tempting justification of their beliefs, the text was changed to say that Christ died, “by the grace of God.”
Scribes changed Mark 15:34 to say “My God, my God, why have you mocked me?” for the same reason.
I’m sure you know that every good source indicates that the story of Jesus with the woman taken in adultery is complete fabrication, added hundreds of years earlier.
Again, I would recommend reading the book. There are many more changes, some much more significant but too cumbersome to spell out here. And of course these are the changes we know about because of obvious contradictions in large numbers of manuscripts. But I that there is at least enough here to cast doubt on the idea that the scripture you read and base your idea of Christ on, is what was originally written.
And what about that Original text? Obviously original text isn’t all you’re looking for. The writings of Scientology and Mormonism are, of course, much more reliable as to their closeness to the originals than the Bible we have today. The question then becomes, even if we had the original text, is it persuasive? Is it good enough to think that this was a book not written by humans, but BY GOD. I’ve pointed out contradictions already – pi, cloven hoofs – maybe you’re not convinced by these. I’d like to talk about this prophecy you’re so convinced by. More specifically – failed prophecy:
2 Chronicles 1:12. God says to Solomon, “And I will also give you wealth, riches and honor, such as no king who was before you ever had and none after you will have.”
Joel 3:17 “Then you will know that I, the LORD your God,
dwell in Zion, my holy hill.
Jerusalem will be holy;
never again will foreigners invade her.”
Isaiah 17:1 “An oracle concerning Damascus:
"See, Damascus will no longer be a city
but will become a heap of ruins.” Damascus has been a city for 3500 years.
1 Samuel 9:15-16 “Now the day before Saul came, the LORD had revealed this to Samuel: 16 "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin. Anoint him leader over my people Israel; he will deliver my people from the hand of the Philistines. I have looked upon my people, for their cry has reached me.
And a little later 1 Samuel 31:4-7 “4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me."
But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. 5 When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. 6 So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day. 7 When the Israelites along the valley and those across the Jordan saw that the Israelite army had fled and that Saul and his sons had died, they abandoned their towns and fled. And the Philistines came and occupied them.”
Let’s talk about Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy. I’m going to have to ask you to step outside what you know the Bible says was prophecy and ask yourself, is this really what the Old Testament writer intended? Was this supposed to be prophecy at all?
Hosea 11:1-2 “1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more I [a] called Israel,
the further they went from me. [b]
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.”
Was “fulfilled” in. Matt 2:15 “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."”
Ps 69:21 “They put gall in my food
and gave me vinegar for my thirst.”
Was “fulfilled” in John 19:28 “Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty.”
And again, Ps 69:9 “for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.”
Was “fulfilled” in John 2:13-17 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
Again, I have to ask, should other people be convinced by these things? Should you? THIS is what you’re saying your absolute assurance that the Bible is the word of god is based on. I’m sure there are elaborate explanations with all sorts of hoops and leaps and lovely pirouettes, but I really think the wiser ground is the one Bart Ehrman describes early in his book. During his school he wrote a long and complicated paper justifying when, in Mark 2, Jesus refers to David and bread “when Abiathar was the high priest.” When it turns out that he wasn’t the high priest during the instance he’s referring to in 1 Sam 21:1-6. He delved into the meaning of the Greek words and what not, but his professor wrote at the end of the paper. “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” Maybe he did. Maybe this book is more human than it attests to be.
In regards to miracles, let me quote Sam Harris in the debate I was referring to earlier (did you read it?)(Andrew is not, by the way, a homosexual priest, just a homosexual catholic. Comparing him to Hitler is also pretty far off as he’s an advocate of his cause and not an oppressor of it).
“In any case, the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus' life is not as compelling as you seem to suggest. As you know, there is no contemporaneous description of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible or anywhere else. And even if the historical record offered multiple, first-hand accounts of his miracles, this would not constitute sufficient support for the basic claims of Christianity. First-hand reports of miracles are a dime a dozen, even in the 21st century. Many spiritual seekers in India testify to miracles performed by their gurus on a daily basis. These miracles are every bit as outlandish as the miracles attributed to Jesus. I have met literally hundreds of western educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite yogi has magic powers. I remain open to evidence of such powers (and my openness has exposed me to a fair amount of abuse in the atheist community). But as far as I can tell, all of these stories are promulgated by people who desperately want to believe them; all (to my knowledge) lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature's laws have been abrogated in this way; and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations. In any case, stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are being told now. Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his "miracles" on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible.”
I think that with this, I’ve fairly well demonstrated that –
1: We cannot say with any confidence that what we have today are the original words of the Bible.
2: Even if they are the original words, the original words, in prophecy in particular, are faulty and ambiguous enough to question their divine and infallible origin.
3: Likewise, if they are accurate, we have no reason to take their claims for miraculous any more seriously than Joseph Smith’s, Muhammad’s, or Sathya Sai Baba’s.
So if these things are not reasonably reliable, we have no reason to think that Jesus is God.
I’ll leave it here, leaving unaddressed the argument from design, the argument from morality, and the idea that if we could understand God it somehow makes him dependent on us (We understand Mars more fully than we understand the supernatural…if we cease to be, does it cease to be?) And I’ll leave you to your reaction.
Obviously these issues are much bigger than I can write in this already long argument. I have read the doctrine and I have implored the maker and it seems to me intellectual dishonesty. It seems to me we’re saying we’re sure of things we can’t possibly be sure of – things it isn’t even nearly reasonable to be sure of. But giving ourselves the license to be not know, or, god forbid, be wrong, is the only way to grow. So I’ll finish with CS Lewis:
“The very man who has argued you down, will sometimes be found, years later, to have been influenced by what you said.”
You stated – “But I argue, also, because I think I am right, and I want to win others over to my side, of course. I won’t shirk away from that – I think you or anyone I’ve been talking to would be dishonest to deny that for yourself as well. I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.”
Thanks for clearing this up Kevin. This is the clearest statement you have ever made as to your motive and proves my point that you aren't as much on a search for truth, but rather convincing others that you are right, in the face of all other arguments to the contrary. You clearly have declared your animosity to Christ and Christianity, and have proven my suggestion that you aren’t really open at all to any of the arguments we have tried to proffer. And yes, I will admit that I am trying to provide some other ideas that might alter your thinking, and in I do so because I think you are heading down a very wrong and dangerous road and makes me very sad for you. I am more convinced than ever that anything I might propose from the vantage point of someone who believes in God and specifically the God of the Bible will be dismissed as bronze age myth and a detriment to society and see no reason to try and answer all your arguments.
I do have to point out that you have yet to answer my simple proposition that God exists or he doesn’t and if He does, it is his responsibility to reveal himself. Of course you wouldn’t know it if he did because you have dismissed the possibility. The problem is, that if one assumes He doesn’t exist, there isn’t much he can do to show them, because he will not override their free will and demand their belief and faith. They will see it all through the lens of unbelief and interpret it in a way that proves their point of view.
This is also why it is of no value to argue with you and those like you who are convinced that we are not just misguided, but in fact a danger to ‘society’. This is why Jesus promised us persecution. We will be seen as holding on to that which would rob society of becoming all it could be, and dangerous to the furtherance of ‘truth’. Of course you won’t see it as persecution, but rather the just ridding society of the ‘negative, antiquated ideas’ that hold back the progress of man, and if some people get hurt in the process it is simply the process of maturity of mankind. That is the justification that every ‘would be world ruler’ has used in pursuit of a ‘higher order’ and a better society for all who follow him. Quite frankly, it is the lie of the devil and you have just placed yourself squarely in his camp. That saddens me more than you can know Kevin.
I have seen what that world offers and I will stick with the world that could be if Jesus and His message were to ever be embraced by all humans. I know it won’t. He already told us that it wouldn’t. Even if I am wrong I will fight for that before I will trust the intellect of any other human being over the truth of Christ. No one who is honest will deny that in the name of Christ and Christianity a lot of terrible things have been done. They don’t represent what I see Jesus as being and I abhor them as much as you. They are not what I believe Jesus taught or wanted. In your intellectual superiority you might want to try and entertain the idea that we aren’t all to be lumped into the same camp, and don’t preach that message of moral superiority or ‘better than everyone else’ mentality. Some of us see that we are all beggars; none better or worse than another. Some of us have found a source of nourishment that satisfies and we are trying to tell everyone else where to get it.
We also believe that some of the ‘progressive ideas’ that are being promoted as enlightenment are very destructive to the individual and society. It isn’t that we are better than anyone else, but rather that we do believe that man has needs and there are right ways and wrong ways to get those needs satisfied. When we attempt to meet those needs in ways that God did not design for us, they lead to – well, pretty much what we see all around us. Christ offered another way – Himself.
But I am wasting my breath here aren’t I? This is more of that bronze age drivel that poisons the progress of man.
You may not ask God to reveal himself to you, but I want you to know that there are a lot of people who are praying to him on your behalf.
Randy
Randy, I'm sorry, but your first statement was incredibly dishonest and you apparently ignored the sentence immediately before you started quoting. Of course I think my position is right, and of course you think your position is right. That's what I was pointing out. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is that I think my position is right because I've been convinced by understandable reasons. What I was saying in entirety is that I am NEVERTHELESS not argueing for argument sake, but argueing because I think it helps us to get closer to the truth, and because I know that for myself I have been pursuaded in the past to change my mind. And forgive me, but can you even say the same for yourself? Do you believe because of reasons or do you believe IN SPITE of reasons? Have you ever said, "Nothing could make me turn away from God," and do you still believe it? That makes it impossible for me to say anything that you would listen to, but I have said nothing to suggest that everything you say would be off-handedly dismissed as bronze age myth. If your reasons are poor and/or not coherent I will point out why that is so, but I won't dismiss any of what you say before you start speaking. You've set me up as a straw man unwilling to listen to reason, which is not at all what I was saying. Can you say the same for yourself?
Sadly, your entire post is set up as responding to a Christianity persecutor that won't listen to your reasons anyway. I'm happy to respond to that, if you'd like, but it'll just be house cleaning - pointing out that I'm not the person you're talking to, and why these tyrannies don't reflect me, nor has what I've written suggested that they are. So it's up to you.
Kevin,
“Sadly, your entire post is set up as responding to a Christianity persecutor that won't listen to your reasons anyway…”
You are very right in that I am confused as to whom I am responding to. Are you the innocent sincere seeker of truth with an open mind, or the one who wrote these words?-
“I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.”?
How else am I to read those words? They are not from a neutral stance, or from someone who is simply asking for insight. They do reflect an adversarial tone, and that is what I am addressing. They more than suggest that you dismiss the Christian faith as bronze age myth, that needs to be refuted, they state it clearly.
Those are not words inviting discussion. They are not the words of someone questioning. They are a stand that you demand I, or someone refute with proof other than the reasons we have given. You would like me to believe you are searching for truth and this is just a discussion, but the statements you made aren’t questioning. The explanations of faith offered by me and your friends and family are dismissed as having been overridden by greater thinkers and scholars and science. The only answer I have is the same one I have already given – God isn’t found through intellect or science. He is found by those who know they are poor in spirit, by those who are hungry and thirsty, those who trust Him and in trusting see Him do his work.
You stated in your response; “What I was saying in entirety is that I am NEVERTHELESS not arguing for argument sake, but arguing because I think it helps us to get closer to the truth.” You may see yourself as open minded. But to simply paint this as ‘differences’ is not intellectually honest. This isn’t about exploring differences in the hope of coming to truth. This is not a difference in a strategy on how to proceed in accomplishing some task. This is not a difference of opinion about something. You are arguing a fundamental belief system on which you and I will build our lives, and you have shown your animosity to my side of the argument.
You paint yourself as someone who is simply examining all the various options and wants to see it all before he will believe any differently. But I am saying that is not true. You have come to a firm belief and you are wanting to expose and refute falsity and you are convinced by science and intellect that Christianity is one of, if not the primary falsity.
You said in your last response, “I have said nothing to suggest that everything you say would be off-handedly dismissed as bronze age myth.”
That is exactly what you said, and I quote again!
“I think Christianity is false, and I’ll tell you why. I’m telling you why, also, because I think Christianity, and religion in general, is hurting society. At the very least it’s stunting our maturity by having us hold on to the broken promises of bronze age myths, and many would argue that there are much more visible, often violent ways that it hurts us as well. But even if it were not the case, the fact that it is a falsity that needs refuting would be enough.”?
You ask if I am willing to give up my beliefs in the face of evidence that would prove it false, and by doing so prove I am open minded.
I didn’t ask for this discussion – you did. I wasn’t looking for something that would allow me to make sense of my faith. I am simply trying to respond to your query with what wisdom and insight I have as one who stands on faith in Christ. I am not questioning, and nothing that you and all the great thinkers on the planet point out has made me think otherwise. And yes, I have I heard many of their arguments. As yet I have not found any reason to reject my faith in the sovereign God and His Son. Call that narrow minded if you like, but I don’t trust man and his wisdom and intellect because I am one. I know of what we are made and how corrupt the heart is and I need something more to put my faith in and to change my heart. Christ has done that, and is doing that beyond my greatest hope. Man is self absorbed, self centered, self righteous, selfish and arrogant. His heart is corrupt and in need of one who can change it.
Gen. 8: 21 “…the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”
Psalm 14:1 ‘the fool has said in his heart “there is no God’”
My mind isn’t the problem – it’s the heart that needs repair.
I have yet to see why I should deny Christ and all He offers. No, I can’t answer all the questions. I can’t come up with the grand unifying theory of the universe in which God fits and all the pieces make sense and give it to you in a neat formula or perfect word document. I don’t understand how God’s sovereignty and my free will exist together. I don’t understand how God has chosen who will be saved and others not, and yet I am held accountable to my choices. There are a hundred other things that I don’t understand. I am not God! I refer to your statement, and I quote “The point is that I think my position is right because I've been convinced by understandable reasons.”, So because I don’t understand, I must deny the God behind my questions. I have already stated that if I could understand Him He couldn’t by definition be God and He would be of no use to me. God is not dependant on my understanding Him.
You are the one asking and I am responding to the best of my ability and if it isn’t enough, then I have no other answers. I don’t want to get bogged down in the minutia because there is always more minutia, and it simply evades the basic question that once again I pose.
There either is a god or there isn’t. If He exists it is His responsibility to reveal himself. He alone can tell me what my responsibility is to Him. He isn’t in the minutia of point and counterpoint. He isn’t in the ‘proofs’ that science, archeology, or higher criticism which you quote. He isn’t going to be discovered by the powers of my intellect or reasoning. He is the one who comes to those whose hearts are broken and cry out to Him.
Jer 33:3 ‘Call to Me, and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.’
All we can do is point to Him. You keep wanting me to explain God in some way that will convince you, and I have already stated that we can’t. I also say it isn’t necessary to explain Him. He isn’t found in my understanding Him. He is found in faith. When you come to the end of yourself - there is God. That may not be enough. But it is there that I came to believe and have no reason to turn back.
If you don’t believe this then so be it. Go and enjoy your life. I will not judge you or try to convince you differently and will still love you and be your friend.
Randy
Post a Comment