My Archbishop is a 'false teacher' says priest
A Church of Ireland priest has described Archbishop Alan Harper (pictured), the leader of his church, as a 'false teacher', following a speech by the archbishop which raised the possibility that emerging scientific knowledge may lead the church to change its traditional teaching on homosexuality. The Reverend Canon Clive West, formerly rector of All Saints', Belfast, and a former chairman of the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy, said today on Sunday Sequence that Archbishop Harper 'is speaking for himself, not for the church'.
In a heated exchange with the Reverend Patrick Comerford, director of spiritual formation at the Church of Ireland Theological College in Dublin, Canon West challenged his church leader's authority to teach following his comments on homosexuality. Here's an excerpt from our live discussion (listen in full here).
Clive West: He's a bishop -- he's a guardian of the faith. But the question is, is he guarding the faith or is he a false teacher?
William Crawley: What do you think?
Clive West: I think he's a false teacher.
Patrick Comerford: Well I think that's a disgraceful comment from you Clive, I really do ...
Clive West: It's not a disgraceful comment ...
Patrick Comerford: ... coming from a priest in the Church of Ireland.
Clive West: We are asked to search the Scriptures and Paul praised people who searched the Scriptures. And if Archbishop Harper is at variance with Scripture, then I don't follow Archbishop Harper ... I'm not in communion with him.
Patrick Comerford: He's not at variance with Scripture. He's actually asking the questions that need to be asked and asking them in charity. [ . . . ] There's no point in being a member of an episcopal church when you don't appreciate the role of the bishops, including the archbishop, in guiding us through a debate like this and helping us -- and that sort of language is not helpful as we try to approach this with a reasonable and rational and charitable approach. To use that language about the archbishop when we're trying to have a reasonable and a rational approach only actually ups the temperature and ups the scale of debate in a way that is unfair on people who are actually trying to guide the church through this.
Clive West: Well I don't think he's guiding the church. You guide the church when you guide the church back to scripture.
William Crawley: Clive, do you believe there are many clergy who would agree with you that your archbishop, your primate, is a false teacher?
Clive West: I think quite a lot would. It gives me no joy to say that. But I do believe if we search the scripture -- John, for example, in Second and Third John, praises the people for not welcoming certain false teachers into their congregation, and Paul again praised the people at Berea because they searched the scriptures daily to see if his teaching was correct. So we are at liberty to search the scriptures and see if Archbishop Harper's teaching is correct.
William Crawley: What we have here, in this speech, Clive, is a very carefully thought-through argument, drawing on 16th century Anglican theology, and building a case for the use of science and reason in how we view the scriptures and how we interpret the Bible. You would grant that Archbishop Harper is engaging in that kind of mature discussion with sincerity, wouldn't you?
Clive West: I think he is using Hooker ... to support his interpretation of Romans 1. But Hooker was very strong on tradition as well -- the tradition of the church. And you will know that the Bishop of Rochester is not going to Lambeth because some of the teaching that's around today is not in accordance with the teaching that's been around for two thousand years.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A 'false teacher' is someone who merely dictates to pupils/students what they should think and relies on 'authority' (a text, a leader) to bolster his/her viewpoint. A false teacher tries to stifle an enquiring mind. It maintains that 'the authority' is infallible and should not be questioned.
A good teacher is someone who promotes the active engagement of the learner and 'leads' out the mind, encouraging it to think for itself. A good teacher encourages the development of critical thinking, not slavish obedience to authority.
When we blindly accept a political system or a religion or whatever, we become automatons. We cease to grow.
The good teacher tries to dispel myths, plant ripples of doubt and even confusion. Yes, confusion, so that the learner gets frustrated and seeks to find out the truth for themselves. As Galileo put it, you cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.
By these criteria, Alan Harper seems to a good teacher.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
On another thread you objected to my use of the word literalist.
Could you then explain the words authority, dictates, slavish, automatons and myths.
I'm probably wrong here, but these appear to contain just the merest soupcon of bias, and we wouldn't want to do that to our minds.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I see you have just confessed to being a false teacher as you have been dictating for quite a while now as to how it is irrational to believe that God is real. This truth that the good teacher wants his students to seek out, is it self-existing truth? And if found, would it be a truth or a myth, and should it too be questioned?
Complain about this comment
Brian
I should also add that post 2 is a prime example of inaccurate, confused and contradictory statements.
Complain about this comment
David:
Nonsense. I encouraged pupils to question my views all the time. My view that the Christian god is irrational is not dictated to anybody. You can believe whatever myth you want. The choice is yours.
Complain about this comment
Peter, David:
What is the connection between literalism and bias, Peter?
Neither are you are models of objectivity in these matters.
Let me say that Alan Harper is acting like a brave Christian who is daring to question antiquated dogma. What do you two think?
Complain about this comment
It seems to me it depends on what your definition of "teacher" is. Does it mean someone who teaches you what to think or someone who teaches you how to think. For many instructors, they are interested in indoctrination. That is what religious "teachers" do. They do not want you to question their intellectual authority. The problem for religion is that when real knowledge from science advances, facts come into evidence which cannot be explained by the inflexible dogma or creates contradictions within the dogma itself which cannot be resolved. When the theologist tries to adapt the rigid dogma, he finds that by its very nature if it is bent, it will break. It cannot adapt to new truths which is why the Catholic Church fought the advance of science. To this day religion fights a losing battle against evolution, where life begins and ends, where the human species begins and ends, what sexuality is and isn't, and myriads of questions that swirl around these and other new realities it has no longer has any ready answers for. The issue of homosexuality is small potatoes...compared to what religion will face when life is finally synthesized in a test tube from inert matter or trans species creations that are part human, part animal are actually brought to life. Yes it's a frightening prospect. We already routinely bring people back from the dead, people whose heart has stopped beating and are actually dead by prior standards. Religion ultimately can only appeal to emotion, not intellect becuase the truely questioning mind which thinks critically and independently will see through the contradictions and inadequacies of every one of them easily. That is why it is irrational to believe in something for which there is not one shred of evidence and whose best argument is by tyros in scientific knowledge whose flawed logic is that they can't find any other explanation for existance so god must be real by process of elimination.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
You objected to my word, I am objecting to yours. If you are as open as you say you are, you will critique your own thoughts, your own world view, your own doubt and your own bias. I have been open about my doubts and belief, and I have criticised christianity and the church, yet you object to my grammar. I have yet to hear a critique of atheism.
'Slavish' and 'automatons' are pretty absolute words, are they not? I would have thought your doubt would have steered you clear of them.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
I have already said that atheism is not enough. Read my posts.
What about Alan Harper's stance?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
I said that when we blindly accept a political system or a religion or whatever, we become automatons.
What on earth is wrong with that?
'Slavish' is often used as an adjective describing unquestioning obedience, being servile or imitative. As such, it is perfectly acceptable. If you want to think that any criticism of your viewpoint is 'absolutist', that's your problem.
What about the subject of this thread??
Complain about this comment
The Catholic church did not fight the advance of science, and the Protestant reformers positively stimulated it. Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Pascal were all Catholic theists. Kepler, Newton, Locke, Priestley, and Faraday (to name but a few) were all Protestant theists and their work in science was faith-driven rather than faith-hampered. How on earth did people get hold of the idea that the Christian faith somehow held back the advance of science. The opposite is in fact the case. Even Richard Dawkins admits that without the Christian faith, the belief in a Law-giver behind every scientific law, science in the West would never have got off the ground!
Complain about this comment
ANd by the way Marcus Aurelius, the Faraday institute in Cambridge is actually made up of Christian theists who are also scientists in a variety of fields, the majority of whom, if not all, also accept, without blushing, evolution and natural selection as the dynamic whereby the created order, once initiated, developed into what we see around us today. They are also, as it happens, evangelical inerrantists. They don't believe that the Bible made mistakes in scientific description of phenomena when its purpose was not in fact to offer a scientific description of the said phenomena.
Complain about this comment
Brian
So this truth that your pupils have discovered, are they to question that as well? To whom are you making your statements that belief in God is irrational if you are not dictating to anybody?
By the way, what did you teach?
I see you are looking for a response about Alan Harper from Peter. Well here is one from me. Alan Harper as Archbishop of the Church of Ireland is supposed to accept the canon of Scripture as outlined in the 39 articles as God?s infallible and inherent word. He is now telling us that Paul in this same word may have got things wrong. You may have noticed as an expert in making contradictions that this is a contradiction in terms.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
I agree with you that much religious 'teaching', especially in NI, is indoctrination, not education. Instead of widening and opening children's horizons it is intended to keep them firmly closed.
The RE core syllabus is the most exclusive of any in the UK and fails to take account of the increasing diversity in the wider community. Recently, two world religions other than Christianity were included at key stage 3, when world religions should be included at every stage, as should secular worldviews, which are on the syllabus in schools throughout GB.
Bu when you realise that the 4 main Christian churches in NI have the power to draw up the RE core syllabus themselves, you know why. This is the extent of their 'self-criticism'. The other two world religions have only been recently included because of complaints of discrimination and inequality of treatment.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
The subject of this thread is about the ability of the Archbishop to teach and to that debate you introduced the concept of what is and is not a good teacher.
I am not off topic.
I see you are being absolute in terms of your statements about your views on religion again. I thought the concept of absolute was something you objected to. Do you ever doubt your views on the bible? Do you doubt the views of the Archbishop as much as you doubt the views attributed to Paul? I guess not. Indeed you seem accept Mr. Harper's views without critiquing them. Is it just because they so closely resemble yours?
I say again, I have doubted my faith, yet I still hold to it. Why? Precisely because I have challenged the views of Archbishops, Reverend gentlemen, self appointed evangelical leaders and christian celebrities. I have not blindly accepted any political or religious view, I am not in slavish obedience to the teaching of anyone and christian faith is not opposed to science, nor is it irrational.
If you are going to doubt, doubt everything, starting with atheism. If it is not enough, what is wrong with it, what is missing and what will you add to it? Then, like me, try doubting yourself. Follow your own advice on what it means to be a good teacher and doubt yourself to the point of frustration and confusion. I've been there, there is nothing to fear. The critique will make interesting reading. So will the interpretation of Matthew 13: 31 and 32 on the other thread when you have it posted.
Specifically on the Archbishop and his views on Paul, anyone can take bits of the bible and make them say what they want to say. All this stems from what it means to understand the bible in the context of genre, history, and culture, none of this means Paul was wrong. If you want to discuss inerrant we can do that.
Complain about this comment
David (post 14):
You ask: "So this truth that your pupils have discovered, are they to question that as well?"
I would like to think that there isn't only one truth. There are lots of truths, and lots of things we don't know. So, yes, indeed, I hope that they would be sceptical, yet open-minded, and question everything. This is a neverending process, as new knowledge is discovered, whereas you seem to imply (somewhat dogmatically) that there is only ONE truth. I have already repeated ad nauseam that there are lots of things I don't know, that I am not sure of etc. The Christian god is not, however, included in my long list of doubts and uncertainties (I am 99% certain of his non-existence). Sorry, folks, but there it is.
The 39 Articles were drawn up in 1563. Yes, 445 years ago. Any chance of an update, you chaps?
As for Paul, he certainly did get some things wrong, and he certainly contradicted Jesus, the most obvious one being that the law of Moses is abrogated by Jesus's death (Galatians 2:15-16), whereas Jesus explicitly states that he came not to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfil them".
(Matt. 5:17-20). Paul says that we are not justified by observing the law, whereas Jesus says that "whoever practises the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven".
There are many other contradictions between Jesus and Paul, and I may return to some of them later.
Complain about this comment
Post 14
Unlike God's word, I am not inerrant, I wrote inherent.
Complain about this comment
99% Brian?
Any movement is good. What about conversion 1 percentage point at a time?!
Complain about this comment
David
The 39 Articles - which many Anglicans like myself find an anachronistic anti-Catholic embarrassment - do not describe the Bible as either infallible or (as I assume you meant to say) inerrant. I would regard them as an historical curiosity of little more significance than the lace jabot affected by Presbyterian moderators.
Archbishop Harper in keeping with the BEST traditions of Anglicanism is seeking to steer a middle way between opposing positions and has found a very interesting means of opening up the possibilities for full and long overdue acceptance of gay people in the church. He is offering the closest thing to prophetic leadership a true Anglican can manage. In his tenure of his office so far he has proved a faithful pastor and a wise and able teacher. Thank God for his ministry and his courage.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
You say that the subject of this thread is about the ability of the Archbishop to teach and to that debate I introduced the concept of what is and is not a good teacher. But instead of telling us what you thought a good teacher was, how it was similar to or different from mine, and whether Alan Harper fitted the category (the subject of the thread), you turned it all upon me and tried to expose what you consider to be my inconsistencies and hypocrisies. The thread is not about me but about whether Alan Harper is a false teacher. Can't you stick to that?
Or must you keep avoiding controversial Christian topics by having a go at atheism (I keep repeating, but you won?t listen, that I am not ONLY an atheist but also an agnostic, a sceptic and a humanist, but that's too pick'n'mix for you). You also make huge mental leaps in your posts by, for example, equating Christianity with religion. The latter is much bigger than Christianity, Peter.
I think Alan Harper is brave because he is trying to give a modern, humane lead to Christianity in relation to the question of homosexuality in the face of a very reactionary and traditional Christian ethos. He is being doubly brave in the context of the recent statements by leading local Protestant politicians such as Iris Robinson and Ian Paisley Jnr. By the look of it, he is getting more 'Christian' sympathy on this thread from non-believers than he is from some Christians. Or am I being too 'absolutist' here?
Complain about this comment
Brian (post 17)
I think you may need to return to some of them now. You have chosen what you call the 'most obvious' contradiction between Paul and Jesus. Now are these really the questions you want me to answer? Please tell me that you have something more, Brian. You have put the bible on trial here. Please tell me that you have an ace up your sleeve, that your hopes for contradiction rely on something more than this.
At least now I think I have an answer about your knowledge of the original Biblical languages and their theological meaning.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
The 39 Articles accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the Canon of Scripture in accordance with the Council of Jamnia. I would much prefer to stick with this middle way than that offered by a false prophet, who is only interested in appeasing modern liberal interpretations.
Complain about this comment
David:
Why all these personal attacks and name-calling because someone says something different from some others? Clive West calls Alan Harper a 'false teacher' and now you call him a 'false prophet'.
Gosh. Is this bitchiness an example of Christianity in action???
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Would you prefer I didn't respond to what you had to say?
Please tell me too when I have avoided controversial Christian issues. I am the one remember who has dealt with every question you have asked, including the 'cruelty' of God, death, the Cross of Jesus, my own personal doubt and the shortcomings of the church.
On the question of equating Christianity with religion, obviously the latter is bigger, but everyone uses the terms interchangeably, do I have to qualify everything? Anyway the Archbishop is a christian is he not?
As for the Archbishop and this thread, I have stated my view clearly on Post 16, and this thread and the other one about his views relate directly to biblical interpretation and inerrancy. The discussion is actually about how the Archbishop understands the bible, not whether or not he can be kind to gays.
So maybe we could, after all, move to biblical interpretation without assuming it is inaccurate, man-made and full of contradiction.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Peter, respond by all means, but do it relevantly.
You say that you have dealt with every question I have asked, including the 'cruelty' of God, death, your own personal doubt and the shortcomings of the church.
Really? Is God cruel, then? Do you doubt the Bible or Paul on homosexuality? Is 'the church' homophobic?
You say everyone uses the terms Christianity and religion interchangeably. That is very 'absolutist' if I may say so. And if they do, they shouldn't: Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, are all considered religions. Moreover, religion could be defined as a committed faith', in which case Humanism is a religion of humanity. This is how Mill saw it. I don't happen to agree, but this is just one example of how we humanists are not absolutists.
We don't all agree. If some people want to call humanism a religion, it's fine by me.
Indeed, we are proud of our disagreements because we see them as examples of freethought in action. Some Christians, on the other hand, get very angry at one another if they disagree, as this thread indicates.
Lastly, you say that the discussion is actually about how the Archbishop understands the bible, not whether or not he can be kind to gays. Hopefully, and in a truly 'Christian manner, it would be about both. Is the Bible not 'kind' to gays, Peter?
Complain about this comment
David
I'd be interested to know in what way exactly the position you mention is a 'middle way'? Mid-way between what and what?
There is the position that the Bible is a load of errant nonsense - dangerous when it isn't laughable.
There is my own position that the Biblical scriptures are interesting and informative accounts of man's search for meaning in existence: mystically resonant but of no particular authority.
I don't think your interpretation of the 39 Articles' stance falls midway between those two opinions so locate with reference to the poles it lies between for me please.
Complain about this comment
Gandalf_wise #12
So that whole thing about the Inquisition showing Galileo the instruments of torture and putting him under house arrest for advancing his scientific theories was all just made up, it never happened? #13 When they are being Christians, they cannot be scientists at the same time. And visa versa. Being a scientist means keeping an open mind and concluding the universe is what the experimental observations lead you to believe by rational deduction wherever that takes you. Being a Christian means that you accept and believe the Holy Bible is the word of God. If you are selective in what you believe from the Bible or if you try to twist its plain meanings to suit your own prejudice, or if you set it aside for a time when you have to work in a laboratory or on a scientific thesis, then you are not really a Christian. Being a Christian is not a part time occupation.
It is not illogical for the same person to be of two different minds at different times. When they are absorbed in a scientific problem, they focus on getting the right answers and set everything else aside. But when they are laying awake at night in the dark thinking that they will one day die and it frightens them, objectivity goes out the window and they are just like the primitives of tens of thousands of years ago sitting around a fire or at the mouth of a cave looking up at the night sky wondering what life is all about. That's when their fantasies and superstitions embodied in religion bring them the only comfort they can find. Some think this irrationality is genetic, others like Dawkins call it a mental disorder, or maybe it's both. Maybe one day we will know more about what causes it when we have a better understanding of how the human brain functions. Science isn't that advanced yet.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
You raise questions you have raised before, we have been over this ground before.
Anger is not always bad.
Neither do I think false teacher or false prophet are forms of names calling, they are just ways of stating that someone is not a prophet as opposed to being one. Portwyne said prophet, David said not prophet. They are points of view, disagreements.
You have deemed God cruel because of the Old Testament - I pointed you to the cross, it is the same God - justice and mercy - we have discussed this before too.
On the contradictions of Paul and Jesus. The big picture view of the bible understands that Jesus did fufill the law and prophets - there is no contradiction.
Everyone is welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven, no type of person need be excluded, that includes people like me; but we will differ on one point, I understand the Kingdom of Heaven in terms of being remade in God's image, personal morality included, and again, that includes me.
And now that we're on biblical interpretation again, Matthew 13:31 -32. When I see how you handle the words it might help us understand one another better.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Did I pick you up right? You're a teacher? Or were?
If so we've similar teaching philosophies - state your views but encourage your students to challenge them.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Graham:
I am a retired teacher of Economics and Politics to senior pupils (also taught the odd History class to make up my timetable). My philosophy was exactly as you say. if they didn't challenge my views and other views, I would have thought I was doing my job properly.
If they asked me about God and religion, I never hesitated to respond because I know that when your mind is developing it asks basic questions about life, the universe and everything. I always let them know that I thought traditional religions provided the wrong answers to these basic questions, and if they wanted to understand the world they would have to look elsewhere. Some agreed and some didn't. We would argue about it, and still some agreed and some didn't. I always argued that they had to make up their own mind.
Alan Harper is to be commended, not insulted. Peter brushes aside remarks such as 'false teacher' and 'false prophet' but doesn't hesitate to have a go at a Humani statement that insults nobody!
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Second last line, para 1 should read:
"I would have thought I was NOT doing my job properly".
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
First on the point of false prophet. To counter the label 'prophet' (which in this context I presume means 'visionary leader', rather than one who speaks God's word) with the label 'false' or 'not prophet' is not an insult, it is a statement meaning 'not visionary leader'. Of course, as I didn't use the word in the first place, maybe you should take it up with David.
On teaching. I'm all on for questioning, that should be obvious from some of what I have said, and yes, good teachers provoke, and yes, on many things we do have to make up our own minds, and we ought to encourage students and our own children to make up their own minds. However, good teachers also recognise knowledge for what it is. One and one for example is not something we really have to discover. Mathematical knowledge is knowledge, grammatical knowledge is knowledge, and there is other knowledge to know, so there must be a balance.
You also say I should respond to you relevantly. OK let's do a bit of explaining. When I read this blog, I read a lot about the need for open-mindedness - great! I also read a lot about religion. Religion, including Christianity, is, I am told, irrational, indoctrination, 'a dead weight' (yes the Humani statement) cruel, that the bible is made up, inaccurate, contradictory etc. Those views have again been aired on the two threads relating to the Archbishop and I have challenged them, where is the problem? Unfortunately it appears to be a default mode. Wherever I see these words used, I reserve the right to question them.
I have explained over and over that to dismiss religion as merely irrational and so on is a limited way to think about it, yet the caricature remains. I have also accepted that some of religion and Christianity is limited, yet no change. Furthermore I have attempted to answer question after question, yet, when, in the spirt of open-mindedness, I query atheism, when I challenge other worldviews as strongly as I have challenged my own, I am told I am having a go.
As I have suggested before, championing skepticism demands that we are consistent enough to challenge our own deeply held views. I have been both atheist and theist, sometimes all at the same time! I have deliberately gone out of my way to push my so-called faith and the christian leaders I have known to their limits - yet I still believe. It is perfectly relevant to counter statements like, "A good teacher encourages the development of critical thinking, not slavish obedience to authority", written in the context of the Christian religion with, 'does anyone doubt their atheism?'
And now back to biblical interpretation. The reason good teacher, false teacher (note good and false are not antonyms) has been raised, has to do with how Christians read the bible. The Archbishop in his speech referred directly to this. He was not justifying homosexuality per-se. Actually his conclusion on this is reserved, "Finally, let us be clear on this: it has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural." Presumably if science deemed homosexuality 'unnatural' the Bishop would stick with Paul, at which point non-believers would disagree with him. This is all down to his and other Christian's interpretation. While homosexuality is the current crisis point, the real issue here is how the church handles the bible. What I find interesting then, is that those who have already dismissed the bible find way to commend the Bishop when what he did was to set his views completely within the context of biblical interpretation. I could be wrong, but I do not expect that your agreement with the Archbishop relates to his biblical exegesis, or the lack of it.
So, on biblical interpretation, what about Matthew 13:31-32, how do you read it?
Complain about this comment
Peter wishes to discuss the Bible. Ok. Alan Harper is right to question the ideas of Paul in the New Testament, because it is a message which gives Christianity a very bad name. Let us leave homosexuality for a moment and also assume that the same man wrote all 123 epistles attributed to him.
SLAVERY
The Roman slave laws were relatively liberal and humane. Not so Paul. He sent Onesimus, the runaway slave whom he had converted, back to his Christian master, Philemon. In 1 Corinthians 7:20-22) he says that everyone should remain in the state in which he was called. Indeed he tells slaves that they ought to be indifferent to their lack of freedom because they are really 'freemen of Christ', and thus by twisting language he draws a veil over the injustice of slavery. In 1 Timothy 6: 1 he tells slaves that they should submit themselves voluntarily to their masters in a spirit of humble obedience, "so that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed". It is in fact a Christian duty. As he states in Ephesians 6:5, slaves should obey their masters 'with fear and trembling?...as unto Christ'.
WOMEN
Paul was very negative towards women. He actually says that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1) and it would be best if all people remained unmarried (1 Corinthians 7: 26-27). He even says that those who have wives should live 'as though they had none' (1 Corinthians 7: 29). He condemns sexual relationships outside marriage, not because it is a betrayal of personal love, but because 'the immoral man sins against his own body' (1 Corinthians 6:18). In other words, the purpose of marriage is to satisfy legally the sexual urge that so many Christians unfortunately cannot deny.
This defamation of sex inevitably leads to the defamation of women. Paul points out that it was not the man, Adam, who was tempted but Eve, the woman (2 Corinthians 11:3), and that man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man (1 Corinthians 11:9). The hierarchy of creation, according to Paul, was: God, Christ, man, woman (1 Corinthians 11:3). Only man, not woman, is the image and glory of God - woman is the glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7). in communal worship, woman's subordination was to be made clear by her wearing a veil (1 Corinthians 11:5ff) and by her keeping silent (1 Corinthians 14:34). If she wanted to know anything, she should wait until she got home and then ask her husband (1 Corinthians 14:35).
1 Timothy 2:11ff) is pretty clear. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. for Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety".
Complain about this comment
Last line, para 1, should be 13.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I teach RE. Good on you for your teaching style, you're exactly right. My best students tend to be atheists or skeptics - the Born again Christians tend to think they already have all the answers. And yes, I try to help the atheists clarify and improve their arguments for atheism.
I could get in trouble for this, but I think the Churches have too much say in the RE syllabus. Were Humanists even consulted? Sometimes I think the Churches expect me to "Church the Unchurched". That's their problem.
And I'm with you on Comprehensive and non-denominational Education. Our current system betrays a lack of trust in Northern Irelands teachers to be impartial, and to teach all abilities. It's also elitist and irrational.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
There go my chances of promotion
Complain about this comment
Brian, in fairness Saul Paulus didn't write the epistles to Timothy - they are fakes. But then of course Saul Paulus was a fake apostle - a false prophet who used the personage of Jesus of Nazareth as a hook to hang his Graeco-Judean syncretistic fantasies upon. Or so goes one line of thought.
Hey, anyone hear PB on the radio this morning? (Good Morning Ulster).
Complain about this comment
Graham, well said.
-H
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
You are certainly good at quoting the bible, it's a pity you weren't as good at interpretation.
Do you really expect me to answer yet more objections and trust your explanation of these references when you can't deal with simple things like Matthew 13:31-32
And please don't go assuming this is avoidance. I can give you book long answers if you want but I'm not sure it will make any difference, your mind appears fixed against biblical Christianity.
I presume too that my understanding of what the bishop said is pretty close to the mark and that you realize that the bishop was arguing for a very particular reading of Paul based on the writing of Hooker, the concept of "The Law of God, The Word of the Lord" being key. You will also note from the Archbishop's speech that he fully accepted Paul's understanding of God.
Have you any thoughts on that? Have you grasped the implications of the fact that Paul was writing to the church in all the passages you quote? Do you even have a view on what the church is? Or, as I suspect, do you agree with the bishop because he agrees with you?
Stop raising the same tired old objections to the bible and Paul and Christianity that I have heard for years and tell me, in your own words, how we should understand Matthew 13: 31-32. This is the fifth time you have been given the opportunity.
Is it literal or is it not? Or maybe it is both. Then we can move on.
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
Great! I should also say that some of my best pupils were Christians and remained so, despite being afflicted with me.
A member told me that last year his daughter, who is a 'firm' agnostic, achieved an A grade in RE A2s, backing up what you say.
I have to go out and walk the dog, maybe muse on mustard seeds. Peter is very impatient.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne,
I should have used quotation marks for ?middle way?. I was simply meaning that it is the only way. I was referring not to the 39 articles per say, but to the revelation of the Bible, which the Church of Ireland has historically been in agreement with.
The 39 articles are not anti catholic. They were written to oppose error and hence anti Roman Catholicism. I used to belong to the Church of Ireland and have never been embarrassed by the 39 Articles.Instead of traditions we need to start with Biblical Interpretation first.
The Bible is not about man's search for meaning and existence. The Bible is about God revealing himself to man. This sovereign act then defines man meaning and existence for all time. In the person of Jesus, God comes to seek and save his people form their many sins, homosexuality being only one sin.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Parables as such aren't arguments but substitutes for arguments (or illustrations only).
I would turn it round and say that Jesus and Paul should have started loving women and gays, instead of denigrating them. They too might have found that their love grew and grew to gigantic proportions.
As for Jesus, I'm sorry but I cannot love a character from 2,000 years ago whose real life is shrouded in myth and contradiction. As far as he is portrayed in the Four Gospels, I don't like his teaching that, instead of thinking, we should accept and believe. This is indoctrination, not teaching. I do like his message of 'loving your enemies', though it wasn't original and we might add that we should strive not to have enemies in the first place.
On the other hand, I don't agree with a message which says that, if you are oppressed or wronged, you should accept it and do nothing about it. On the contrary, we should resist it and support those who are unfortunate, put upon and oppressed themselves. We would still be living in the Dark Ages if some people hadn?t resisted ignorance, prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, oppression (slavery, sexism, cultural and political imperialism, anti-semitism, homophobia). Indeed, on the issue of anti-semitism, most Jews know only too well that failure effectively to resist Nazism and to gain support from others in that resistance (a crucial aspect), led to the Holocaust.
Socrates, who said that "the unexamined life is not worth living" and taught that we should question things, and who also was prepared to be a martyr for his teaching, is more worthy of 'love' or at least admiration than Jesus. You should try your mustard seed test with him. It would be more fruitful and enlightening.
There is also a Buddhist parable about mustard seed which is wiser than the Christian one. A young girl has a son who dies. She goes to the Buddha with the dead child and asks him for medicine to cure her boy. The Buddha replies that she must prepare tea from five or six grains of mustard seed, but she must take it from a house where no one has lost a child, husband, parent or friend. The poor girl goes from house to house. Naturally, they pity her and offer her mustard seed, but when she asks if a son or a daughter, a father or mother died in the family, they answer her: "Alas the living are few, but the dead are many. Do not remind us of our deepest grief". And of course there was no house but some beloved one had died in it. She then sat down by the wayside and thought to herself: "How selfish am I in my grief! Death is common to all". Putting away the selfishness of her affection for her child, she buries the dead body in the forest. Returning to the Buddha, she takes refuge in him and finds comfort in the Dharma, which is a balm that will soothe all the pains of our troubled hearts.
This, Peter, is a better parable than that of Jesus, for it relates to the real world and the universal truth of death and, crucially, the man who taught it demands nothing of the learner for himself.
Leaving aside for a moment Heliopolitan's entirely reasonable point about the dubious authenticity of the Pauline epistles, I interpret 'Paul' to say that, just as gay sex is unnatural, so slavery is perfectly natural, while giving women equal rights with men is wrong because they are naturally inferior to men. Am I 'in error'? Is my interpretation not good?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Hope you had a good walk. My mum has accused me of impatience too, so you could be right about that, the testimony of two witnesses being an indication that we should think again. Interestingly however I first posted my question at 20 to 8 last night, so I think I'm making progress on the patience front.
And so to your answer. You say parables as such aren't arguments but substitutes for arguments (a bit like the small print in advertisements - for illustrative purposes only). But that wasn't really an interpretation of the text. I already knew it was a parable, verse 31 told me that. That bit of the text can be interpreted literally. It says Jesus told them another parable and then he did. It then tells us what the parable was. It continues by presenting the Kingdom of Heaven and the mustard seed in terms of a simile. So obviously we can conclude that the Kingdom of Heaven, whatever it is, is not actually a mustard seed. So, what is it saying? You are pretty convinced that Jesus didn't love women, that the bible is full of error and contradiction, so I'm interested in how you handle the text.
The Buddha's parable is interesting indeed, but in the same way I have questioned and interpreted christianity, I shall seek to question and interpret the Buddha.
Seems to me that the Buddha was saying that the ultimate reality of the universe is that everybody dies. And yes, that is literally true, we all do, so in a sense the Buddha was right; we all have something in common in that we have to suffer death. In this we are not alone. And in life we also all have times of happiness and sadness and pain from which we cannot free ourselves; so we should not fight or struggle against this, rather we should guard ourselves against selfishness and bitterness whatever comes our way. In doing so the we shall find peace in our adversity.
Now I think this is a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Buddha's parable (especially for a Christian), but Jesus was speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven in his, so we'd need to understand what he meant by that.
And I'm still curious.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
At least I now know why you thought that the ?big bang ? was an explosion. That is exactly the way an economist or politician might read into a theory rather than understand it.
You are applying the same method to your interpretation of the Bible.
However Jesus is the one who in redemption conquers sin, the world and the devil.
The Buddha is acquiescing to circumstances. We are to rejoice in our defeat by circumstances according to old Buddha. The emphasis in his name is definitely in the ha,ha,ha.
I would listen to Newton under his tree rather than Buddha under his, if I was you, at least you might get your math and physics correct then.
Complain about this comment
Graham
Very interesting post about teaching RE. I wouldn't worry to much about missing out on promotion, promotion is overrated!
I agree fully with your thoughts on not using the classroom for evangelism, too many in the church have not grasped the problem and seem to see public institutions such as schools as captive audiences or a fast track to getting their message out.
Nondenominational and comprehensive makes complete sense.
Indeed I will go further. I am not even in favour of churches using 'children's meetings' as a way of communicating the christian faith to parents. If the churches haven't figured out how to explain who they are and what they believe to adults then they ought not to organise children's meetings as a very poor alternative.
Complain about this comment
hey William I see The Times is running with your story of the 'false teacher' of Armagh. I don't expect Clive West expected to be making the headlines ...
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan
I see you think Saint Saulus Paulus of Tarsus was a fakeus apostle. Fake in the false sense. I do hope that wasn't an insult! That would fake in ridiculous. Of course if he really was fake he wouldn't care, and anyway he's dead so he'll hardly sue-us.
Anyway, got me to thinking, if he was a fake, a phoney, a fraud and a cad, who were the real apostles?
Complain about this comment
Graham,
I think the problem you refer to in post 36 arises from the visible church not knowing what God intended his people to be. The visible church seems obsessed with activity rather than the identity that God has decreed it to have. It should be an living example of what the Gospel is. The church seems to have given the impression that it is all about signing up to activity. This activity could be in the form of missionary activity or even signing up to confessions of faith. The Pharisee's are a prime example of this. The emphasis on activity makes the outward paramount whereas Jesus puts the emphasis on the heart of man. The heart of man can only change when man is brought back into correct relationship with God by God which inevitably leads to correct relationships with other men. The church seems to have lost this relational understanding evidenced the lack of community we see in the church today. A community that can engages with the world around us whenever, wherever we are.
Instead we have children's, young people's, woman's, men's meetings. We have Sunday school, seminars, workshops, para church organizations. All of it made up, not one part of it in the Bible.
David.
Complain about this comment
David, Post 45:
You made this snide and inane point months ago. I let it go then but not a second time. Only an 'amateur' scientist would dispute a suggestion that there was an 'explosion' in the way you are doing.
The inflation theory basically says that in the early moments following the explosion or Big Bang, there was an extremely rapid expansion of the nascent universe.
Just a few quotes:
University of Michigan:
"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang"
Cambridge University:
"About ten billion years ago, the Universe began in a gigantic explosion - the Hot Big Bang!"
NASA:
"At some point in the distant past all the matter and energy we see today must have been crammed together in a tiny region of unimaginably high density and temperature. Cosmologists call that moment the Big Bang".
The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but a more recent theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs. In the cyclic universe model, our universe would be part of a larger universe, one of two parallel, three-dimensional membranes separated by a tiny gap in the fourth dimension. A collision of the two membranes would release enough energy to cause the big bang - in fact, many big bangs, coming at regular intervals of perhaps several trillion years. Collisions suggest 'explosions', do they not?
Now, I am fully aware that some cosmologists prefer the word 'inflation' rather than explosion for the initial moment. But as an Economics teacher, I know that we can talk of 'the population explosion', meaning a rapid or sudden great increase, and we can talk of 'price inflation' as ... a rapid or sudden great increase. look the words up in a dictionary, David, if you have one.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Explosion: violent release release of energy, a sudden great increase.
Inflation: a rapid expansion.
Complain about this comment
David
Middle = only.
Interesting use of language.
I am reminded of Humpty-Dumpty's rejoinder to Alice: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Substitute the definite for the indefinite article and you have what I have often considered the evangelical approach to Biblical interpretation.
If I were the kind of person who placed store on knowledge of the biblical languages (which I am not) I rather think I would be careful both to use my own accurately and to ensure that any Latin tags I threw in were spelt correctly.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Poor, very poor indeed. You were the one who brought up the ?big bang?. I see that you did not even have the manners to read my reply to you over this issue.
You have been cutting and pasting like mad, yet again. Why when you do not like Christians using the Bible as their final authority are you so quick to quote from sources that are merely sound bites. What error analysis have you carried out on these sources. Those quotes were probably written by some secretary in a faculty office or in the case of NASA the PR department.
An explosion assumes pre-existent space and time. There is no pre-existent space and time in the ?big bang?. In the theory it is the expansion which ?creates? the space and the time.
Again exactly consistent with your ability to interpret the Bible. Vainly trying to point out errors in the Bible yet arrogantly not admitting to your own. Not at all surprising that you like the surrender policy of Buddha!
David
Complain about this comment
Portwyne,
I am only too glad for you or any others to point out any errors that I make either in use of language , spelling or typing.
Also I have never said that I was an expert on any Biblical languages.
I have always been much more used to the reading or speaking. My lack of writing skills has always been very apparent to me. Perhaps a good word processor with spell checker would be a good investment for me, I believe others use that on these posts and I have only recently become aware of them.
David.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter, there is no such thing as a "true" apostle - it's a meaningless term!
As you know, Saul was a Roman citizen by birth. He therefore had a "Roman name" at birth (not at all surprising, since he came from Tarsus in Anatolia) and from a prominent family at that. One of his illustrious relatives seems to have been Sergius Paulus, the governor of Cyprus, and indeed it is highly probable that it was this that led him there after his ideas regarding "Christ" began to take shape. Indeed, Sergius Paulus was a bit of a religious experimenter himself, so it's no big surprise that Saul's mind ran riot over there. Fertile ground for religion manufacturing. [In Acts, it's Barnabas that does the intro, but the overwhelming likelihood is that it was the other way round]
One of the most puzzling aspects of Saul's career is why/when he changed his name to Paul(us). In Acts, this happend *precisely* at the point he goes to Cyprus to visit uncle Sergius. This is Saul throwing off the Jew and donning the Roman. He had already tried Jewish fundamentalism previously, and when he found out that Gamaliel and the crowd weren't as well 'ard as he would have liked, he became disillusioned, and started dabbling. The rest is (nearly) history.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I must take issue with you on your understanding of Jesus. I believe that the gospel portrait conflates a man and a mythos. It is not difficult though to arrive at some picture of the man: difficult, querulous, challenging, insightful, humane, loving, driven, passionate, reflective... All these qualities and more shine through the narrative and portray a man who lived his life in such a way that the glory of God shone perfectly through him.
I can find no trace of misogyny in Jesus - witness his close friendships with Mary and Martha, his acceptance of Mary Magdalene's ministrations, and his treatment of the woman taken in adultery. For a Jewish man of his time these were all quite radical positions.
The Bible is silent on Jesus' sex-life, if any, but we do know he enjoyed a close, intimate and loving relationship with John the Apostle. In the much quoted Matthew 19 passage on marriage, while advocating lifelong commitment or, failing that, celibacy as the gold-standard, he is quite clear that he does not think God has made all men capable of following that path. He lists categories of those to whom it might not apply including "eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb" (in the context eunuch refers to men not having sex with women and here quite certainly means homosexuals). Christ then ends his comments on relationships with the words - "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" - the original laissez-faire approach?
I can't see your anti-gay, anti-woman bigot in this man.
Then as to striving not to make enemies - I absolutely can't agree with you. I want, as did Jesus, to make enemies of those who would exploit the poor and the dispossessed, I want to challenge those would tread down the weak. If you are going to "put down the mighty from their seat and exalt the humble and meek" you are going to make enemies and it is a splendid thing that you do.
When I read the gospels I see in Jesus a man utterly committed to social justice, a man whose overwhelming passion for righteousness would prompt him to take direct action to overturn commercial exploitation in the Temple at Jerusalem, yet a man who understood that you cannot overcome evil with evil, you can only overcome evil with good.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally [Will, you should do something on this], there has been a spate of interest in a stone slab from the 1st century BCE which appears to refer to a messiah who will suffer and rise from the dead after three days. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html
Interesting - if they're right, it would explain that a lot of Jesus' sayings were in common currency well prior to his birth, and also why when the tomb was found empty after only a day-and-a-bit the early christians insisted on forcing it into the "third day" (rather messily and unconvincingly).
Complain about this comment
David (#52):
1. It doesn?t matter who raised the question of the Big Bang.
2. Don't be presumptuous. I did read your reply. It is cogged and out of date.
3. You want longer quotes from sources? Ok, next time you'll get them, mate, with knobs on.
4. "They were written by some secretary in a faculty office"? Wow! How cynical of you! And what a pathetically feeble dismissal! I would never suggest that Leviticus was dictated by a homophobic cowhand.
5. You say: "An explosion assumes a pre-existent space and time?. And an inflation doesn't? This is a puerile play on words. We might say that the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. This is what Hartle and Hawking say. The big bang is a convenient event for us to use as our universal starting point, but we don't really know that time or space did not or could not exist before it. You have not addressed the theory that the Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a 'parallel universe'.
6. You say: "Not at all surprising that you like the surrender policy of Buddha!" Very poor logic, David. One swallow doesn't make a summer. I quote one story from the parables attributed to the Buddha and I am said to be enslaved to his philosophy. In any case, I thought (reading Peter's posts) that it was Christianity that was about surrender. See post 95 on 'Evangelical bishop explains why he's going to Lambeth'. Of course, I accept that you and Peter don?t necessarily sing from the same hymn sheet.
Complain about this comment
Peter
(Your post # 33)
I am not sure if I were the first to use the term 'prophetic' with regard to Alan Harper's leadership, I certainly did use the term and, to clarify, I meant by it someone who was pleading God's cause with God's people.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
Thank you for that explanation.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne, I actually vaguely agree with you that Jesus does not (usually) come across as mysogynistic. However, it is wrong to suggest that rapprochement with the fairer sex was somehow shockingly scandalously radical - this would really only have been seen as such if Jesus had been a highly "orthodox" Jew. But Galileans had a far more laissez-faire attitude, and even in Jerusalem, this was no big deal.
Which indeed is one of the points raised by Geza Vermes in "Jesus the Jew" - much of what 19th century theologians want us to see as "revolutionary" and "unique" was very well attested in other Jewish preachers of the period, and fits very well into what we know of the very dynamic melting pot of ideas that was 1st Century CE Palestine.
Which also raises another issue - many of the supposed sayings and stories of Jesus are accretions from other people. The irony is not so much that there was any "Jesus" at all, but that the place was coming down with the buggers!
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
Yep, it?s all in how we understand the story.
Obviously if Jesus is just a human, born because his mother Mary had an affair with a Roman solider or maybe Joseph, who enjoyed a good night out but wasn't going to own up, then became the leader of a radical rabble of outcasts, eloquent and not so eloquent speech maker, lover of Mary Magdalene (the Holy Grail) with whom he had a couple of kids; man with a god-wish/delusion, executed by the Romans as a favour to the local god-squad for his presumed blasphemy and died and stayed dead, but had his body snaffled by his friends, who, high on mushrooms, overpowered a Roman guard, or perhaps swooned and escaped, like Brian in the Python movie, and went on a hiking hoilday to India and the Himalayas, finally dying for real and being buried in a tomb in Kashmir where he now lies. Then, it's not so much Holy Grail as Holy crap batman. Indeed rumour has it that some of God's, I mean Jesus' relatives are still floating about in Scotland or France somewhere, and every year around July time they dress up as knights and roll up their trouser legs and have a big festival with a jousting tournament and all, and drink wine from wooden cups, the cup of a carpenter, and have a jolly old time working out anagrams and selling rip offs of the Mona Lisa (Amon L'lsa) making a load of money, which they use buy flowers for Mary's grave under Rosslyn Chapel and... oh I've lost the will to live...
It also makes complete sense that Paul would emphasize his Jewish roots in Jerusalem, and his Roman citizenship in the rest of Rome outside Israel. It would have given him privileges not otherwise available.
Anyway there's a a safe deposit box at the Paris branch of the Depository Bank of Zurich. Saunière's account number at the bank is a 10-digit number listing the digits of the first eight Fibonacci numbers: 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21... if you don?t believe me....
Oh, and on the stone thing, sounds like a real clincher. Redeemer motif before Jesus? Perhaps we could call it the Old Testament.
Complain about this comment
Hi Portwyne (#55):
I agree that the Jesus of the Gospels is less homophobic and misogynistic than Paul. But he is rather down on sex. "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven" (Mark 12:25). In other words, sexuality belongs to a sinful world, whereas in the kingdom of god sexual pleasures have no place. Some believers even castrate themselves on earth for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12).
As for exploitation and injustice, I agree that we should firmly oppose them. But did Jesus? For a start, he encouraged the beating of slaves 'with many stripes' (Luke 12:47). He never denounced slavery and incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.
As for poverty, he certainly seemed to align himself with the poor and oppressed and condemned the rich, who would find more difficulty than a camel going through the eye of a needle in entering heaven. Luke 6:24 is quite explicit: "Woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation". When the rich man asked him what he needed to do to 'inherit eternal life' (Mark 10:17), his reply was unequivocal: "Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor" (Mark 10:21). But, although he condemned the rich and lived among and preached to the poor, he did nothing or said nothing that could be construed as a coherent policy to alleviate poverty. On the contrary, "Ye have the poor with you always".
The message instead seemed to be that the poor should be content with their state, for their reward would come in the next life: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3). The essence of the Sermon on the Mount is that the poor, the hungry and the wretched should accept the status quo because they will receive justice eventually in a spiritual dimension beyond this world.
As such, the political philosophy of Jesus is a profoundly reactionary message which fails to provide any practical scheme for the good of society. To tell people to 'trust in god', to disregard the world, to have no thought for tomorrow, to welcome poverty, to neglect their home and families, to let evil happen is really to compel them to opt out of the human struggle in favour of an escape into an unreal mental world. Jesus is saying that religion is a drug. In his teachings he seems to confirm the words of Karl Marx that religion is the opium of the people.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian (post 62)
Is that more interpretation?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Amusing how do not like what you claim to be errors and contradictions in the Bible but are quite happy with the contradictory and confused statements that you yourself have quoted from universities then from cosmologists. If can say that the Bible is made up by man surely I can be allowed to say that the University and NASA statements are PR exercises.
The very fact that you now quote Hawking shows that you are just grasping the meaning of expansion now. He would not describe an explosion that way. If only you had started with that. You now bring up Membrane theory commonly just called M-theory authored by Edward Witten, maybe you have not got that far yet on wikipedia. Yet more quotes without knobs or whistles! Interesting how you are doing a patch up job on your statements. It would have been better for you if you had never raised them. By the way even Witten calls it murky theory.
You should not go hanging with Buddha and then ditch him when it does not suit. Again your lack of understanding of what the Bible says fits the general tone of your other quotes. The death of Jesus, by his own decision of laying down his life, and his being raised from the dead, is exactly how death is defeated. Buddha just dies defeated by death.
Finally Peter may well sing from a hymn sheet. I do not.
David.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan
quite = shockingly scandalously ?
That's semantic laxity almost on a par with middle = only.
What about Jesus' acceptance of the touch of the woman haemorrhaging blood for twelve years? I suspect even Galilean Rabbis would have seen her as an outcast but he recognised only her faith.
I would certainly accept that we have barely any reliable biographical data on the person of Christ and that much of the teaching ascribed to him is a reflection of ideas current, not just in contemporary Judaism, but also in the Hebrew prophetic tradition and in other religions of the age and region. I just don't see how that is an issue.
The man the Bible portrays cannot fairly be seen as the anti-gay misogynist of Brian's post and what makes him unique and special for Christians is the subsequent identification of his life with the living God. The man (or men) is absorbed into a mythos where he becomes an icon of the divine - "the image of the invisible god". Jesus is important to Christians not just for what he taught or how he lived but for what the idea of the Christ represents as a mediation of God.
Complain about this comment
Brian
'Tis late and tomorrow's a busy day so just a brief reply to your post.
I would suggest Jesus is merely saying sexuality belongs to the physical world. In general, though, sex does not appear to have been a major concern of his - but you would agree that that is an appropriate stance for a god? Matthew 19 uses the word eunuch to mean a man who abstains from sex - three types are identified, homosexuals, castrates and celibates - there is no implication in the third category that men actually castrated themselves, merely that they were abstinent.
Jesus does not encourage the beating of slaves - the reference you cite is to a parable.
Jesus statement that the poor would always be with us was a (prescient) statement of fact rather than a policy.
It is a common error to see the kingdom parables as referring to a future or afterlife - Jesus did not seek to claim political power for himself but he preached a message of transformation which would awaken the kingdom of God in men's hearts here and now not in some hazy future.
Your understanding of his message is a travesty. Jesus called on his followers to abandon all seeking after rank, position, material goods, power and self-aggrandisement - he called on them not to retreat from the world as you have suggested but to engage with it - just not on its terms - and to seek to transform it. Jesus cannot be blamed that we his followers have been less than faithful in following the plan.
Complain about this comment
David (#64):
1. "Amusing how do not like what you claim to be errors and contradictions in the Bible but are quite happy with the contradictory and confused statements that you yourself have quoted from universities then from cosmologists. If can say that the Bible is made up by man surely I can be allowed to say that the University and NASA statements are PR exercises".
This is crass. The Bible, being a collection of books written over a thousand years 2000-3000 years ago, is inevitably flawed scientifically. Indeed, it is largely a work of fiction. Scientists today have different views on the origin of the universe (though most agree that there was, in Hoyle's words, a 'Big Bang' of some sort. Whether you term it an explosion (and I cite HUNDREDS of scientists who do) or an inflation or a collision, there was an event which began our universe or our part of the multiverse.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of the inflation hypothesis. Some scientists called it an inflation, not to distinguish it from an explosion (which you seem to think implies an actual 'bang' like a bomb), but to suggest that the expansion happened even more rapidly than some scientists have thought earlier.
I don't rely on the internet. I have had in my possession for several years Hawking's Brief History of Time (he dispenses with the need of a god and suggests that the universe has no beginning or end of either time or space), Gribbin's 'In Search of the Big Bang' and Ferris's 'The Whole Shebang'. So I don't need to rely on Wikipedia (do you?).
You are welcome to the confusions and contradictions of the Bible. I will stick with the so-called confusions and contradictions of the scientists.
At least, they are striving to explain reality, not constructing a fairy tale.
2. "You should not go hanging with Buddha and then ditch him when it does not suit".
This is moronic. 'The Buddha' said many wise things, far more than Jesus, but I prefer to acquire wisdom wherever it manifests itself. I don't throw all my intellectual eggs into one basket.
If you want to rubbish the Buddha, that's your choice, but it is so silly and immature. He didn't get everything right, but Jesus certainly didn't either.
3. Jesus did not rise from the dead any more than did Osiris, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, Adonis, Atis or Quetzalcoatl, all gods said to be born of virgins and who supposedly rose from the dead. Did they rise from the dead as well as Jesus, David?
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
Yes, Jesus was "just a human" in the same way anyone is. There is absolutely no evidence for a virgin birth; Jesus never made this claim about himself, nor did anyone else during his lifetime, or who met him personally. It was just a codged on myth to bolster the particular prejudices/bloopers of the writers of Matthew and Luke.
As for all the holy grail crap, yes, I agree with you that that is crap, like the resurrection, miracles etc etc. At heart, the Jesus story is a very homely and all-too-human one, with not a hint of the "divine".
As for the redeemer motif, that even pre-dates the Old Testament - parallels of the Suffering Servant who emerges triumphant are very well attested in Egyptian texts, for example. But the interesting thing about the stone is that it seems to indicate that the very specific claim of the "three days" attributed to Jesus (even though it was only just over 36 hours) was current in the fervid messianic expectations of the period; it is therefore quite natural that the remaining disciples tried to co-opt it after Jesus' body was returned to Galilee for formal burial (as stated by the young man at the tomb, actually).
The problem for Christians here is that you don't actually *need* a silly da vinci code story to come up with a credible alternative to the wholly nutty claim of a resurrection. Like portwyne says, the mythos of the "Christ" got cobbled together (largely syncretistically) from many sources, Mithras, Horus, Serapis, Yahweh being just some of them. It got stuck onto this entirely ordinary Galilean preacher-wannabe-messiah called Jesus, and simply snowballed, with silly ideas like the virgin birth, the miracles, the "son of god", the trinity, etc getting cobbled on as people's imaginations continued to run riot over the subsequent decades to centuries.
It is not rocket science - it has happened many times before and since. Christianity simply caught a Zeitgeist.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne (#66):
It is an appropriate stance for a god not to have sex? Heaven knows, Portwyne! Most pagan gods had sex, I know that. Perhaps Christianity dispenses with the need for it. That?s its loss.
I don't think your defence of Jesus is at all convincing. His statements are perfectly in keeping with the hostility of ancient Judaism and Christianity to sex. As I say, Jesus even implies that it would be better not to have sex in the PHYSICAL world, as you call it (the real world, as I prefer). I could have quoted more. For example, he says that marriage should be given up for his sake (Matthew 19:29). Divorce, he says, is also wrong, and even a desirous glance at another makes a person fit for hell (Matthew 5:28).
Jesus, you say, did not encourage the beating of slaves and my reference is to a parable. This is quite wrong. In the parables generally slavery is glorified as a model of the relationship between god and man. Matthew 18: 23ff: "therefore the kingdom of god may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants...". In the parable to which I referred in Luke, the message is that slaves SHOULD BE beaten for disobedience, but not more severely than they deserve. So, that's all right, then?
I think my understanding of the political message of Jesus is entirely correct. It is one of surrender to the power of the state: "render unto Caesar". In effect, it is telling the Jews under Roman occupation to accept their position, for 'my kingdom is not of this world'. It is a reactionary message of submission to injustice. indeed, some Christians on this blog intepret it in precisely this way.
Complain about this comment
I have to say, after a lot of this discussion, that some people like nothing better than to wander away from the topic in hand. To return to it, I think that on the issue of homosexuality and Christianity, Alan Harper is a 'good' teacher, not a 'false' teacher because he is asking Christians to think about their beliefs. Indeed as Crowmwell put it, he is beseeching them in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible they may be mistaken.
He is accepting, like Hooker, that not ever word of the Bible is the word of God. As well as direct oracles, there are 'by-speeches', as Hooker called them, which occur in a historical narration, and to distinguish the two we need to use knowledge and reason. This strikes me as an advance on a hardline and unquestioning position of rigid scripturalism. Christians should face facts: many things in the Bible are wrong. Trying to hold on to every word of Holy Writ only makes Christianity appear outdated, ridiculous and at times frankly 'unchristian'.
Paul's condemnation in Romans 1 of homosexual intercourse as 'unnatural' may therefore be mistaken. His assumptions about what is natural or unnatural were based on the knowledge and understanding of the time. We now know that homosexuality is 'natural' for a minority of the human race, and the animal world too (although Harper says we do not know this conclusively). So, on the basis of this additional knowledge and the application of reason, Paul's assumptions are now shown to be inadequate.
Would this acknowledgement of Paul's error diminish Christianity? I don?t think so. It would instead demonstrate that Christianity is a living philosophy which takes account of new knowledge, not a stubborn dinosaur stuck in a primitive and increasingly irrelevant rut.
Peter has said he suspects that I am not interested in defending Harper in order to defend Christianity. I have repeated on numerous occasions that the dogma is, in my view, mistaken and has no conceivable relevance to the real world. But some of the Christian ethic is worth preserving. Part of that ethic is supposedly tolerance. Yet some Christians seem unwilling to extend it to gays. That is sad.
Complain about this comment
Slight side issue (BBC- guilty here) - the concept that homosexuality is *natural* for some people (including Paul, perhaps) is NOT the same as saying that it is "genetic". Let's not go too far down the road of genetic determinism; there are many factors that impinge on biological outcomes.
That notwithstanding, I would of course suggest that the whole damn corpus is a "byspeech", and morality and ethical conduct come from much more reliable sources - our experience and application of our social relationships that do not require the alleged authority of a text or an imaginary supreme lawgiver.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I had ignored the first reference to me and the idea of surrender but you have raised it again in post 69.
I see too that you refused my suggestion, again, to explain, line by line, the parable of the mustard seed even though I did my best with the Buddha. But if we can't figure out what is going on in this parable, how the words are used, who he is speaking to in different contexts and the cultural images being drawn upon on, it's going to be pretty difficult to come to agreement on the rest. Remember too that how we understand the bible, cultural context, illustrations and 'by speeches' and the like is directly related to this thread. So let's have a go at some interpretation.
You are concerned with Luke 12, and what you get out of it is approval for beating slaves. Interestingly it also includes references to our rights and expectations, so let's see. It all sort of begins with ch 12:1 with crowds gathering to listen to Jesus and his opening line is a reference to the Pharisees. Over and over Jesus contrasted the Kingdom of Heaven with the religious leaders (cultural context) and he says, really, they're only a bunch of hypocrites, they practice religion but they are hypocrites, and one day, how you have lived will be broadcast for all to see. (a sort of Jesus 'you tube') So, says Jesus, don't worry about what others think, worry about what God thinks, he is our ultimate judge (and here Jesus mentions hell, which I would have thought was a bigger problem than a kicking). Anyway, in the middle of all this, or possibly at some other time, cos the sequence may not be chronological, somebody shouts out, "Here Jesus bloke! My big brother won't split the will, tell him to cough up." And Jesus answers, "Am I your judge?" (that, it would seem, is a touch of irony given what he said in verses 8-12.) Then he says, "Do you want a story about money? I've got one for you", and he tells him a story (this bit didn't actually happen but is a cultural picture drawing on everyday life. If he told it today he would have probably said something about cashing in on the property boom, you know, the madness of million pound houses on the Lisburn Road) Anyway, to the person looking a share of the spoils, Jesus basically says, home improvements are OK but they are overrated, you have a life and your are not really in charge of it as much as you would like to think, and as for me acting as judge in the matter, well the real judge is God, so don't be selfish." Now I don't actually know how the man who asked the question felt, but if it had been me I have done one of two things. Either I have said, "Well fat lot of use you are Jesus, or I'd gone for a walk with the dog and thought about it.
Anyway, Jesus then follows up this home improvement malarky, and says, "Well, actually, never mind extensions and double garages and roof conversions and the like, lets turn to food and fashion, catwalks and cappuccinos. Is God not in charge of these too? Can you really prolong your life, can the low fat pro-biotic drinks really guarantee the extra hour you crave, do high heels really enable you to walk tall? You can chase them if you want, but really, there are more important things, like God and His Kingdom." (There's that mustard seed like Kingdom again) So listen says Jesus, you don't need to be afraid about all that living in this world can throw at you and you don't need to worry about Mr and Mrs Jones and their new car and conservatory, you can do without it; share what you have with the poor and tread lightly in this world. Because one day it will fail, one day your money will run out, only the Kingdom of God lasts forever. Take a risk and ask yourself who you really are and what you really treasure." (and at this point, if I'd been in the crowd, I'd probably have gone for an coffee or the equivalent, because who does this Jesus guy think he is to tell me what I should think, and I'd have said to my friends, have your heard the Galileean, bit of a nutter, don't you think?) But it is the constancy of Kingdom of Heaven which means that I can voluntarily relinquish my rights for the benefit of another. My rights to a nice house, make do with less, my rights to promotion, be content with what I have, my rights to recognition, so I can seek justice for others, I didn't say that we should concede defeat.
Anyway Jesus goes on, and having told us (or them) something about the Kingdom and lifestyle he goes on to say, "Now you make sure you are living this way." And he uses a cultural example of Jewish marriage and a universal example of a burglar. Then Peter pipes up, "Are you telling this to some of us or all of us?" And Jesus give another cultural example, this time masters and servants and people who can be trusted to do a good job something the people were all familiar with, and (in reply to Peter) says, "Look some people know what needs to be done and some don't. Now, Peter, its up to you to figure out whether you are one of the people who understand the Kingdom or not, if you do, don't go asking questions about other people who may or may not understand, take responsibility for yourself."
And just like the earlier question about wills and estates and inheritance Jesus puts tension in the mind of the questioner. This is all about the Kingdom and faithful citizens of the Kingdom, how it this boils down to the idea that slaves should be beaten I don?t know.
I, by the way, am not a faithful citizen
Complain about this comment
Brian
I am impressed with your knowledge of the King James Version of the Bible. A few comments.
1) I get the impression that you have read the Bible the same way that some evangelicals study the Koran. They assume that it preaches a message of violence, and that it is full of contradictions. Lo and behold the find the same when they read it. Therefore, when their objections are put to a knowledgeable Muslim like Reza Aslan, they sound foolish. They haven't understood the text, as they have not inetrpreted it in the same way that they would interpret any other historical work. They do not determine the literary or historical context. They do not distinguish between figures of speech, poetic language, or literal descriptions. They make no effort to discover the author's intentions. This is basic hermeneutics Brian. I cannot see you taking a similar approach to Plato's "Republic".
2) I mean no disrespect, but skeptical scholars, like Maurice Casey or JD Crossnan would find your interpretations of the parables laughable. There has been a significant amount of work on the Historical Jesus. A consensus has been reached among Jews, Liberal Christians, Conservative Christians and Agnostics that the Gospels are a good source of historical information. Controversy, not surprisingly, rages over (A) the miracles and (B) Jesus' self conception. In these areas we step away from history into philosophy and theology.
A good introduction to this field is Gerd Thiessen's "Shadow of the Galilean". It draws no theological conclusions about Jesus - it just puts Jesus into his historical context. (Reading this book wouldn't convert anyone to any position, so I'm not trying to evangalise you!I genuinely think you would enjoy it.)
3) Acknowledging Paul's error for these reasons would be devastating to traditional Christian morality. I had a naturally occurring predisposition to have more than one sexual partner in my lifetime. Marriage would become a contract, not the basis of the family and new life. In other words it would be redefined to mean whatever the partners in the contract want. And we would be in the awkward position of arguing that Paul founded his ethics on faulty premises. Which is rather different than saying he didn't do enough social reform, or could have arranged church government differently. I know evangelicals who believe the ordination of women to be a mistake, but I don't know any who would say it is immoral.
4) No doubt you would have no problem with redefining marriage, or being skeptical about Paul's ethics. Fair enough. But the Archbishop was trying to converse with conservatives like me. Do you really care what Richard Baxter said? I don't think he made a good argument, but it was a gentlemanly attempt to discuss the topic with conservatives on their own terms. Bad manners do not help the Conservative case (Puritan, take note!)
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
I should add that no-one takes the view that Christians took their ideas from pagan mystery cults seriously any more. Recent research has shown continuities with Judaism.
John Dominic Crossnan or Marcus Borg would probably be more helpful reads.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham, (#74) - you're quite wrong. The world of C1CE was a veritable melting pot of fruity ideas, and Christianity evolved out of that, accreting concepts as it went. I don't think anyone suggests that the disciples went into religious Tesco and filled their trolley with conscious choices of what horseshit they wanted their new religion to include. It evolved; ideas ("memes" even) jumped ship from Mithras or whatever and got stuck on to Jesus. The concept of the Trinity and the place of Mary derived from the Egyptian notions; indeed the cross evolved from the Egyptian ankh (Roman executional crosses of C1CE were "T" bars, apparently).
Of *course* there are continuities with Judaism (which itself evolved spectacularly during this period, and bears hardly any resemblance to earlier Israelite religion), but there are continuities with Mithraism, Egyptian religion, Serapism, various mystery cults, etc etc. The barriers between religions back then were very very minimal - it was one big promiscuous religious cess-pit. The notion of a pure uncontaminated Christianity sprouting from a pure Judaism is the one that no-one takes seriously any more.
Complain about this comment
Heliopoiltan
Wow! I quote scholars, some of whom are quite hostile to conservative Christianity, and you prove me wrong by just saying so under a pseudonym!
That's really impressive. If I pursue a PhD, can I quote you?
Since the work of scholars like EP Sanders, these ideas have been confined to books like the Da Vinci code. And AN Wilson. The History of Religions school is dead and gone.
To be quite frank, what you have said shows a bewildering ignorance. Mithraic rites POST-DATE Christianity. The Eucharist finds it's origins in Jewish rites like the Passover.
There are skeptical scholars, of course. Crossnan is one of the best. He certainly believes that Jesus taught in the style of a cynic philosopher (but archaeology falsifies the idea that the Galilean cities near Jesus were the Graeco-Roman melting pots required to sustain his hypothesis). But his description of early Christianity sounds nothing like yours.
The work of NT Wright and Richard Bauckham has forced scholars to consider that the Trinity may also have Jewish roots.
Furthermore scholars are tempted to talk about Judaisms, rather than Judaism. There obviously was interaction with Helenism, but Jews made every effort to keep themselves pure - to the extent that some even avoided contact with suspect Jewish groups.
I assume that you've read Elaine Pagels, or some other media don. I'd love to know what scholars you are relying on. They don't publish books with Penguin press by any chance?
Do you honestly take the idea of "memes" seriously? You need to be very careful, you never know what idea might jump into your head reading this blog!
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Brian
# 69
I am sorry, I thought we were in agreement from earlier postings that it was odd that a god should be much concerned about human sexual activity. That is the impression I have of Jesus - he was a man on a mission, ANYTHING that distracted him or his followers from total commitment was preferably to be avoided.
My reading of his take on human relationships would paraphrase Matthew 19 much as follows:
"If you're going to commit to a bitch at least have the decency to stick with her, but, look, that's not for everybody so, hey, like, whatevva".
I hope you will forgive the vernacular and I admit not all Christians on the blog will go wholly along with the interpretation but I think it shows a man saying - be honest in your relationships but don't obsess there are much more important things than sex and relationships going on here.
In Jesus' mind the important thing going on was the establishment of the kingdom. The 'kingdom' he talks about was not an earthly kingdom - he was not a revolutionary - but equally it is not an escatological opiate desensitising those who seek it from the injustices and oppression around them.
Jesus correctly understood the folly of attempting to build a Utopian society on earth - the competitive advantage selfishness gives us makes all such attempts futile. Instead Jesus set out to recruit a band of utterly committed followers who would 'salt' (as he put it) the world in which they lived.
The kingdom is a mindset which inverts the established order, which exhorts its adherents to question received wisdom, which propels Christians to challenge the very basis and fabric of society. Jesus was not a revolutionary - he was something much more dangerous he was a subversive.
He did not directly challenge the Romans but for most people the Romans were not the problem - their real oppressors were the Romans' Jewish collaborators and the priestly caste who administered Caesar's rule, enriching themselves while serving their colonial masters. Jesus' teachings are full of scorn for these people and they saw him as a sufficient threat to the established order that it was necessary to kill him. Anything further from capitulation to systemic injustice than self-sacrificial commitment is hard to imagine.
Peter has often referred to the parable of the mustard seed - we have not been collaborating but it is a perfect illustration of the kingdom in this context. The kingdom is something that starts very small - it operates on the microcosm of your own heart. It germinates there, you tend it, nourish it, and it grows - if you are faithful it grows to such proportions that it has an influence beyond the soil in which it was planted and offers shelter and succour for all around it.
In a modern context a revolutionary might say - destroy capitalism; the subversive wisdom of Jesus would say - start small, conquer greed, and capitalism will wither.
Complain about this comment
I should have added, because his subversion was purposeful, 'Start small, conquer greed, SO capitalism will wither...'
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
I'm not going to spend much time, any time really, highlighting all the christ types in the old testament, you probably already know them, unless your Christian background was fundamentalist or even NI evangelical, but what I will say is this; the reason I mentioned the da vinci code and Indiana Jones was that the content of these stories draws upon much of the same myth making you accuse the early christians and Jesus himself of. They have the perfect blend of pagan worship, Jewish symbol, Egyptian god and goddesses, Christianity and imagination.
I haven't read to the same extent that Graham obviously has, but I've read some. I've read enough biblical criticism, enough of the ancient myths and enough theology to know that your 'problems' don't really amount to very much. Indeed I would be surprised if the Hebrews, people in and out of slavery, in and out of exile and under the influence and oppression of any number of surrounding nations, hadn't been influenced by other cultures. In fact the Old Testament is chock full of criticisms of the examples of syncretism in their culture. I would be surprised too if there hadn't been a Messiah wish given the history of the OT prophets. Is it any wonder then that claims and counter claims arose in the melting pot of the Middle East? Is it any wonder either that they understood it in terms of nation emancipation? Indeed even after the cross and the ...ehmm... resurrection the writer of Acts record the disciples asking the question, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?" But of course according to your view Jesus was dead, so you're going to have to explain why a bunch of radicalised failures, people who couldn't cut it in the own nation, decided to go global with their myth. There are simply too many people, and too many events recorded in the gospels to turn them into a mere idea.
And what was it they caught anyway, a Zeitgeist or a meme?
As for your other comments, "not a hint of the divine." Not one? What were you singing about in that christian band of yours?
And the stone thing. Testimony anyone?
Complain about this comment
Peter (#72):
I liked your story.
1. You ask: is hell a bigger problem than a kicking? A kicking or whipping is real and in the case of slavery represents power and domination over other human beings. Most slaves in those times were already in hell on earth. For them, as Sartre whom you have quoted said, hell was other people, i.e. their masters. As for the biblical hell, it wasn't real but represented a threat for failure to obey. I thought that most Christians had quietly dropped a real hell from their 'hermeneutics', or at least parked it.
2. Your story doesn't 'boil down' to the treatment of slaves, but you cannot ignore what Jesus actually said when it is inconvenient while being a stickler for what Paul says about gay sex. I'm afraid that hermeneutics doesn't allow for that degree of liberality of interpretation. As I said, many of the parables presuppose that slavery was 'natural' (to use Paul's word). Far from criticising it, as I said to Portwyne above, they glorify it as a model of the relationship between god and man: master and servant. See not only Matthew 18:23ff but also Mark 13:34; Luke 12:42ff; Luke 17:7ff.
Peter and Graham:
3. I find it odd that you want to ignore what Jesus says about slaves, sex and women but are hooked on what Paul says about homosexuality. I have quoted the words of Jesus extensively, but apparently to do this is to misunderstand what is being said. Apparently, he didn?t really mean that slaves should be beaten at all when he said they should be beaten as they deserve.
Let?s have some serious general 'hermeneutics', as Graham suggests. Did Jesus support slavery, or didn't he? Did Jesus deplore sex, or didn't he? Did Jesus tell the poor to accept their lot in this life because they would be rewarded in heaven, or didn't he? And Peter, if you insist, did Jesus believe in hell, or didn't he?
4. How about some general 'hermeneutics' about Hooker's distinction between 'direct oracles' and by-speeches? Might not Paul's attack on gays be a 'by-speech' and mistaken? Or are you both inflexible about what the Bible says regarding sex? (I notice that, Graham, you have equated sexual matters with morality - can't we get away from this nonsense, please? It is such a demeaning and narrowing of morality) while wriggling your way out of the pro-slavery and sexist 'hermeneutics'? Perhaps if you adressed Hooker more fully, you might actually be indulging in some relevant 'hermeneutics' for a change by addressing the topic of the thread!
Complain about this comment
Brian
I see you have more new questions. Are you able to accept any that has been said to you?
I've tried, Graham has tried, and Portwyne has tried... I'm off to watch CSI.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
So only you can ask repeated questions? Anyone for mustard seeds?
You should be watching Bonekickers. The first episode is called 'army of God'. I wonder if it is as excitable as the embattled ranks of Christians on this blog.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of interruption, ca I bring the subject back to Alan Harper.
Archbishop Alan has done the church a great favour and he is teaching general society a thing or two about the difference between intelligent readings of the bible and biblical fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists take the view that every sentence of the Bible is inspired by God and is applicable to every situation at any time. They thus read the passages about homosexuality and simply conclude that God is opposed to gay sex.
Those passages in fact have nothing to do with homosexuality. they have to do with temple prostitution, gang rape, idolatry, cultural misunderstandings of human sexual orientation ... any a host of other things EXCEPT homosexuality.
Theologians have long argued that the bible should not be read as a contemporary science book. That's true of geology and it's true of psychology too.
The Bible writers were people of their time. We need to separate out their teaching into those sections which reflect their cultural understanding at the time (e.g., the world is flat, everyone is born heterosexual) and those teachings which apply to every age (e.g., love your neighbour as yourself, do not judge).
Archbishop Alan is simply pointing this out. I wish he would go further and spell out the obvious conclusion. Which is: the church has got it worng over centuries about homosexuality. Just as the church got it wrong about many other moral questions.
This is not a reason to throw the Bible away. The Bible is a rich collection of books which tell part of the story of humanity's relationship with God.
Let's read the Bible as ancient literature, not as contemporary science.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
CSI was a repeat. Switched to Bonekickers. Do you think Helio had a hand in the script? It was OK, but a bit predictable, really predictable actually.
Repeated questions? I think I said new questions. It's a moot point.
"Anyone for mustard seeds?"
Well Colmans, and the people of Dijon (or some of them anyway), the Buddha (apparently), but not Jesus, because he knew a good metaphor when he saw one.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
'Bonekickers' was a hilarious piece of piss-taking hokum. It had everything bar the kitchen sink: a right-wing Christian plot to take over the country; the Knights Templar; and a precious holy relic.
"Next week we'll find the Holy Grail and, the week after, Atlantis", says the team leader. It was self- mocking and had some great one-liners.
On 'Newsnight Review' the panel thought it didn't take itself seriously enough so that it was difficult to suspend disbelief. But it seemed to me that the aim was not really to suck you in but rather to give you a good laugh at its own silliness. And for me it succeeded.
Augustine:
Good for you. I agree with many of your points, but I think some of the other posts give you a measure of your task in trying to change opinion. They won't even address Hooker's 'hermeneutic' distinction between 'direct oracles' and 'by-speech', a key element of Harper's argument, as a result of which he has been labelled in public as a 'false teacher'.
Complain about this comment
Brian
How can we deal with Hooker and the law of God if we can't get past the concept of Jesus as a misogynist and someone who supported slavery?
That was why I gave you the opportunity to explain a parable, I wanted to see what you would do with it.
Funny thing is you seem to want to discuss Hooker now, but don't you believe the whole bible to be a 'by-speech'?
I'm pretty sure there?s a pun there somewhere!
Bonekickers - "a right-wing Christian plot to take over the country; the Knights Templar; and a precious holy relic" - I know, predictable, should have put it down the kitchen sink, nowhere close to Python.
Suspending disbelief..... mmmmmmm.....now there's a thought!
Complain about this comment
Peter:
The issue is not what I believe but what Christians believe. The thread is about Harper and Hooker. Look at the top of it.
To be honest, I don't think much of the mustard seed parable. This is really why I haven't discussed it with you (didn't want to 'offend' you too much).
Now, I'm off to watch the great film Cabaret again. 'Tomorrow belongs to me'.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I have to respond to questions you have asked about Jesus on sex and slavery.
First on sex: aside from the points I have already made, still in Matthew 19 (v. 12), Jesus assets that some men are eunuchs "which were so born from their mother's womb". I have said that, as in the context eunuch is used figuratively to refer to a man who does not engage in sexual activity with a woman, Jesus is here almost certainly referring to homosexuals and, very germane to the current debate, Jesus is saying the condition is natural - the men were born that way, it could hardly be clearer.
On the topic of Jesus and slavery I have to say your interpretation of Luke 12 to suggest that Christ advocated the lashing of slaves is not even a literal reading of the text but a misreading so unwarranted that I have to hope it is merely perverse.
As I have already indicated, Christ, in his teachings about the kingdom, subverted traditional roles and understandings. Here, having exhorted his followers to divest themselves of worldly goods and give to the poor, he reminds them of their mission to be lights in world and the responsibilities they are charged with. When he first invokes the master/slave model he immediately inverts it - this is a master who will gird himself, and make the servants sit down to eat, and he will come to serve them. Jesus, however, has a serious mission and he needs to impress on his followers the need for total commitment and faithful stewardship of his legacy. He extends the same metaphor of master/slave (but only in response to questioning by Peter) to warn them that if they abuse their position or turn to self-gratification they can expect and would deserve the kind of punishment a master would mete out to an overseer who mistreated the under-servants entrusted to his care.
That he is talking to and about his own followers is unmistakeable and so too is the weight of the charge he lays on them to be faithful to their calling.
Complain about this comment
Damn! Where did my devastating response post go to?!?!
Quick reprise: the fact that Christianity emerged from a melting pot of ideas, and co-opted notions that were in common circulation at the time is neither new nor seriously contested. I think it's a bit rich to be asked for references when none are forthcoming, other than name-dropping. I think it's safe to say that we should care less about who holds a particular view than what their arguments are.
The fact that Christianity arose primarily out of Judaism is also uncontroversial, as is the fact that in C1CE we know of several sects within Judaism, with a huge range of doctrinal views, which themselves were bolt-ons from other religions - the notion of a "true" Judaism is absurd. Religions are leaky ships - all sorts of things flow in, and the occupants of said ships will nail on any old bit of flotsam in order to keep the rickety ship afloat. Christianity is no different from any other religion in this respect. Just with more encrustations than most.
As for conspiracy theories and what Brian correctly calls "hokum", I would merely add in that Christianity itself is the hokum here - there aren't any holy relics; Jesus was not anyone special (even if he conceivably *might* have been a remarkable person, but that's by no means clear). Where Dan Brown or the bonekickers have got it wrong is in thinking that something amazing needed to happen to start or nurture the myth, or that startling revelations etc are being suppressed. Nothing of the sort - it's just the way humans make up stories.
Now it would seem that Harper (after Hooker) is waking up to this - at least in relation to the unethical opprobium attached by traditional "christianity" towards homosexuality. Regardless of whether it's "natural" or "genetic" or whatever, what is done between two consenting adults that harms no-one is no business of gods or clerics or anyone else. Is the Anglican church waking up to this? If so, great.
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
"Religions are leaky ships - all sorts of things flow in, and the occupants of said ships will nail on any old bit of flotsam in order to keep the rickety ship afloat."
If Jesus was dead, the ship had already sunk.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, Christian leaders who preach that there is irrefutable evidence the Earth/Universe are a mere few thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived with people in the Garden of Eden are not only false teachers but liars as well. I don't think archbishop Harper falls into this catagory.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
Not in the least. When Jesus was alive, he was very much within the normal range of variation that localised to "Judaism". There was no reason for the ship to sink - lots of false religions survive the death of their leader. L Ron Hubbard's dead; Mohammed is dead. The mechanism that the followers of Jesus ended up using (resurrection) is not even particularly novel - it's a common motif. The subsequent "deification" of Jesus is likewise not novel. These are things people do. So far, so mundane, in fact.
-H
Complain about this comment
Portwyne (#88):
It seems to me that Christians will stop at nothing to maintain the pretence that Jesus was perfect and therefore could not have said anything wrong, bigoted, cruel, inaccurate, stupid, racist, homophobic or silly. They will even twist the meaning of words in order to avoid the truth (hermeneutics betrayed, Graham?) that he was very much a flawed human being. They oppose homosexuality on the grounds that the Bible throughout makes it clear that sex is for procreation in marriage, and yet say that Jesus is not negative about sex!
Of course, if homosexual rights had been achieved at the same time as the abolition of slavery, they would now be flurrying around trying to show that there is nothing in the bible which denigrates gays. That is the real truth of the matter.
I'm sorry, Portwyne, but your hermeneutics is wrong. Let's take these two cases.
"IT IS WELL FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN" (1 Corinthians 7:1)
First of all, the references I gave (PLURAL, please note) to sexuality. Now, either words mean what they say or they don't. The first reference in Mark 12: 25 states clearly that there will be NO marriage in heaven. And why not? Because marriage and sex belong to a sinful world which is passing away. It is something that is overcome and left behind. In the kingdom of God, where human life is ultimately fulfilled, sexual pleasures have no place, with the result that there are some believers who will castrate themselves here on earth for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12) This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Indeed, existing marriages (by heterosexuals!) should either be given up for the sake of Christ (Matthew 19: 29) or, according to the evangelical prohibition against divorce (Mark 12: 11ff), they must be endured like lifelong imprisonment, with the result that even a desirous glance makes a person fit for hell (Matthew 5: 28ff).
Now, Portwyne, Paul CONFIRMS this message. His statement "flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (1Corinthians 15:50) is one of the most misanthropic statements in the entire NT. Our 'lowly' bodies (Philemon 3:21) will perish and God will destroy our stomachs (1 Corinthians 6:13). In eternity, "there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). At the resurrection, Christians will be clothed with an asexual body made of ethereal, heavenly substance (1 Corinthians 15:42ff; 2 Corinthians 6:1ff).
A man who despised and ridiculed everything to do with the body as much as Paul does was bound to say that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1) and that it is best if ALL people remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7, 26). But, and I repeat this point, marriage is allowed, not because of love, because it legalises the sexual urge that so many Christians unfortunately cannot deny (1 Corinthians 6: 18; 1 Corinthians 7:3). He also demands that those who have wives should live "as though they had nothing" (1 Corinthians 7:29).
Now, I agree that Paul is more deprecating of women than Jesus. Both Helio and I have already pointed this out, but it is a matter of degree, not absolute difference. It is certainly Paul who, as I quoted above, insists that women are inferior to men (see the quotes in post 34 above). But, here's a question: who is right about women: Jesus or Paul? And if Jesus is right that women should be treated with the respect that he apparently accorded them, as some of you Christians suggest, then would you concede that Paul was making 'by-speeches', in Hooker's terminology? Was Paul mistaken in the comments I quoted in post 34 above? And might he have been similarly wrong about homosexuality? Come on, address this question.
PUNISH THEM LIGHTLY
Once again, words don't mean what they say, apparently. Let us take another translation of the parable in Luke 12: 47-48:
"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given". (NLT)
Now, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. There is NO other possible sane reading of this text. Paul confirms it:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Or is there a difference? And if so, is Paul wrong? By-speeches, not direct oracles, not anyone?
For a thousand years after the Bible was written, Christians approved of slavery and many of them kept slaves. Are you Christians out there saying that their ?hermeneutics? were mistaken? Don?t you think, then, that the message might have been made a bit clearer to Christians? After all, for many of us who aren't Christians, it is certainly clear enough.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Post 87 : "The issue is not what I believe but what Christians believe."
cross reference Post 93
That's an awful lot of belief.
Whatever.
How was Cabaret?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Just read your post, I posted a reply, then it vanished. It's like the twilight zone round here.
And you were concerned about me being offended!!
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
Couple of things
"there aren't any holy relics"
Quite correct. No shrouds, no splinters from the cross, no threads from the robe, no buckles from sandals, straw from the manger, Passover cup, no donkey's saddle, wet suits for walking on water, (although I suppose you wouldn't need a wet suit if you could walk on water) wizard's wands, magic mirrors, poisonous rose bushes, beanstalks, Tir-nan-og, monsters from the deep - it all centers on a person, and as I said earlier, a bundle of historical events. Miracles yes, magic no, and a bunch of very ordinary, even mundane stuff.
Interestingly too Jesus did not teach a way or a religion, he claimed to be the way, he did not claim simply to be the prophet of God, *he* said he was God.
And as for messiahs and rival messiahs, well if you messiah dies you either give up or appoint a new one, lots of people did, but some people kept on insisting that the dead guy was still in charge. Hubbard and Mohammed didn't claim to be the messiah, and this idea you have about the defeated followers of Jesus constructing (subsequently) his deity and resurrection is not particularly convincing, unless of course you are trying to convince yourself.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
By "there aren't any holy relics" I didn't mean that people didn't manufacture a lot of tat to substitute for them - they obviously did. What I mean is that my boring mundane model (Jesus died; the resurrection story is a myth) adequately explains the data without resorting to the nonsense of Dan Brownoids. There's no conspiracy - people make stupid stuff up, and then (like John Lennox in a recent podcast I caught) invent all sorts of silly nonsense to try to justify it.
One problem with your analysis is that Jesus did NOT say that he "was god", or at least not unambiguously. All we have are the gospels, which are contaminated with at the very least decades of "theological development" (or "after-the-fact embellishment" if you prefer), and we have very little idea of how Jesus saw himself in relation to the Jewish concept of god. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence in the gospels to suggest that Jesus did NOT see himself as co-equal with GTF, and certainly no evidence whatsoever that he envisioned a tripartite godhead - that is all just wishful thinking from later generations (with the odd little interpolation thrown in for good measure).
Sure, we have the rather weird stuff at the start of "John", but we have no way of retrocontextualising that back to Jesus himself. Don't believe me? Just read the gospels again.
As for his death and supposed resurrection, I do find it interesting, and it's a phenomenon that deserves a close look. If you *do* look closely you'll find that all the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are at odds with each other; they are all rather spooky (he disappears and appears and stuff), and they lack all credibility as accurate accounts. They are embellishments. They didn't actually happen.
Did the body disappear from the tomb? Personally I think it probably did. And I think it was simply removed for definitive burial in Galilee, as the young man at the tomb who met the ladies actually said (but they misunderstood him). There was no Roman guard - that is an embellishment. There was no earthquake. The dead did not rise from their graves and walk around Jerusalem. The resurrection was a myth that gathered pace over the course of a number of years. Even as late as Paul's time there were still considerable numbers of Christians who did NOT see Jesus as divine, and did NOT believe that he had risen from the dead. But they were Christians.
Indeed, you might argue that a lot of people who would call themselves Christians are in the same position today. I sometimes even call myself a Christian atheist, so even belief in god is unnecessary.
Cheers,
-H
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
"One problem with your analysis is that Jesus did NOT say that he 'was god', or at least not unambiguously."
And if he'd said, "Yes folks, me heap big Sky Spirit," we'd obviously have believed him.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
You have said before that the Bible for you has no particular authority. By what authority do you have knowledge of God?
Complain about this comment
Portwyne:
You cannot seriously maintain the notion that Jesus was perfect and therefore could not have said anything wrong, bigoted, cruel, inaccurate, stupid, racist, homophobic or silly. You are twisting the meaning of words in order to avoid the truth (hermeneutics betrayed, Graham) that he was very much a flawed human being.
I'm sorry, but your hermeneutics is wrong. Let's take these two cases.
"IT IS WELL FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN" (1 Corinthians 7:1)
First of all, the references I gave (PLURAL, please note) to sexuality. Now, either words mean what they say or they don?t. The first reference in Mark 12: 25 states clearly that there will be NO marriage in heaven. And why not? Because marriage and sex belong to a sinful world. It is something that is overcome by death and left behind. In the kingdom of God, where human life is ultimately fulfilled, sexual pleasures have no place, with the result that there are some believers who will castrate themselves here on earth for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12) This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Indeed, existing marriages (by heterosexuals!) should either be given up for the sake of Christ (Matthew 19: 29) or, according to the evangelical prohibition against divorce (Mark 12: 11ff), they must be endured as lifelong imprisonment and even a desirous glance makes a person fit for hell (Matthew 5: 28ff).
Now, Portwyne, Paul CONFIRMS this message. His statement "flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:50) is pretty direct. Our 'lowly? bodies' (Philemon 3:21) will perish and God will destroy our stomachs (1 Corinthians 6:13). In eternity, "there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). At the resurrection, Christians will be clothed with an asexual body made of ethereal, heavenly substance (1 Corinthians 15:42ff; 2 Corinthians 6:1ff). A man who despised and ridiculed everything to do with the body as much as Paul does was bound to say that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1) and that it is best if ALL people remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7, 26). But, as and I repeat this point, marriage is allowed, not because of love, because it legalises the sexual urge that so many Christians unfortunately cannot deny (1 Corinthians 6: 18; 1 Corinthians 7:3). He also demands that those who have wives should live "as though they had nothing" (1 Corinthians 7:29).
Now, I agree that Paul is more deprecating of women than Jesus. Both Helio and I have already pointed this out, but it is a matter of degree, not absolute difference. It is certainly Paul who, as I quoted above, insists that women are inferior to men (see the quotes in post 34 above). But, here's a question: who is right about women: Jesus or Paul? And if Jesus is right that women should be treated with the respect that he apparently accorded them, as some of you Christians suggest, then would you concede that Paul was making 'by-speeches', in Hooker's terminology? Was Paul mistaken in the comments I quoted in post 34 above. And might he have been similarly wrong about homosexuality? Come on, address this question.
Of course, if homosexual rights had been achieved at the same time as the abolition of slavery, I suspect that many Christians would now be flurrying around trying to show that there is nothing in the Bible which denigrates gays. That is the real truth of the matter.
PUNISH THEM LIGHTLY
Once again, words don't mean what they say, apparently. Let us take another translation of the parable in Luke 12: 47-48:"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly" (NLT). Now, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. There is NO other possible reasonable reading of this text. Paul confirms it: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ" (Ephesians 6:5, NLT).
Or is actually there a difference? And if so, is Paul wrong? By-speeches, not direct oracles, anyone?
For a thousand years after the Bible was written, most Christians approved of slavery and many of them kept slaves. Are you saying that their 'hermeneutics' were mistaken? Don't you think, then, that the message might have been made a bit clearer to some Christians? After all, for many of us who aren't of that persuasion, it is clear enough.
Complain about this comment
A few basic points on Jeus' teaching, the parables, and the resurrection. (if you don't believe me read the skeptical scholars I have referred to.)
1) Can we infer from one parable that Jesus approved of beating slaves? No. In one parable he compares God to an unrighteous Judge, yet he clearly believed God was righteous. We cannot infer from the parable of the dishonest steward that Jesus condoned dishonesty.
2) Jesus stood with the Shammaite Pharisees in his view of marriage. In this view sex was a gift to be enjoyed in marriage, and was given to man before the Fall. What Jesus says that is shocking - (his stance on divorce would not have been original) - is that the priorities of the Kingdom of God can take precedence over the Jewish duty to have children. Remember, this was a time when Rabbi's were expected to marry.
3) Paul used sexual intercourse as an allegory for Christs relationship with the Church. It would be very odd if he had a low view of sex, being trained as a Pharisee. What again is shocking is that a Jew would find the Kingdom of God a greater priority than reproduction. After all, how could Israel fill the world if they did not go forth and multiply.
4) The Gospels are full of allusions to Jesus' divinity, again the work of Bauckham, Wright, Ben Witherington, Larry Hutardo being relevent. Jesus assumes the authority of I AM when he forgives sins, when he admits individuals into the Kingdom on HIS authority, when he walks on water, when he calms storms (Psalm 77v19, Job 9v8, Psalm 107 v 23-30). Even if you do not believe that these miracles occurred (and I have to confess that many conservative scholars are doubtful) you still have to explain how, in a short period of time, stories were circulating about Jesus comparing him directly to I AM. There are other indirect affirmations that I can give (identifying himself with Divine Wisdom, comparing himself to the Shepherd who seeks and saves those who were lost (Ezekiel 34 v 16)) and also Jesus use of the title "Son of Man".
The usual critical response to this evidence is that it is unlikely that a 1st century Jewish Rabbi would make such claims. Yet Rabbi Akiva was prepared to make high claims for Bar Kochba. It also fails to explain why 1st century Jews (these stories only make sense in a Jewish, not Hellenistic, context) would begin to compare their Messiah to I AM.
5) Oddly enough, nearly every critical scholar accepts the post-Easter appearnces to the early Christians, precisely because they don't exactly cohere, and seem a little strange. This shows that there was little editing by the early Church - no cover-up.
6) An empty tomb should have killed off all faith in Jesus. The purpose of the tomb was to preserve the bones, so that they could be honoured by friends and family, and await the Resurrection. Their theft would have been the final desecration.
7) Furthermore, Jews were not expecting a Resurrection until the day of I AM ie. the end of time. Now, it is perfectly conceivable that the disciples may have expected the Messiah to visit them after his death as an "angel" - rather in the same way that they believed that Elijah and Moses could be seen with Jesus at the Transfiguration. It would not have been unusual for them to see visions of Jesus vindicated by I AM, awaiting the resurrection on the final day. But no one was expecting a resurrection in the middle of history. It is preposterous to expect the diciple to leap from the evidence of an empty tomb to the conclusion that Jesus was not only alive, but Resurrected (ie. never to die again) This was literally believing that a piece of the future was walking around in the Present
8) Most skeptical scholars leave the Resurrection stories unexplained.
This has been quite a long post, and I stil have left some of Brian's questions unanswered. I'll post again tommorow on Paul's ethics. In the meantime, can I recommend Gerd Thiessen's "Sahdow of the Galilean" as an entertaining and balanced introduction to the Historical Jesus, and Graham Stanton's "The Gospel's and Jesus" as a summary of recent research. Neither is, to my knowledge, an evangelical.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
And boy, do I have a long list of mistakes to correct! Even from the standpoint of skeptical scholarship.
GV
Complain about this comment
Peter
Have to confess to being a CSI fan as well. Won't pay for a TV licence on principle, so we don't have an aerial, but I'm addicted to the box sets. Which is hypocritical, because one of the reasons I don't have TV stations is the amount of violence.
Why I feel the need to confess this I don't know.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham
It's not the CSI confession I would worry about on a BBC site!
Anyway, your comments about the I Am statements are certainly one of the most obvious indications that Jesus was directly identifying himself with YHWH of the Exodus and Old Testament. Indeed it was the use of I Am in his reference to the Pharisees, "before Abraham was born, I Am!" which led to an attempt to stone him. It seems that they at least knew what he was claiming, although John, as I'm sure you know (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, keep it a secret) was making it all up. Clever chappy!
However I don't think that I have anything else to say on this thread. I've tried to answer as many of the objections raised as I can, yet they still remain; sometimes it comes down to what we want to hear, and that goes for me too.
In the end maybe the question we all have to face is another one Jesus asked, 'Who do you say that I am?'
Complain about this comment
Graham
I have noted some of the authors you have recommended and would be interested in following up some of the books. Are they generally available, or textbooks you have come across in you job?
Complain about this comment
Boys, boys, boys! (or maybe boyzaboyzaboyz as we say in Dungannon). OK, I know we're going off-thread in the 4x4, but what the heck.
Graham, you're the king of wishful thinking for sure here:
Oddly enough, nearly every critical scholar accepts the post-Easter appearnces to the early Christians, precisely because they don't exactly cohere, and seem a little strange. This shows that there was little editing by the early Church - no cover-up.
Pardon me while I wipe my splarted coffee off my monitor screen! There is a very simple explanation for these stories: they are not true. They are hearsay ghostie stories like any other ghostie story. They never happened, but people decades after Jesus's death heard from someone who knew someone who was there that this is what happened, so it got written down. The "early church" did not have all four gospels together, and they were not originally viewed as "scripture" until much much later. The "early church" never had a chance to edit them until they were thrown together and fossilised. Just read the damn things!
6) An empty tomb should have killed off all faith in Jesus. The purpose of the tomb was to preserve the bones, so that they could be honoured by friends and family, and await the Resurrection. Their theft would have been the final desecration.
Completely wrong, because (and this is important) the tomb was a *temporary* storage site for the body of Jesus. The intention was always to move his body somewhere else. We *know* that Jesus had other "interested parties" who were unknown to the disciples (c.f. the ass, the water carrier, the people at the "transfiguration", the people who were a no-show at Gethsemane, the person or people who owned the "Upper Room") and that his extended family were not happy with the rabble he was associated with in Jerusalem.
The concept that someone moved the body is really not surprising in the least. Furthermore, the "faith in Jesus" that the disciples had was something that was to evolve over the subsequent decades. Again, not surprising.
Now, it is perfectly conceivable that the disciples may have expected the Messiah to visit them after his death as an "angel" - rather in the same way that they believed that Elijah and Moses could be seen with Jesus at the Transfiguration.
Indeed. Which is precisely what seems to have happened when they couldn't find the body. I'm not saying this is definitely what happened - the gospel evidence is far too weak. but it is a darned sight more plausible than a trumped up "resurrection" myth.
It is preposterous to expect the diciple to leap from the evidence of an empty tomb to the conclusion that Jesus was not only alive, but Resurrected (ie. never to die again) This was literally believing that a piece of the future was walking around in the Present
Indeed. It happened over several decades. For example, Paul seems to have thought of the resurrection as a "spiritual" thing, rather than a physical one. That concept was to evolve later. For Paul and co the body had simply disappeared; his notion of the post-resurrection "appearances" were in terms of visions like his R2D experience.
8) Most skeptical scholars leave the Resurrection stories unexplained.
Yes, because the evidence is so paltry. I offer my explanation above as simply one possible scenario that is a LOT more likely than an actual resurrection.
Cheers,
-H
Complain about this comment
Brian
I see your post 93 has returned. I doubt that you will be convinced about other readings of the text, but do you think there is any room for any of what I have said by way of understanding to story in Luke?
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
I don't want to address the resurrection as I feel it is way off target on this thread. So I shall confine myself to your first three points.
1. You ask: "Can we infer from one parable that Jesus approved of beating slaves"? It is not a matter of inference; it is an implication. He clearly implies that he does. Moreover, if he was a progressive supporter of the oppressed, it is strange that his concern is not with the problem of how slaves should be freed but instead with how they should win their master's approval. Early Christian, including, as I have suggested, Paul, commanded Christians to continue the practice of slavery.
So someone who tacitly approved of slavery and whose disciples followed in his wake on the same course cannot represent the moral ideal. This is especially true when we consider that Jesus was also otherworldly, demanded blind obedience and was vindictive towards non-believers.
2/3. On sex, I have a couple of questions relating to a book of the NT from which I have not quoted so far. In Revelation, written by John of Patmos or whoever, it states that in the last days only 144,000 will be saved. Now it is not the figure that I want to question but the criterion for saving them. It states in Revelation 14:4 that "these are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins". Is this not sexist in the extreme?
(it might be taken to imply that only non-practising male homosexuals will enter the kingdom of heaven).
Now, Graham, surely this is a clear case of a 'by-speech' rather than a 'direct oracle'?
Complain about this comment
Helio
Just read your post to Graham.
One thing intrigues me. Why, years after the event, when faced with the possibility of persecution and death do you think the early Christians would construct a resurrection myth? Why construct gospels to tell this story and the story of a god-man. What was in it for them?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Just read you post to Graham too. I know the resurrection may seem off topic, but like everything else this has to do with interpretation.
You quote Revelation in post 108. In the same way that I suggested an intention in Jesus' answer in Luke, do you think this might be true of Revelation too.
In short, could the purpose, the assumptions and intention of a writer affect how we should read the text?
Complain about this comment
David
Post # 99
I know God. I need no 'authority' for that.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
Cabaret stands the test of time after yet another viewing. A great musical (I don't normally like musicals) but much more. You could see how conservatives who objected to all that 'sexual freedom' in the Weimar Republic voted for Hitler to restore 'traditional values'. It's on again tonight on BBC 1 NI (London last night).
I understand the writer's intentions are relevant to our interpretation of a text. But this doesn't imply that they don't actually mean what they say, does it? I mean being 'defiled by women' is clear enough, surely? Or am I missing something?
The intentions are surely to denigrate women. Here is another example. Is the intention not self-evident? Paul says: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2: 11-14)
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
No-one (I don't think) is seriously suggesting that the original followers of Jesus knowingly constructed a blatant lie. They got it wrong. But there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that the belief in Jesus's resurrection was the reason they were persecuted (if they were even persecuted that much at all - it kinda went with the territory). Furthermore, when people feel persecuted for their beliefs, do they sit back and rationally analyse them, or do they get all thran, dig in their heels, and put the foot down on the waccelerator? You'll find it's the latter.
People who told other people to wise up - Jesus was dead; they were the ones who were ostracised from the "early church". When people distinguish themselves from others on the basis of their beliefs, the beliefs get nuttier - not the other way round. Basic group psychology.
So a simple silly misunderstanding morphed into a belief, which morphed into a dogma (accreting all that extraneous crap as it went of course), and hey presto. It's not as if any of the early disciples were in a position to verify the matter, nor was it even a big deal at the time to the Romans or the religious leaders. Jesus was a relative non-entity - the disciples were no threat. They were simply ignored for decades, apart from the odd fracas like that of Stephen.
Don't look so surprised - similar things happen right now. JFK assassination nutters; Apollo hoax nutters; 9-11 conspiracy nutters. Back in 33CE (or whatever) these people were just mildly confused; later they became the nutters we know and love, and of course they had to retro-fit the conspiracy so that the "Jewish Authorities" were persecuting them and the Romans were hunting them down and similar fictions that conspiracy theorists the world over know and love.
It's the same old show over and over again. Once you understand it, you'll have no choice but to become an atheist :-) The human mind is a powerful thing, and the power of self-delusion is one of its specialties.
-H
Complain about this comment
Of course, to keep this relevant to the thread, I think what Alan Harper is saying is very helpful, and it is this sort of sensible perspective that gives me hope.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Your post # 100
When I respond to a post I usually attempt to reply to points the person has actually made.
I can only recollect ever mentioning Paul the Apostle once in any of my postings and that with reference to his assertion that the message of the gospel was non-rational. I unhesitatingly reject his views on homosexuality in particular and indeed sexuality in general as primitive and repugnant. I have very little interest in what the sex-life might be like in heaven (a place/state of whose existence I am far from certain).
I have said many times I regard the Bible as having no particular moral authority - it is, though, a great source of insight into the religious impulse and is the prime repository of the sacred narratives concerning Jesus.
I do not believe Jesus was a sacrifice necessary to appease a holy/angry God so I have no requirement to believe he was perfect or faultless. I do believe, however, that the conflation of man and myth which is the Christ we know today presents the human face of God, a walking, talking icon of the infinite light and love that lies beyond illusion.
I felt in one of your postings you made two specific allegations with which I could not agree and which I could not in conscience leave unchallenged: that Jesus was misogynist and that he was homophobic.
I have answered, I thought in detail, your arguments on both those precise points and, though I fear it is otiose to revisit the issue, I must return to the question of slavery - have you read the whole passage in Luke 12, say from verse 35 on? The words mean exactly what they say but they are an illustration of a parallel situation - Jesus is saying behave AS IF you were in the situation of a servant awaiting the return of his master (look at v 36).
I, who am a pacificist, could reasonably say to a friend "O, don't go out to Sprucefield on Christmas Eve - it's like a pitched-battle, you'll be mown down!" - it does not mean that I approve of war.
If you can't see this at least you will be proof positive that Jesus got one thing right: "Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13 v. 13).
Complain about this comment
Ah the anxiety of influence! Sorry folks - looks like I very nearly had a Cliff Richard moment in the last post! The Horror! The Horror!!
Complain about this comment
Hi Portwyne,
Thanks for your reply. It will take me some more of your postings to get a clearer picture of your full take on Christianity, so be patient.
I think I can forgive you your Cliff
Richard moment. At least, we were spared him this year singing in the rain at Wimbledon.
I am pleased that you reject Paul's view on sex and women. Let us hope that some others on the blog follow your lead. After all, it is Paul's views that this thread is supposed to be about and what Alan Harper was concerned about in his lecture. But some people don't want to talk about Paul's opinions, perhaps because they would have to admit problems with them.
Complain about this comment
Okay, here we go again- yes Brian the Resurrection is way off topic, but Helio raised the subject, and he is such an easy target, I couldn't resist.
1) If I am engaging in wishful thinking I am in remarkably good company - this company includes agnostic and Jewish historians. Heliopolitan - quote a scholar so I know where you are coming from.
2) You are - amazingly - correct about the way Jews honoured their buried dead; however the bones were usually moved from one part of the tomb to another, not another location. The removal of the bones would have been the final insult, after the shame of the cross. The discples should have been crushed.
3) Critical scholars believe the disciples, believed they had experiences that led to their belief. There is no other plausible explanation for the rise of the church, given the shameful manner of Jesus' death. This of course does not mean that critical scholars are all agreed that the experiences were veridical. Psychological explanations are usually given. I think you are open to this explanation? Even though you imply the stories were invented.
4) The members of Jesus family hid the body? When most went on to become leading figures in the Church? And being ashamed of his conduct during his ministry, they would have had absolutely no motivation to honour a blasphemer? I wonder why I've never read a skeptical scholar who proposed that explanation before?
5) What is your reply to the arguments of Harald Riesenfeld, Birger Gerhardson, James Dunn and Richard Bauckham? Not one believes in the inerrancy of the Gospels. They produce EVIDENCE that the culture of oral transmission, especially among the Jewish Rabbinic community, means that the argument that "chinese whisper" style stories lie behind the Gospels, (and the Passion narratives), can no longer be taken seriously?
6) How do you explain the "conservative turn" in Jesus studies, and the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus?
7) Paul believed in a physical Resurrection - his comments about resurrection in Thessalonians prove this. In Corinthians he refers to a "Spiritual body", not a spirit.
8) Skeptical scholars often offer no explanation for the Early Churches belief in the Resurrection because they don't have one. You need to explain A) An empty tomb B) Post - mortem experiences C) The survival of Jesus community, given his shameful death (every other self-proclaimed Messiah's following vanished after their execution by the Romans. For example Theudas or the Egyptian that Jospehus refers to. A prerequisite for being the Messiah was a great victory.). D) The belief that Jesus was not only raised from the dead, but Resurrected. A good explanation has to cover all four. Which is why those who have a philosophical presupposition against the miraculous, quite legitimately, make no attempt at explanation, or simply offer a few conjectures. Crossan is an exception here. He has a highly complex scenario.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Sorry about all that
1) Parables are not meant to be ethical examples. This can be seen from other Rabbinic Parables. They are meant to be strange and shocking stories that draw a comparison with some feature of contemporary Jewish culture and God. Sometimes allegory is used, but not always. Compare the styles of teaching used in the sermon on the Mount.
2) Roman marriages were odd affairs. Wives were not expected to fulfill sexual obligations after two or three children (at least among the well to do). Husbands sought sexual fulfillmet elsewhere. Against this, Paul, in 1 Cor 7, argues that sex between married couples should continue - and that the man's body belonged to the woman (in Rabbibic thought men had sexual obligations to their wives). Paul simply, and for a Jew, counterculturally, envisages a higher calling than marriage. But he is clear that such a state is not normal - it requires a "gift". Jesus actually implies that marraige requires a "gift". The disciples are bewildered as to how a man could be expected to marry without divorce as an escape route.
Libraries closing for lunch so must dash. G V
Complain about this comment
Brian fyi
Here is a previous entry posted by William Crawley on this blog on slavery;-
rgds
PB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html
IS THE BIBLE PRO-SLAVERY?
One hesitates to even begin delving into this topic. It is one of those issues where one set of people assume that the bible is invariably dark, bizarre and oppressive whilst another set of people assume that the bible must invariably conform to the canons of modern western liberalism. The truth is somewhat more nuanced, and we can only trace some general contours of the issue here.
The background to the Bible, both the Old and New Testament, was one where all the major cultures practiced and endorsed slavery. Whether it be the Egyptians of the mid second millennium BC or the Romans of the first millennium AD, slavery was a norm within society. Ancient Israel was not an exception to this, and even a cursory glace within the pages of the OT demonstrates this point. The OT law codes - for example the section known as the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21 and following) - contain many laws regulating the keeping of slaves. One will look in vain for any text in the OT that simply and unequivocally condemns slavery, because the OT assumes slavery as a basic social norm.
In ancient Israel, the majority of slaves were actually Hebrew citizens who fell into debt and were forced to voluntarily enter into slavery on a time limited basis. Manumission was automatic after seven years or at other set times. The remainder of the slave populations seems to have been foreigners captured in war, which must have been a fairly insignificant number of people for most of the history of ancient Israel.
Scholars of the socio-economics of Ancient Israel note that if the lists of people recorded in Ezra are representative, the ratio of free people to slaves was about 5:1 , and that no part of the Israelite economy was dependant upon slave labour. It is assumed that most slaves were employed in non-skilled domestic labour.
Where the OT differs radically from the norms of the Ancient near East is that the good treatment of slaves is demanded and the human rights of slaves are upheld in many key OT passages. This was particularly true for Hebrew citizens who had temporarily become slaves, but many laws protecting the rights of foreign slaves are to be found in the OT. These include legal protections for foreign women who became slaves in Israel. See, for example, Exodus 21.20, 26, 27; Leviticus 19.20.
In conclusion, the OT does not denounce slavery as a social institution, but it does recognise slaves as human beings who were to be protected from abuse. So, whilst it may be far in advance of the practices of the Ancient world, it does not conform to modern sensibilities.
The New Testament has relatively little to say upon the issue of slavery. Most of the NT references are metaphorical, likening the relationship of Christians to their Lord as one of joyous, liberating slavery. This paradoxical language was apposite to its cultural milieu and does not imply an endorsement of slavery. Paul makes it clear that slave trading is abhorrent and places slave traders in the same category as murderers (1 Timothy 1.10 ? some versions say kidnappers, but kidnapping for purposes of slavery is intended).
Nevertheless, some readers of the NT are critical of the fact that there is no outright and whole-scale condemnation of slavery.
Paul wrote against a cultural setting that denied that slaves were actually full human beings, but rather just relatively worthless chattels. Paul writes so as to wholly undermine this belief system. Paul had to be somewhat circumspect in what he said, lest he be construed by the Romans as a dangerous social revolutionary, but his words were radical in their context. He does not call upon Christian slaves to rise up against their earthly masters, nor does he call upon Christian slave owners to set slaves free. Rather, Paul adopts the strategy of encouraging both to see one another as children of Christ and to respect and love one another for that reason. Paul gently pressurises Philemon to release Onesimus on the grounds that it was wrong for a Christian to keep another Christian as a slave.
Paul?s words had the desired effect, and the patristic writings record that most Christian slave owners abandoned the practice on the grounds that it was impossible to keep a fellow Christian in slavery. For this reason, it was common for slave owners in the recent past ? in 19th century America for example ? to deny slaves access to the New Testament or to anything other than bastardised forms of Christianity.
William Crawley
Complain about this comment
ps yes I know the slavery piece was not written by Will, but he submitted it as as thread in his name....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
:-D
completely barking up wrong tree Pete!
Complain about this comment
sorry Pete
how did you connect me to this guy anyway???!!!
Complain about this comment
The Pb/William/whoever posting above (#120) could be taken as a good example of the distinction between ?direct oracles? and ?by-speeches? made by Richard Hooker and Alan Harper. If the Bible was totally divinely inspired, then it would surely not take a position which was of that primitive and barbaric time which permitted Christians to own slaves.
The fact is that there is no condemnation of slavery anywhere in the Bible. At no point does 'God' or the Bible writers express even mild disapproval of enslaving human beings. On the contrary, God is depicted as both approving of and regulating slavery.
Jesus never expresses disapproval and many passages reveal a tacit acceptance or even approval.
Jesus says:
"A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master" (Matthew 10:24)
And again:
"Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives". (Matthew 24:45-46)
Paul says:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart". (Ephesians. 6:5-6).
No intelligent heremeutics can deny biblical acceptance of slavery without distorting the text itself and no defence about 'quoting out of context' is valid, for the words are crystal clear and beyond dispute.
The early Christian church also approved of slavery:
"The slave should be resigned to his lot, for in obeying his master he is obeying God? (John Chrysostom).
"Slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance" (Augustine).
Yet Alan Harper is offering a way out, which is to admit that there are 'by-speeches' as well as 'direct oracles' and that sexuality and slavery are perhaps examples of the former.
Complain about this comment
Right - let's try this again...
OK, I seem to have lost yet another post... Pastor B - nice to have you back, incidentally.
Graham, you're going to need to open your eyes a little here. I suggest you are taking at face value some of the twaddle trotted out by conservative "scholars" (a word I dislike, because it's too easy to adopt - by their fruits shall ye know them).
Why should I quote "scholars" when I can make arguments? I suggest you do likewise. Leave your theologians at home, and address the actual +issues+.
In fairness, you gave it a go, but let's see how far you got:
1) If I am engaging in wishful thinking I am in remarkably good company
Not really. Like I said, play the argument, not the arguers.
2) You are - amazingly - correct about the way Jews honoured their buried dead; however the bones were usually moved from one part of the tomb to another, not another location.
No - this is pants. The body was placed in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb because nightfall/sabbath was approaching (or at least that's what the gospels said, and I take their word on this one). The intention was presumably always to move the body afterwards for definitive burial. Read the texts again.
3) Critical scholars believe the disciples, believed they had experiences that led to their belief.
Maybe so. Big deal. But we don't quite know what it was that they really believed in those early days. The first records of the "resurrection" are many years after the event, by which stage things had crystallised (or putrefied!) somewhat.
4) The members of Jesus family hid the body? When most went on to become leading figures in the Church?
Really? Name 'em. Jesus had a wider family circle. Did they think he was a blasphemer? Probably not.
5) What is your reply to the arguments of Harald Riesenfeld, Birger Gerhardson, James Dunn and Richard Bauckham?
State them, and we'll see.
They produce EVIDENCE that the culture of oral transmission, especially among the Jewish Rabbinic community, means that the argument that "chinese whisper" style stories lie behind the Gospels, (and the Passion narratives), can no longer be taken seriously?
I think you'll find this hard to sustain in relation to the Gospel narratives. For one thing, we KNOW (we have the books) that chinese whisper phenomena caused the divergence of the synoptics within just a few years of "Mark" being scribbled down - and that was with a +written+ document. You credit the "early church" with far too much document/narrative control.
6) How do you explain the "conservative turn" in Jesus studies, and the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus?
What's to explain?
7) Paul believed in a physical Resurrection - his comments about resurrection in Thessalonians prove this. In Corinthians he refers to a "Spiritual body", not a spirit.
I'm afraid you cannot reliably state what Paul believed - he believed that his R2D experience (after the ascension of course) was identical in significance with the "genuine" post-resurrection appearances.
8) Skeptical scholars often offer no explanation for the Early Churches belief in the Resurrection because they don't have one. You need to explain A) An empty tomb B) Post - mortem experiences C) The survival of Jesus community, given his shameful death (every other self-proclaimed Messiah's following vanished after their execution by the Romans. For example Theudas or the Egyptian that Jospehus refers to. A prerequisite for being the Messiah was a great victory.). D) The belief that Jesus was not only raised from the dead, but Resurrected. A good explanation has to cover all four.
Not at all. Been reading Craig, have we? Assuming the resurrection has to provide the evidence. Human factors (and they are many) suffice to explain how we ended up with the Jesus story - it is up to YOU to show that an actual resurrection is able to explain what we see. Religions are like species - many die out; only a few survive. Christianity was one of the few that survived. That is no evidence of its "truth".
All sounds pretty simple to me - I do not have to PROVE a scenario, but I can offer a simple naturalistic explanation for each, and they are not mutually independent. The Jesus myth simply caught the wave. It happens. It happened with Mohammed. It happened with Elvis. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Post 125
"... Alan Harper is offering a way out, which is to admit that there are 'by-speeches' as well as 'direct oracles' ..."
So you approve of the notion of direct oracles? Or is it just an 'in context' argument?
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
"...that's what the gospels said, and I take their word on this one."
You do?
So testimony is OK sometimes?
That sounds to me like 'believing' the bits of the story which you find useful to (the construction of) your argument.
Synoptic 'problem'. Chinese whispers, good party game for children, but not really much else. Are the gospels too diverse, or are they too alike? Of course another straight forward, even mundane, solution would be that each of the writers wrote their account, from their perspective and within the context of their own personality. That they used information from a range of sources is only to be expected, indeed Luke tells us precisely this at the beginning of his report. No big deal really.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
I am of course referring to a way out for some Christians. It seems to me that many evangelicals in NI condemn themselves to a position of upholding the unupholdable (if there is such a word) by arguing that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired. It would be so much more sensible to argue that only the better, more Christian parts are 'direct oracles' because it wouldn't involve you in twisting yourself into knots trying to argue that the Bible is not a primitive text which upholds many of the flawed and outdated mores of ancient times.
As it stands, the Bible as a whole is untenable, so it would be prudent to ditch the more nasty and unpleasant bits and defend what is worth defending (some of it is, not on a 'divine' level, I hasten to add).
It shouldn't be a case of all or nothing. This is what Hooker was saying and what Alan Harper is saying. In my view, it would be wise to listen and not ignore them.
Complain about this comment
My apologies again for drifting off post. I feel Helio deserves some sort of answer. I can understand if others are feeling frustrated, but
1) Can I make it clear to anyone reading that I have not based my arguments solely on conservative Scholars. I have repeatedly pointed you to JD Crossan, who is anti- conservative, who has articles freely available online, and who would help you update and finetune your arguments. You might also try James Tabor's excellent web site. I like to read a spectrum of views. It's called opening your mind. It's the opposite of wishful thinking, when you just assume what you've heard is true, and that any peer-reviewed Scholar who disagrees with you is operating on irrational presuppositions.
2) Of course Hellenism had an influence on Judaism - the synagogue and the Sanhedrin would be two examples. There are also examples of syncretism, eg. the Jews at Elephantine.This is a far cry from saying all the Religious view points blurred into one another. It is also much simpler to find parrallels to Christian rites and Theology in Judaism than the mystery cults.
3) I don't credit the Early Church with too much control. Rabbinic communities had reliable techniques for the accurat transmission of tradition. If you had the slightest awareness of the arguments I alluded to, you would know that flexibility was allowed in the retelling of a narrative or teaching. This explains many of the variations between the gospels. However the community put checks on just how much flexibility would be allowed. Gerhardson compares the Gospels to reliable Rabbinic traditions passed down through an Oral Culture - his work has been given weighty support by Jacob Neusner. (Look him up on Wiki). Dunn uses sociological research which again shows that oral transmission is a mix of stable themes and fluidity. When the transmission is of importance to the communities identity, great care is taken in transmission. This can be seen in the case of the Early Church as it preserved traditions traditions that (a)emabarrass the disciples or Jesus (eg. rejection by his family and Matthew 10v23), (b)the pre Easter themes (like questions about the Temple Tax, or the lack of a post easter perspective in the Lord's Prayer) ,(c) titles like Son of Man that the Early Church did not use, (d)lack of teaching on the Gentile mission, (e)lack of teaching on circumcision, etc etc etc. The evidence points towards a community that wanted to preserve knowledge of it's founder. Dunn and Gerhardson have provided evidence that they were capable of doing so. (A lengthy reply to this argument can be found in Crossan's "Birth of Christianity".) Bauckham produces evidence from Papias that eyewitnesses, or those close to eyewitnesses, may have had a formal role in controlling the oral traditions.
4) When you use the analogy of Elvis, you have lost the argument. You clearly do not even know what a religion is! (Try reading the definitions given by Geertz, Durkheim or Ninian Smart).
5) I did not say that I had proved Jesus had risen from the grave. I explicitly said that a philosophical objection to miracles could stop a person drawing that conclusion (I disagree with Craig here, and was supplementing his argument in any case). I simply said that the Naturalistic alteratives seem extremely unlikely, and those critical scholars who choose to do so are within their rights to give no explanation. We need only "infer to the best explanation when the best is good enough" - Peter Lipton. If you have reason to doubt miracles, or just want to keep them out of the history syllabus, you are better not coming up with a theory that demands, simultaneously heartbroken second cousins conspiring to steal a body, hallucinating disciples, and a series of tall tales. This just sounds silly. If you can't buy the miracle, just say "who knows?" Visions and developing legends, proposed by some, don't explain all the facts.
6) You didn't even bother to read 1st Thessalonians, did you? What an open minded approach to the evidence!
7) Sometimes bones were collected WEEKS OR MONTHS later, and moved to a family mausoleum. Typically, families could not afford two burial sites, so the ossuary was returned to the tomb. Tombs have been found containing ossuaries. Go to www.mfa.gov.il/ , search for tombs, and you will find the relevant descriptions. The burial had to take place before nightfall. You couldn't just throw the body in a convenient tomb, and then move it somewhere else when daylight returned. Mark 15v42-47 states Joseph of Arimethea asking permission to bury the body in his family tomb. He wouldn't need permission to store it overnight! There are very brilliant skeptical scholars who could provide you with impressive arguments. Seriously, look up Tabor's site. I haven't been on in a while, but I found him very insightful.
For an illuminating exchange between a conservative and a liberal scholar try "The Meaning of Jesus" by Marcus Borg and NT Wright.
In answer to your question Peter, most of these books are difficult to find in bookstores. I managed to pick most of mine up second hand. But they are not aimed at scholars. I don't read Greek, and I found them perfectly accessible.
I'm getting a bit bored with this exchange H, so I'll tell you what. You can have some free shots at me. I won't reply to your next few posts attacking my conservative stance on the Gospels. I usually enjoy your sense of humour, so don't feel obliged to hold back.
Graham
Complain about this comment
BTW most of the scholars I have quoted have excellent articles online, usually from peer reviewed journals.
I duuno, H, I thought you might, you know, look them up? That's why I dropped their names.
Complain about this comment
Graham, don't feel *obliged* to respond, but at least when you do, please try to say something sensible! We've let these exchanges get quite long, which is both a good and a bad thing, and I hold my hands up and admit to some verbosity. We are well matched in those stakes probably.
Meantime, I'd better respond to Peter:
I am not arguing that the gospels got *everything* wrong. Some of the things they report probably happened. I can accept things without *believing* them. If counter-evidence arrives, we factor that in. Easy, really.
Rabbinic communities had reliable techniques for the accurat transmission of tradition.
You're assuming that the early church was some sort of disciplined Rabbinic community, rather than a collection of competing interests and ideas centred round a charismatic (now dead) leader, who had a somewhat eclectic appeal. Seriously, you are indulging in special pleading for which there is no evidence, and ample counter-evidence exists. The gospels Got Facts Wrong. The discrepancies, even when they are based on the *same* source documents (sorry Peter - the synoptics are not independent, and NONE of them are eyewitness accounts).
You've flung out a lot of "scholars" at me, but no arguments. I can simply respond by suggesting that you re-read Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos, Richard Dawkins, Isaac Asimov, John Loftus, blah de blah. If you want me to address their arguments, *present* their arguments.
I've read Thessalonians many times; what's your point? At any rate, 1Thes isn't first hand evidence either. It's just more hearsay.
That being said, let me address at least some of your issues (I think I've dealt with the others previously):
I simply said that the Naturalistic alteratives seem extremely unlikely, and those critical scholars who choose to do so are within their rights to give no explanation.
Really? A naturalistic explanation (i.e. something that doesn't involve angels and resurrections and tombs popping open and stuff) seems extremely LIKELY. I've just proposed a simple model. Ehrman has proposed another. These explanations make sense - we can't test them, but neither can you test your resurrection model. And the evidence that you *do* have is (as we have seen) flawed.
If you have reason to doubt miracles, or just want to keep them out of the history syllabus, you are better not coming up with a theory that demands, simultaneously heartbroken second cousins conspiring to steal a body, hallucinating disciples, and a series of tall tales.
Except that such things are KNOWN to happen; people get mistaken; they believe all sorts of daft stuff, and hey presto. My scenario is just one possible one, and we've seen similar things happening with hallucinating people at Lourdes or Fatima. I suggest that you don't have a great deal of experience in how people respond to events that shake their worldview, because there is nothing about the germ of Christianity that is surprising at all.
This just sounds silly. If you can't buy the miracle, just say "who knows?"
I'm happy to do that, of course. If you *can* buy miracles, then how bat5h1t crazy does some loopy nutball story have to be before you draw the line?
Visions and developing legends, proposed by some, don't explain all the facts.
Yes they do. The "facts" are stories. People love stories. They tell stories. They embellish stories. They even start to believe completely fictional stories (e.g. DVC, Ruth, Esther), and make up all sorts of silly nonsense to smooth over the cognitive dissonance.
I used to be a Christian, and believed the Resurrection. I would have argued from where you're standing, so I think I understand your view. But stop hiding behind "scholars", and check it out for yourself. The gospels, which are soooo tight up to the crucifixion (albeit contradictory in places, as their embellishments and editing were not cross-checked) are completely at variance over the post-resurrection appearances. Read them side-by-side. Get 4 bibles, and just do it.
-H
Complain about this comment
Portwyne,
I cannot resist this, exactly how do you know God?
Complain about this comment
PB just for the sake of clarity .... the article you say is Will's was written by Shibboleth, not Will. Just because it's posted in the main page doesnt mean Will wrote it. Some people n here have had articles posted by Will on the main page and his name always appears under the post as the 'poster'. Best to be fair or your arguments aren't taken seriously by the others here.
Complain about this comment
Can't resist - temptation overpowering! Going back on pledge...
I did point to the evidence that oral communities can preserve evidence, and that the New Testament community did. Jesus was a Rabbi, with disciples. Also I told YOU where to find a lengthy reply (JD Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity").
Loftus?! (Ehrman, maybe, but guess what - I've read him!)
Asimov?! Great New Testament Scholar, many breakthroughs in the field! I'm trumped.
I did like "The Ugly Little Boy" though. Read it years ago, still sticks with me. And "The Last Question" - that was a good attempt to avoid nihilism.
I thought the "I, Robot" movie was terribly disappointing. A lot of sound and fury signifying not as much as it thinks it does.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Brian
So we should just retain those parts of the bible that cohere with secular humanist ethics?
And have Secular Humanists ever had any formal input into the RE syllabus in NI? Did anyone ever invite you to the table?
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Oh, and H, now I see where you are coming from - Ehrman. That clarifies things quite a bit.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi PTL,
You realize that your post #134 will soon be referred to the moderators, right? PB doesn't like criticism. His usual way out is to try to have the comment removed. I think the flock at his church must be some pretty easily manageable sheep to be following him.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Graham (136):
It's news to me that Hooker was a secular humanist. Or Alan Harper for that matter.
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio
I was careful not to suggest that the gospel writers wrote independently of one another. Indeed what I did say was, "That they used information from a range of sources is only to be expected, indeed Luke tells us precisely this at the beginning of his report." It's pretty much accepted that Luke and Matthew used Mark, and probably other sources, (including 'Q', or is that 'M'?, no that's James Bond) written and oral, as a basis for their reports. Where's the problem/surprise? Think journalist. Much material is common to the three of them, other bits have a different emphasis. Maybe they added, based on their own experiences, to what Mark had written, maybe they used bits that were already there.
"None of them were eyewitness accounts." What, was Matthew blind?
Some are concerned that we have not been discussing Hooker and Harper enough on this thread, but, as I said already, how can we ever get on to discuss this if we can't get past a stereotype of Jesus and Paul, never mind whether or not the bible is in anyway accurate about who Jesus was.
You don't believe the bible speaks accurately about Jesus, OK; but it's not just as straight forward as you like to present.
Complain about this comment
David
#133
I know God experientially. I have tasted him in the sacrament of the Eucharist and in the press of life. He has comforted me in sorrow and added to my joy when I have rejoiced. I have seen him in the face and lives of other people. I know that he is real and that his loving kindness can be drawn into this material world and is capable there of effecting change both in human lives and in the physical environment.
There were circumstances in my own life many years ago which led me to knowing God: not 'believing-in' but 'knowing'. When every fibre of my being knew he was real I stopped believing - it was no longer necessary. We don't believe in our earthly fathers, at least not if we actually know them.
When I stopped having to believe in God, quite independently and not immediately but over a period of time, I found I stopped having to believe in the system of dogmatic props which up to that point had shored what faith I had.
If you don't mind my asking - how do you know him?
Complain about this comment
These posts get very serious and heavy sometimes when points can be made more lightly and just as effectively. I was thinking about some of the issues raised in this thread - both on and off message - and the questions being asked about Jesus' attitudes to homosexuality and the like.
My own contributions referred principally to parables of the kingdom so I wondered, if Jesus had not emptied himself of the foreknowledge and had been aware of how much of an issue gay rights for his followers was going to be in the early twenty-first century, what new parallels he might have used to make a few points about his template for life - parables of the Queendom we might call them...
Now the Queendom of Heaven is like a boy-babe-elicious dude which a promiscuous gay man having a wide, varied, and full sex-life shall see, and seeing him and being desirous of him, shall put away his sling and his Tens machine, his harness and his plugs, and all his other accoutrements in order to possess him.
And again, the Queendom of Heaven is like unto a Sports Massage which offers much more than it advertises - but, Brian, IT'S ALL GOOD - and still, when you commit to it, you get much more than you bargained for...
And, to keep, however tenuously, on track, the Queendom of Heaven is like unto an Anglican Archbishop who shall take turgid prose, impenetrable language, and obscure arguments and from them engender lively debate...
Complain about this comment
And of course Portwyne he need not approve of a Tens machine, a sports massage or an archbishop in order to make his point!
Complain about this comment
Graham, yeah yeah yeah. My point is that we can volley "scholars" all day long; it's the arguments that count. I'm not going to do your research for you - if you understand any of the punters (perhaps a more accurate term than "scholars") you mention, why not place their arguments in your own words? If I were playing football with you, and you just stood there shouting "Beckham! Ronaldo!" do you think you'd win?
If you really don't have any arguments, and just want to haul in your supposed big hitters by proxy, then what are we at here anyway?
Let me clarify. In order to end up where we are right now, with all the gospel stories and letters of the apostles and legends from Irenaeus and co that we have now, we do NOT need a certain person called Jesus the Nazarene to have risen from the dead or to have been "god" in any meaningful way. Purely human natural factors are perfectly adequate.
Sorry - we are way off topic here. Let's drive this 4x4 back onto the road. Harper. Yep. Good lad. keep 'er lit.
-H
Complain about this comment
Indeed Peter - as always it's all in the use to which each is put...
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter (#140):
A stereotype, however simplistic, is infinitely close to the truth than a deification, which is way off the scale of credibility. Getting past that is asking for the stars (when we don't even have the moon, a la Now Voyager).
I have not become involved in the debate about a resurrection because I feel that this thread should not really be about Jesus but about Paul, who was the subject of Alan Harper's lecture.
I know what you think about Jesus, but what about Paul? Is he ever mistaken in his theology? Is his hotline to the deity free from interference or misconnections? Or could he actually be the loather of the body, women and sexuality that his quoted words suggest he is? He does rather come across as a character who hated himself and the world.
Graham:
I agree with Helio. Name-dropping doesn't stengthen an argument or make a case more plausible. I could name works which paint a different picture.
Have you read G.A. Wells:
Did Jesus Exist;
The Historical Evidence for Jesus;
Joachim Kahl:
The Misery of Christianity.
Uta Ranke-Heinemann:
Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven
Putting Away Childish Things?
Complain about this comment
It is spectacular - the success that Saul Paulus enjoyed in his pretence as an "apostle". There are times when I like the bloke; other times when I think he was a total nutter. Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!
They were credulous times, boys and girls.
[COI. I would love to go back in time and ask Jesus the Nazarene about all this stuff. The bible really is a grotesquely inadequate record of the man, but I can betcha that his views (after appropriate discussion and education) would be closer to mine and Brian's than Graham's, PB's or Billy's. I think he'd have been an atheist if he knew what we know now.]
Complain about this comment
The very mention of the Bette Davis film ?Now Voyager? takes me back to a cold November night in 1983 when I saw this film for the first time. I had been a fan of Bette Davis for many years and had waited patiently for the screening of ?Now Voyager?, a film much talked about by my mum!
At the last minute she is given the opportunity to take someone?s place on a cruise to South America. As is custom on cruises she is invited to dine at the captains table.Searching for the right evening gown to wear, she chooses one embroidered with a butterfly. This is quite significant as becomes apparent later in the film; however, much to her embarrassment she discovers that a label pinned to the gown is drawing amused attention to her! A gallant gentleman, actor Paul Henreid, comes to her aid and places his hand over the label. They quickly become friends and naturally she falls in love with him.Sadly, he is married man with a child and although there are problems in his marriage he cannot divorce his wife because of her religious beliefs.
Arriving home from the cruise, her family are stunned at the transformation in Bette, she is a beautiful woman! Hence the significance of the butterfly!
She later meets up with the young daughter of Paul Henreids character and once again finds herself drawn to him.
I believe the final line in the film ?Why ask for the moon when we have the stars? sums it all up. Two people destined to be together but cannot be together!
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Man is for woman and woman is for man (the natural) not man for man or woman for woman (the unnatural) just as you shall not commit adultery.
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio,
"Hey, anyone hear PB on the radio this morning? (Good Morning Ulster)."
May the FSM be praised for online archives. I just listened to PB and indeed, Pastor Bradfield is up to his usual:
- very unpleasant homophobia
- even putting homosexuality on the same level as murder this time
- claims of 'there is no evidence for genetic disposition to non-heterosexual behaviour'. As long-time readers of this blog would know, Pastor B never immerses himself in evidence to any depth.
- instead, he produces bible quotes as arguments
Don't you have to spend a few years in training to be a reverend? What on earth has PB spend those years on? Developing his dogmas would take the length of time required to read the bible (and not, repeat NOT do any thinking about it after that). Say a few days cover to cover. Ok, let's be generous and assume PB is a slow reader, a few weeks. What else did Pastor Bradfield learn in all that time?
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Complain about this comment
Hello Puritan,
I do not believe in your fairy tale god of course, but if I did, your post still wouldn't worry me too much:
sexually immoral - quite moral. Well, for the most of it anyway.
idolator - no
adulterer - Can you be an adulterer if you're not married, like me?
homosexual - no, boobs work fine for me
thief - no, not that interested in material things anyway. Ok, maybe the very occasional mp3 download as a form of non-material theft in the past :)
greedy - greedy for knowledge, but that is not a bad thing. If only fundies like you would realize that.
drunkard - I don't drink at all
reviler - reviler of what? Of nothing not worth reviling for sure.
swindler - I lack the subtlety for that!
Complain about this comment
Brian
1) I summarised some of their arguments. Post 130, points 2, 3 and 7. Post 101, points 4, 6 and 7. Post 118 points 2,3,4 and8. Just how long do you want my posts to be? And why would anyone take my word that a culture of oral transmission existed in 1st century Palestine.
2) Standard pratice in academia is to give peer reviewed sources, to show you are not relying on your own dim wits.
3) GA Wells - you are kidding, right?
4) As I stated, I dropped the names so that anyone who is interested can look at their online articles. Stick to the articles from peer reviewed journals.
5) I also dropped the names to show that you can't make sweeping statements about the historical accuracy of the Gospels until you have researched a spectrum of views. I've recommended Borg and Crossan as examples of historians who would be at the opposite end of the spectrum from me, because I thought you might find them interesting.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Graham, they're *stories*. They don't even agree with *each other*.
QED, baby.
(by the way, the practice in academia is not to simply fling names around. That is not citation - that is hiding. You could use the form: "As Ehrman (2004) argues, the gospels are a heap of mince" and then provide a specific reference in the footnotes. But in this context, where the cited statement is very much in question, YOU have to defend the assertion. Stop hiding.)
Complain about this comment
Hi Puritan:
I don't need to go through your list. The first will do.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" I'm glad. It's been pissing down here for the last month, while it hasn't rained in some parts of Somalia for 3 years. I wouldn't want to share a 'kingdom' with anybody, let alone such an abominable weather planner.
The same point applies to you that applies to Graham. Quoting 'authoritative' sources isn't much use to those who question the truth of such authorities and who believe that their brains and their own 'authoritative' reading lead them to opposite conclusions.
Still, no takers on the 'divine' inspiration or otherwise of Paul. The avoidance of the topic of this thread by a number of posters is highly revealing. Come on, do you believe every word Paul or not?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
"The avoidance of the topic of this thread by a number of posters is highly revealing."
This 'avoidance' (if that is what it is) doesn't reveal anything.
We have all become stuck on interpretation and Jesus and the gospels and sources and the like. All biblical issues, just like Harper and Hooker, and I don't happen to think that we have been off topic as much as others do. I personally see no point in discussing Paul's 'cultural conditioning' when he was writing about who Jesus was, what the Kingdom of God entails, to followers (churches) who believed that he was an apostle and Jesus was God.
The world views are poles apart.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
You are not addressing my specific questions.
1. Was Paul divinely inspired?
2. Was he ever mistaken in his theology (hermeneutics, Graham)?
3. Was his hotline to the deity free from interference or misconnections?
4. Was he the loather of the body, women and sexuality that his quoted words suggest he is?
5. Is he as Harper suggests, making 'by-speeches' as opposed to reporting 'direct oracles?
Echo answers: are there any answers to these questions?
Complain about this comment
H
If I'm pointing you to books that would help your case, how am I hiding?
J Dunn "Jesus Remembered" pp 210-253, 825-880, 882-884
R Bauckham "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" pp12-39, 240-357
Graham Stanton "The Gospels and Jesus" pp170-177
I've already summarised their arguments, as shown in post 152. Your reply is merely to assert that the Early Church was not a Rabbinic community (No-one said it was, just that it could use similar methods),and that the stories don't exactly cohere (and I have pointed out stability and flexibility are to be expected in performance of oral tradition). I do't think you are prepared to consider all the evidence. But life is short.
I will not quote card carrying evangelicals, lest I be accused of closing my mind.
Gerd Thiessen "The Shadow of the Galilean" pp210-214 points out that Mark 1v5, Matthew 11v 7, Matt 15v26 could only be formed with knowledge of the reeds on Herod Antipas' coins, that the Jews of Galilee made bread for the rich of Tyre, and how one could baptise in the Jordanian wilderness.He also points out that many of the Jesus traditions ahve not been adapted for conditions outside Galilee, and do not address many of the priamry concerns of the 1st century Church - eg. next to nothing about elders, circumcision, baptism and community membership, justification, no explicit teaching on his nature, nothing on proto-gnosticism.
As Ehrman seems to be the only NT scholar you are familiar with, can I again recommend JD Crossan "The Birth of Christianity".pp49-95 gives a thorough critique of moderate - conservative views of oral tradition, using sociological research.
Graham Veale
Graham Veale
Armagh
Complain about this comment
Brian
As an evangelical, I answer yes to 1-3. Post 119 point 2 answers qu.4. Paul and Jesus are radical in that they envisage a higher calling than marriage. Otherwise, the Rabbinic attitude seems to have been, sex is just sex. If you are married, enjoy it. (And have lot's of kids).
Paul believed sex should continue throughout married life, (he said that the man's body belonged to the woman and vice versa).As I've mentioned, this was not in keeping with Roman culture. Especially saying a MAN had to provide sex for his WIFE whenever SHE wanted it.
Graham Veale
Armagh
Complain about this comment
The "loather of the body" looked forward to bodily resurrection, and did not seek release from the body. As I have said he encouarged sex between married couples, in an age when birth control wasn't all that reliable.
I can't see any evidence that he "loathed" women - he encouraged them to prophecy. Whether or not he put a blanket ban on female leadership in the Church is controversial. I don't believe in Priests, Bishops or Ordination, so I'm staying out of it.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Just back from the field. Sorry, that should be a field, I was building a tree hut with my kids, and heard neither toot nor flute all day!
I know I didn't address your questions. I said, "I personally see no point in discussing Paul's 'cultural conditioning' when..." . Although Graham has given you answers now.
You're going to have to accept that this is not a matter of avoidance, it's a matter of what the bible is for, and how we ought to read it. This is what Archbishop Harper said in his speech. He was arguing that, "the manner in which Hooker dealt with Holy Scripture, how is to be esteemed and how it may be interpreted... needs swiftly to be recovered." How we interpret scripture is what I have been going on about all along; but I'm not going to get drawn into debating bits of it, that's called fundamentalism.
You seem concerned to get some very black and white answers to some very black and white questions, which suggest that you view the bible as a very limited kind of rule book. That is not how I see it. Rather, I understand the bible to be the record of God's activity in history, culminating with Jesus, his final 'word' if you like. Everything is then read in the context of Jesus (resurrected) and the Kingdom of God. If Jesus isn't God, and isn't alive, I'm off surfing. Others can, apparently have church without either but it beats me why they bother. This view makes all the difference in the world to how we understand the bible, and it is why I started the discussion where I did.
It should also be remembered too, that the Archbishop and Hooker are/were members of a church which has a very close connection with the State; indeed in some cases, the CofE and the State appear to be synonymous, and this raises particular problems for Anglicans. I, on the other hand, have continually argued for the separation of church and state and therefore the problem of attempting to reconcile two competing world views is less of a problem for me.
I don't expect the church to reflect the surrounding culture, I expect it to be different.
I'm sorry Brian, but that's how I come at it.
Complain about this comment
Graham, it doesn't matter if you point me towards authors - if you have indeed presented arguments, I think I've dealt with them. If the authors help my own case, bully for them. But I am a scientist, and I need to see how the model works from the ground up. I cannot and will not trust what others say (and that goes for Ehrman and Avalos too - they need to show me that they are talking sense [they do, of course :-)]).
I am certainly not suggesting that the early Christians made the whole thing up consciously, and it is so unsurprising as to be positively banal that some of the details of the general social conditions of the time were correctly recorded in the gospels. Of course they were - they were widely known at the time. Which does make it even more inexcusable for the gospels to contradict each other in the little details. Flexibility in narrative, indeed! Rather, these sources were put together for different groups of Christians (or, possibly, one commissioner in the case of Luke's effort), and were able to diverge before someone had the bright idea of putting it all together, by which stage rationalisation was impossible. The post-resurrection accounts are not just "flexible" - they are *irreconcilable*. This tells us 2 main things - firstly, at least 3/4 of them are unreliable, and secondly, these cannot be the "word of god".
It also tells us that Christianity itself cannot be true, because if THIS was an all-powerful god's best effort at saving fallen humanity, it made a b0110cks of it. And such an inept god is not worth worshipping.
Sorry, but there you go.
-H
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
You say, yes, he was mistaken in his theology? (or is that a mistake of yours?). Perhaps, then, his denigration of sex and women, which you don't see, was wrong.
Read my post 100 above again. I have referred to the words attributed to Paul, such as:
"It is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1) and that it is best if ALL people remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7, 26).
You are ignoring these words and glossing over the difference between Jesus and Paul in their attitudes.
Hi Peter:
I too spent a fluteless day, watching cricket, reading the papers, walking the dog. I did not see or hear a single Orangemen, much to my great pleasure.
You say that I seem concerned to get some very black and white answers to some very black and white questions. Maybe so, but I think these questions are relevant to what Hooker and Harper have implied, namely that Paul may have been mistaken in his homophobia (and his attitude to sex and women).
Take the question I keep repeating and repeating. Do you think Hooker right in arguing that some parts of the Bible are direct oracles and other bits are by-speeches?
On a general level, it would help with the inaccuracies. I mean the writers of the Bible believed things such as:
* the earth is flat and doesn't move (Psalm 93:1; 1 Chronicles 16:30);
* it is supported by pillars (Job 9:6 and 38:4-6);
* "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree" (Revelation 7:1);
* pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23);
* a bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13-19);
* a hare chews the cud (Leviticus 11.6);
* a whale is a fish (Jonah 1:17; Matthew 12:40);
* Luke 2 states that the emperor Augustus ordered a worldwide census in the year of Jesus' birth, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. According to Jewish and Roman sources, however, Quirinius initiated a census only in Judea, in AD 6, some ten years or more after the birth of Jesus, who according to Matthew was born before Herod the Great died in 4 BC".
* "And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters" (Revelation 8:10 - imagine a wee star popping into a river!);
and last but not least, Peter:
* mustard seeds are the smallest seeds (orchid seeds are actually smaller) and they grow into trees (no, they don't).
More specifically, if you accept that God did not stop revealing himself at the end of scripture (at end of first century a.d.), and he continues to reveal himself throughout history, then surely you could argue that he is making himself more perfectly known over time. In other words, could you not argue that God did not reveal himself fully to a dozen fishermen in first century Palestine?
Therefore, human ability to interpret his will has changed. Thus the church realised through time that the list of food abominations in Leviticus and the approval of slavery were mistaken. And perhaps, as Harper is suggesting, the condemnation of homosexuality also falls into this category?
Peter, do you accept Hooker's distinction between 'direct oracles' and by-speeches'?
Complain about this comment
Brian PeterM
This is totally off-thread so I will keep it short. I noticed you both thought it worthy of mention that you did not attend the Twelfth of July celebrations.
I thought i would mention that I did and that I had a wonderful day. I enjoy life and it gives me real undiluted pleasure to see others doing the same. The exuberance, joie-de-vivre, lack of inhibition, and in some cases almost orgiastic involvement in the music and dance was a celebration of life, of being alive, and enjoyment of the same. I admit its unpleasant aspects but for the vast majority of those there, as for liberal old Anglo-Catholic me, it was simply wonderful.
Complain about this comment
Jovial PTL
ref your post 134 - your correction was made redundant by my post 121.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I hope you had a good day. The tree hut is coming along quite nicely. In fact its a great place for the kids to go and just do their thing - there aren't enough adventures in any of our worlds.
Your examples of 'by speeches' (which I am taking to mean illustration) are precisely the kind of objections I find pointless. Of course the earth isn't flat. As for pillars, well, unless they got it mixed up with Atlas, then no, there are no pillars holding up the earth.
You're not going to start explaining Revelation now, are you? Everybody avoids Revelation! However there's a long explanation and a short explanation to the book. To save time, the short explanation is - Jesus wins!
I am reminded too of Inspector Clouseau, 'I see you are familiar with the old a-whale-is-not-a-fish-ploy!' The ancients weren't zoologists. To them if it looked like a fish and it swam like a fish it was a fish. What did you want God to do; tell the story of Jonah and then drop in a few comments about the particular species, it's size, weight, feeding habits, speed through the water and maybe a reference to wiki for us moderns?
As for bat and bird, no a bat is not a bird. Bats are made of willow and some of the best are fashioned by Gunn and Moore.
This is getting ridiculous of course!
And then there's the mustard seed; well whatever was the Lord God Incarnate doing if he didn't know about orchid seeds? *I* know they are smaller, I knew that at the beginning of this thread, however did he miss it; or was he speaking, in context, to a bunch of agrarians?
When the language is figurative, it means it's figurative.
The bible is not trying to be scientifically accurate, I've mentioned this before. The point is, is it understandable? Can its basic message be understood by the urban intelligentsia and can it be understood by a peasant farmer? Does it speak truly about God? I think it does, and I think this covers the question about Hooker and by speeches too.
I'm not sure I did accept that God is continually revealing himself (although neither am I sure what you mean here). What I said was, is that Jesus is God's final word. And I think Paul understood this too.
Complain about this comment
Peter (#160)
"the Archbishop and Hooker are/were members of a church which has a very close connection with the State" - Archbishop Harper as Primate of All Ireland leads a church which does not have ANY connection with either of the states in which it operates - the church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871. The problem you mentioned is one peculiar to the Church of England, not Anglicans in general.
I understand you to wonder in the same post why some would choose to see something worthwhile in membership of a church where the identification of Jesus as God is non-essential and the nature of his resurrection questionable, please tell me if I have misunderstood. I would consider myself such a person so I would like to offer an answer.
I see life as infinitely precious, worthy of celebration and maximisation in ALL of its aspects. That includes enjoyment of our physical bodies - eating, drinking, dancing, sex, and love-making; enjoyment of our minds - music, science, art, literature, debate, and discourse; it also, however, encompasses our spiritual selves - the enjoyment of a relationship with the transcendent.
I believe that an encounter with God will have a transformational effect on every aspect of our being. I believe that such an encounter can change our value systems, change how we lead our daily lives, change what the idea of the cross and a risen Lord mean from dry concept to empowering truth.
I have no knowledge as to what, if anything, lies beyond this earthly life; no notion as to whether I will ever again meet those, deeply beloved, whom I have lost - but I do not need such knowledge.
I know that God is love. I know he is real. I know an awareness of his being requires a transformed life - not transformed into repression and denial but transformed into affirmation and a burning desire for others to share that wholeness, to see the Kingdom, to challenge oppression, to preach empowerment to the poor, the captive, and the marginalised.
It is do those things in a context which nourishes and upholds my own spiritual self that I am a member of the Christian church.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
According to your reasoning, God knew people were ignorant in those days, so he gave them inaccurate information in his 'direct oracles' in order not to embarrass them with knowledge they didn't possess.
Similarly with slavery. Since it was so common in those days, God would only have confused his followers by teaching them the basic equality of all people. So in the divinely inspired parables and thoughts of Jesus and Paul he let them assume that slavery was natural in order to pander to their prejudice.
Perhaps he similarly misled them over homosexuality (after all, how could they know that it might be 'natural' for some people?).
When the language is figurative, it means it's figurative (and deliberate inaccurate!)
I knew it was probably a mistake to give you these examples, because I offered you an excuse to focus exclusively on them and avoid my questions.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne, I think I've mentioned this before; I find your viewpoint fascinating (and vaguely familar). I sort of agree, except I don't see where there is any need for a god or a "christ" to actually exist in reality - the concept is sufficient.
Why do you (do you?) believe in a god at all?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
The idea that God revealed everything to the human race in a 2,000 year-old scripture strikes me, an outsider, as static and lifeless - and indefensible. It forces some Christians to distort the facts in order to try to uphold it. Let us leave the inaccuracies, none of which you seem to accept (are there ANY factual inaccuracies in the Bible in your view?).
Let us instead take the Bible's attitude to slavery. Clearly, from the quotes I have given from both Jesus and Paul, the writers of those texts approved of slavery. For centuries after, the church and Christians defended it.
Eventually, some realised it was wrong and a complete contradiction of the message that all are equal in the eyes of God.
So states (yes, states, the institutions you don't like, which make the laws) abolished slavery, partly thanks to Christians like Wilberforce. In doing so, they negated the assumptions of both Jesus and Paul that slavery was part of the natural order. There is no point in denying this without doing violence to the actual text (it has nothing to do with figurative language). Christianity used to approve of slavery. It has changed its mind. Denying this fact is akin to holocaust denial.
Similarly, Paul's condemnation of homosexuality was based on the knowledge and culture of the time. In his lecture Harper states that Romans 1:18-27 (where Paul describes men leaving the 'natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another') is not a declaration of the law of God and therefore may be mistaken.
To admit this 'error' is arguably the decent, 'Christian', thing to do, rather than holding on to an intolerant and sexist message which has the effect of discriminating against a large minority.
BTW:
The best looking cricket bats are undoubtedly Gray-Nicolls
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
I apologise for my inaccuracy in regard to the CofI and admit to linking it to the CofE without fully understanding the distinctions. I was also thinking generally in terms of symbols and ceremonies which still continue. It is of course a problem for denominations other than the CofI.
Like Helio I am intrigued by your view and on this occasion agree with him. Again, it could be that I am lacking in knowledge in this area but I'm not sure the view you outline requires the notion of god at all. Sometimes I'm wondering if it represents a form of Christian mysticism, sometimes I'm wondering if it is a form of pantheism and sometimes I wonder if you are saying that Jesus was just one teacher among many, ourselves included. On other occasions I am in agreement with your words.
I suppose that is why I mentioned surfing. Why not just commune with the great ocean and be kind to one's fellow man?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I see we can't even agree about cricket bats!
Complain about this comment
Helio
I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I have enjoyed the exchange, and this time I will keep my promise not to post on this topic on this thread again.
1) You seem to be advancing the hypothesis that the oral traditions recorded in the Gospels (a) may have some historical kernel (b) but were preserved by competing communities and (c) were heavily embellished over a comparatively short period of time.
2) You also advance the strangest argument against Christianity that I have read in my entire life. That if the Bible is not compatible with the fundamentalist doctrine of Scripture, Christianity as a whole must be abandoned. That is to say that Scripure must conform to modern standards of historiography, and not the standards of the genres in which it was written, and that the first readers would have judged it by. (In the case of the Gospels ancient biography). Try reconciling this idea with Church history.
3) To return to the first hypothesis, it requires that (a) the First Christians were unwilling and unable to preserve the teachings of the Historical Jesus (b) there were competing communties who did not count Jesus as Messiah or Lord (c) As the Church spread geographically and as time passed, the picture of Jesus changed to fit the culture of the Churches
4) There is evidence, (from Rabbinic tradition and contemporary paralells) that in the First Century, communities could preserve oral tradition to a high degree of accuracy. The synagogues and the Greek lecture houses that Christianity spread through provide the appropriate environment. (teachings of Philosophers were memorised and we know from Josephus that the Pharisees had a similar practice.) The appointment of elders meant that the tradition could be controlled.
5) In 1 Cor 15 v3, 1 Cor 1Cor 11v23 Paul uses the technical term for receiving and passing on oral tradition (compare his account in 1 Cor 11 to Luke's).So there is evidence in the New Testament that oral traditions were passed on. Papias gives us external evidence of control of the traditions.
6)In Post 130 point 3 I cite evidence that the Gospel traditions reflect a Galilean pre-Easter context, not a post Easter gentile context. It is doubtful that residents of Hierapolis or Rome new much about the economics and social customs of Galilee, so Thiessen's point stands.
7) To clarify flexibility and stability (Dunnn's terms), memorisation aimed to summarise teaching and give the gist of events. Obviously teaching and narratives can be abbreviated in different ways, and told differently to make different points in different contexts, whilst remaining faithful to the original. It is the intent and content of Jesus'words and actions that I believe are faithfully in the Gospels - not every detail.
8) As for competing Christianities, they all shared a High Christology. The Thessalonians and Corinthians were expecting the return of Christ. The Judaisers at least accepted him as Messiah. The Pauline letters refer to Jesus as creator, and the one to whom every knee will bow, and these are pre-Pauline hymns. Jews predicated these of I AM and I AM only. Why did the Early Church accept such a blasphemous belief so early?
9) Can I suggest you read an English translation of the head-stone you believe shows a Jewish expectation of a resurrected Messiah? I don't know if scientists can hit the headlines with next to no evidence, but archaeologists in the Near East...
This has been a very long post, but you kept accusing me of hiding behind scholars and not presenting their arguments. I'm not aiming to prove Inerrancy (whatever that means) but simply that it is not irrational to hold to a more conservative postion on the New Testament.
Some concessions - I can't prove Ehrman is wrong. This whole discussion won't mean much unless we discuss the possibility of miracles (but let's not go there for a while). And you make a debate very enjoyable - not nearly as boring as my posts.
Graham Veale
Armagh
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
I apologise for the heavy nature of my posts and going off topic. As Peter has said the topic is relevant. I accept the authority of Scripture on the testimony of Jesus and my experience of the Gospel. If the facts are irreconcilable with my experience then I have no basis for the authority of scripture. If the Gospels are largely unreliable I have no reason to take the testimony and example of Jesus into account.
How did you find Lipton?
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Brian
(a) I didn't say Paul was mistaken in his theology.
(b) Where on earth does Paul say slavery is part of the natural order?
(c) You do understand that in Roman culture slaves could own other slaves and could be important members of the bureaucracy? Family slaves were, well, family (given this was an age when wives were property). Agricultural slaves tended to receive the treatment we associate with slavery. A few comments to slaves in small churches in City settings shouldn't be used to reconstruct Paul's attitude to a highly complex social arrangement. It was not like European slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries.
(d) Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 7 also mentions a present crisis - we do know a famine hit Corinth about 51 AD. Also Paul was writing in a context were Jewish Rabbis' were teaching that an unmarried man was without atonement. He clearly states that sex should not be withheld, and that marriage is a source of sanctification. If sex and marriage were so bad to Paul, why was he anti-divorce? And saying it would be good if everyone was unamarried is hyperbole, which we can clearly see when he advises that only some people have this gift. Marriage was a Good to Paul, but there were greater Goods.
To be honest Brian, you read the Bible just wanting to see the worst. You quote verses out of context in a way that would shame most Fundamentalists.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
BLIND TO BIBLICAL FAULTS AND ERRORS
You say that I read the Bible just wanting to see the worst. To be honest, this is a ridiculous statement because I don't have to do that. It does it for itself, as my direct quotes indicate. Apparently, quoting what a person is actually reported as saying, as opposed to waffling vaguely without any specific references whatsoever, is quoting 'out of context'. Supposedly intelligent people find no fault in his exact words at all, which apparently aren't relevant to a judgment (or are only relevant when they fit a preordained absolutist position). How's that for being black and white?
Take your point (a). Earlier you had said yes, that he was mistaken in his theology, though I think you misread my statement. Now, to say that an individual who supposedly wrote 13 epistles is never mistaken in his theology is rather OTT, don't you think: a case of just wanting to believe in perfection, or of servile subjection perhaps? Of being black and white?
LET EVERY MAN ABIDE IN HIS CALLING
You ask where on earth does Paul say that slavery is part of the natural order. The answer is that he affirmed it explicitly by sending Onesimus, the runaway slave whom he had converted, back to his Christian master, Philemon. Nor was he concerned about the emancipation of slaves, because "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called" (1 Corinthians 7:20). In other words, slavery is God's will. As I said before, he then indulges in a piece of cynical verbal trickery by arguing that although they are slaves in this world, they are really freed men of Christ. He also tells slaves to obey their masters, "so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed" (1 Timothy: 6:1). They are "as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men" (Ephesians 6:6ff). I'm sorry, Graham, but Paul is setting an example for early Christianity as the agent of a continuing repressive slave society. If you can't see that, then you are ignoring the worst, which is written in black and white. It was exactly how Christianity saw it for centuries.
MISOGYNY
There is no doubt, and again this is something that you and Peter have completely ignored, that Paul is a misogynist. He tells his (male) readers, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1), a remark which neither of you has explained. He was not married himself as he directly states in these instructions: "But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I" (1 Corinthians 1:8). He actually sees marriage as a last resort for weak people: "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 1:9)
REPRESSED HOMOSEXUALITY
It has been suggested on a number of occasions that Paul may have been a repressed homosexual.
He was unusual in not being married. As you say yourself, he was writing at a time when Judaism was hostile to celibacy, and he was a Jew himself. He is certainly ill at ease with sexuality and writes about a constant war in himself. He even claims that sin dwells in his 'members', or bodily parts, which he attempts to control with the 'law of his mind'. Ex-Bishop Spong, retired Bishop of Newark, has called Paul a 'self-loathing and repressed gay male'. He says: "Nothing else, in my opinion, could account for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body and his sense of being controlled by something he had no power to change".
So it is not only sceptics and non-believers who see Paul as possibly gay. Perhaps, in his condemnations of homosexuality he doth protest too much, methinks.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Our correspondence, and your correspondence with Graham, isn't so much you say 'to-may-to', I say 'to-mah-to', it?s more like you say 'po-tay-to', I say 'green eggs and ham'.
Graham raised the word inerrancy, and it may help to have a stab (not literally you understand!) at what the words means. This definition might also encompass what is meant by inspiration and help you understand what I mean when I say that the bible should be understood in context and in terms of genre. Now it could be that I'm going to get into trouble with some of the other christians on this blog, but here goes.
I understand the bible to be the words of God and the words of man. The people writing the book wrote in a way which was in line with their own personalities, character and the culture of the day; yet at the same time they wrote the message God intended them to write. God then communicated to us what he wanted us to know, while doing so through the experiences of the writers. The bible, in this way, speaks truly of God, without God using the writers as mere word-processors. It is what we might call organic. Of course there is also the issue of copyist errors in that we don't have the originals; yes it seems that there have been some errors of this type, but the essential 'God inspired' meaning has not changed.
In terms of Paul then, he wrote in terms of his culture with his knowledge and his understanding of the world, yet he still spoke accurately of God and nature. Or the Psalms, you quoted Psalm 93. Verse 3 speaks of the sea having a voice. Obviously it doesn't, but what the Psalm ultimately is saying is that however great the ocean, God is greater.
I really am struggling to come to terms with the reason why this is such a problem, every piece writing has context. When we read we should always ask, what is the genre, who wrote it, why did they write it, what is the purpose in writing, what are the features of the language, is there any idiom or cultural peculiarities I should note; it's like HSBC ad, 'we never underestimate the importance of local knowledge.'
Thus your use of words like inaccurate and embarrassment are, I think, misplaced.
One more quick point, which again highlights the difficulty of communication.
I didn't say I didn't like states. (you must have read this in) I said I was in favour of a separation of church and state. (Actually I expected you to agree with this view) As a christian, (a citizen of two states) I believe I should do all I can to work for the benefit of those around me, whoever they are, while reserving the right not to participate in certain activities or hold certain world views, just as I defend your right not to believe. Again I don't see how this can be termed a problem. Live and let live.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
1. I am hardly alone in arguing that the Bible denigrates women. Josephine Henry, a leading 19th century suffragist, castigated the churches for their consistently sexist attitudes over the centuries: "Has the Church ever issued edict that women must have equal rights with men before the canon or civil law? No institution in modern civilization is to tyrannical and so unjust to women as it the Christian Church. It demands everything from her and gives nothing in return. The history of the Church does not contain a single suggestion for the equality of women... Though tyranny and falsehood alone is Christianity able to hold women in subjection".
2. I am hardly alone in arguing that the Bible is negative towards sexuality. Indeed, this has been one of the greatest charges through history. See Karen Armstrong's article in The Guardian, January 2004, where she says that all major religions have a problem with women and sex, but Christianity more than most:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/15/gender.religion
2. I am hardly alone in arguing that Paul's apparent condemnation of homosexuality might be based on a mistaken idea of what is 'natural'. Archbishop Alan Harper gave a lecture on it.
3. I am hardly alone in arguing that Paul might have been a repressed homosexual. I have quoted a Bishop who believes it.
4. I am hardly alone in arguing that most Christian churches accepted slavery for centuries. However, some sects, including the Quakers, always opposed it and tried to help slaves.
Indeed, all the points I have made have been voiced at one time or another by other Christians. Yet you insist in ignoring them altogether and trying to suggest that they are the 'black-and-white' views of an atheist.
It won't wash, I'm afraid. Face up to the issues properly. Stop trying to turn it back on me. Is Harper right? Is Spong right? Is Hooker right?
Ok, so the Bible writers are not mere word-processors. Does this mean that they made mistakes which were not just typos? If so, were Paul's views on sexuality different from those of Jesus?
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
My numbering is erroneous: a double 2 I see. Even an 'atheist' can be in error.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Did you actually read my posts on Pauls view of sex in Corinth?
" we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground."
There - proof that Abraham Lincoln did not believe that the burial grounds at Gettysburg should be considered sacred by American citizens.
Complain about this comment
sorry - that should read view of sex in the book of Corinthians.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Double 2 - no problem - I understood.
We really have been round the world and back again on this one!
"It won't wash." What won't wash - my views? The breadth of debate?
"turning it back on you" - What, having an opinion and questioning the view each of us have of the bible?
At the risk of being repetitive, it is my view that how we handle the bible directly relates to this issue. Sorry, but it's my view, it's not an attack.
I'm sort of wondering why you are so keen to press me on my view of Paul, you already know my view on sexuality, (remember you called me homophobic) but you also know that I am against discrimination. Read my post on the 'to marry or not to marry' thread. My views are my views and I will argue for them, but I'm not going to start legislating against others on the basis of my views. I could quote Paul (!), "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" You will note too that in my last post I said of Paul that I thought he spoke 'accurately of God and nature'. In terms of this thread that's pretty clear, is it not?
I'm also wondering if you now accept that the issues of whales and fish and pillars and such like are not really the problem they are made out to be.
I have never supposed that you were the only one who has held alternate views on Christianity - that's what a large part of this blog is about. Yes others have views that differ from mine - they are in the church too - I accept that, and am merely putting my view, as fully as I can. How can you say that I am ignoring the issues 'altogether' when I am trying to broaden the debate to give us all some context.
One more thing related to your post 175. You are correct I have said nothing about misogyny, but to be fair to Graham I think he has answered all your questions, including this one, pretty fully. Indeed between Graham and myself, there aren't many of your questions that have been left unanswered.
Complain about this comment
Helio, PeterM, and Graham
In the case of Christ I would argue the ?concept? is a the important thing, probably much more important than the actual human being who lived in the southern Levant two thousand years ago, but, with regard to God, the situation is somewhat different.
?to actually exist in reality? In the context of God I have to ask what is reality and what does exist mean when applied to him? I don?t have definitive answers I?m afraid. If reality is the material observable world god does not exist in it. God cannot be proved by physics or philosophy.
I do not believe in god: for me belief is an attempt to bring that which is outside the reach of reason into some sort of semi-rational framework. I find that unsatisfactory. Indeed the very word ?concept? when applied to God is itself problematic for me ? I would, though, claim to know God: God as an ?experiential? reality.
If I were to attempt to convey what I mean by ?know? I would accept Peter?s use of the term mystical ? to some extent. Mystic often implies a certain other-worldliness which is not what I mean by the term here. I would contend that it is still possible for us today to experience the kind of energising encounter with the Divine which transformed the lives of those Israelite prophets who hungered and thirsted after rightness and contended for social justice in the face of those who distorted religion, who used God for personal gain, who exploited the poor, or who oppressed the weak.
I have a ?hunch? that this being exists independently of my perception of him but I don?t know that he does and I don?t really think it matters very much. For me God is not the creator and sustainer of the universe ? and I am definitely not a pantheist ? I see God as a being of love, quite possibly unconscious of the existence of man, a being accessible to the open heart, which immersing itself in him, can draw a great good into our lives and perhaps even into the material universe.
Graham ? Lipton was a most interesting read and I could not find a better description of what Christianity means to me than his words: ?? it is not belief that is doing the work, but rather intense and communal engagement with religious text and religious practice? ? I would, of-course include with that direct experiential engagement with God.
Peter ? you, too, often say things with which I am in complete agreement ? particularly the posts where I have detected, I hope correctly, an opposition to professional and life-style Christianity.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter, Graham:
1. Both of you seem to be saying that Paul was NEVER in error in anything he said in the Bible.
Is that correct? Harper is therefore wrong: is that correct?
2. Graham:
You think that when he is recorded as saying that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, he nevertheless thought marriage was 'a good'. Does this mean that not touching a woman was a greater good than marrying one???
3. Peter:
You disapprove of homosexuality but also disapprove of discrimination. Do you think that this was also Paul's view? Was he also opposed to discrimination, do you think? (in spite of his homophobic remarks). Do you think that Paul also believed in 'live and let live'? If so, why did most white Christians for nearly 2,000 years use his words to justify discrimination against blacks and gays? Was this based on a colossal misunderstanding? Are you saying that the Christian message is essentially live and let live? If only this were true. I'm afraid it isn't, as you will see at Lambeth.
Complain about this comment
Helio, PeterM, and Graham
(A repost having corrected the paste errors).
In the case of Christ I would argue the 'concept' is the important thing, probably much more important than the actual human being who lived in the southern Levant two thousand years ago, but, with regard to God, the situation is somewhat different.
"to actually exist in reality" In the context of God I have to ask what is reality and what does exist mean when applied to him? I don't have definitive answers I'm afraid. If reality is the material observable world god does not exist in it. God cannot be proved by physics or philosophy.
I do not believe in god: for me belief is an attempt to bring that which is outside the reach of reason into some sort of semi-rational framework. I find that unsatisfactory. Indeed the very word 'concept' when applied to God is itself problematic for me - I would, though, claim to know God: God as an 'experiential' reality.
If I were to attempt to convey what I mean by 'know' I would accept Peter's use of the term mystical - to some extent. Mystic often implies a certain other-worldliness which is not what I mean by the term here. I would contend that it is still possible for us today to experience the kind of energising encounter with the Divine which transformed the lives of those Israelite prophets who hungered and thirsted after rightness and contended for social justice in the face of those who distorted religion, who used God for personal gain, who exploited the poor, or who oppressed the weak.
I have a 'hunch' that this being exists independently of my perception of him but I don't know that he does and I don't really think it matters very much. For me God is not the creator and sustainer of the universe - and I am definitely not a pantheist - I see God as a being of love, quite possibly unconscious of the existence of man, a being accessible to the open heart, which immersing itself in him, can draw a great good into our lives and perhaps even into the material universe.
Graham - Lipton was a most interesting read and I could not find a better description of what Christianity means to me than his words: "? it is not belief that is doing the work, but rather intense and communal engagement with religious text and religious practice" - I would, of-course include with that direct experiential engagement with God.
Peter - you, too, often say things with which I am in complete agreement - particularly the posts where I have detected, I hope correctly, an opposition to professional and life-style Christianity.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian (This *is* an answer!)
As we have been discovering on this thread, words and world views are somewhat problematic. Those little sounds we utter, and the symbols we write down, the very things which ought to bring us together, often divide and confuse. However the fact that people exchange views on a website like this at all is, in my opinion, worthwhile.
This is particularly true of trying to find contemporary words to describe religious and theological ideas; partly because these words don't tend to be associated with theological concepts, party because Christianity, particularly in NI has tended to rely on an overuse of cliche, until the meaning has become all but lost, even to the 'insiders', and partly because even when someone tries to unpack a theological idea, the concepts seem something of a foreign language to non-christians. Finding suitable words however is, I think, a challenge some should seek to take up.
The issue is further complicated by what Portwyne has called professional and lifestyle christianity. (I think he understands me correctly) While ceremonies and forms of worship and roles such as ministers and bishops have a part to play, unfortunately christians seem to have allowed their particular brand to define for them what being a christian is. For some the dress code is all important, for others the music on offer is crucial, and then there's the funny little 'in' language and the 'in' jokes which the 'in' crowd are supposed to get, and I agree, all these idiosyncrasies must be terribly confusing. My view however, and it is one which has taken me a long time to arrive at, is, that if I cannot learn to show compassion and forgiveness, share what I have with others and understand my own need of forgiveness then the rest is pretty pointless. There is often more christianity in a cup of cold water (and that's not much) given to an enemy than there is in all the religious rituals performed every Sunday. It was Paul who said something like this in the 1 Corinthians 13 passage. Unfortunately when I read those words I think, well that's *not* like me, my life falls short, and as I have said before I am in need of transformation. This 'transformation' is partly what I understand the traditional word salvation to mean.
Why do I say all this? Again, I am not trying to be obtuse, but it is important to remember that Paul was concerned with something called the kingdom of heaven, and he called people to become citizens of this new kindgom/society. This 'kingdom' he understood to be an everlasting kingdom, one whose 'first citizen' was/is Jesus. It is a 'kingdom' which, in the end, puts everything right again, the 'kingdom' in which we learn how life works best. It is the 'city' mentioned in Hebrews 11, whose builder is God, and I understand it to be real.
Now this must seem very foreign to someone who does not believe, yet, and this *is* crucial, it is the context in which I understand Paul was talking. In effect he was saying, among other things, that Rome, however great, would one day fail, indeed he was saying that all of our 'kingdoms' will one day fail. However much good they do, they cannot establish a society of 'shalom', but God can and God will. There is hope, there is a salvaging of all that has gone wrong, but it begins, not with revolution (the Roman army would only have crushed them) rather it begins with the transformation of people, our characters or our 'hearts'. I therefore identify fully with Portwyne's references to rightness and contending for social justice in the face of those who distort religion, who use God for personal gain, who exploit the poor, or who oppress the weak, but I would add that ultimately I am one of those people (one who has distorted religion, one who, every time he buys 'cheap' coffee rather than the fairtrade stuff, exploits the poor) and therefore my greatest need is what (some) christians call the gospel, the good news of a new beginning.
Did Paul discriminate then? Well if what we mean by discrimination is intolerance or unfairness then no I don't think we can level that one at Paul, but if what we mean is to draw a distinction between one kingdom and another then possibly he did.
The other point of christians using the bible to justify their actions ought to be addressed too, but it's late and I'l deal with it some other time.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
Many thanks for that. I know that you are trying (and I don?t mean very trying). You do seem to appreciate that for someone who taught subjects where concepts are ubiquitous, the meaning of words is crucial to real communication. Thus when someone returns a slave to his master and tells all slaves to obey their masters, I assume (wrongly, apparently), that he supports discrimination, especially in this case slavery. I apologise for making such a silly mistake. I should have realised that he was either only speaking 'figuratively' (we are all slaves of Christ?) or he meant that the slave would find his reward in heaven. I still naively think that neither advice is much use to the slave in the here and now.
Similarly, when Paul said that it would be better for a man not to touch a woman, he didn't really mean it in the way that we suppose. Mind you, I can't figure out what he did mean. All I am offered by Graham is that he thought marriage was a good but that there are greater goods. If that explains an opinion that it is better for a man not to touch a woman, then I'm sorry but I've missed something.
It's all very well to believe in Jesus and God in a mystical sense. It is all very well to believe in compassion and forgiveness. But in my opinion you can really only do these things by ignoring many of the words in Holy Writ. Telling slaves that they should obey their masters, gays that they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and women that they must obey their husbands in silence is frankly not conducive to compassion, love or forgiveness.
Silly old me!
Complain about this comment
Peter, Graham, Portwyne:
Hi Peter:
Our communication reminds me of 'Through the Looking Glass':
"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less".
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things".
"The question is", said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all".
Thus, to avoid Ulster clichés:
1. Paul was not pro-slavery. On the contrary, he believed only obedient slaves would get their reward in heaven.
2. Paul was not homophobic. He loved them deeply, compassionately, forgivingly and it was only for their own good that they would be debarred from the kingdom of heaven.
3. Paul was not misogynistic. On the contrary, he thought women were too precious for men to touch.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
If here and now is all we have, if there is no God and no new world, if all we do is live and die and are powerless to effect change for the benefit of others, then indeed the Christian message has nothing to offer. It might even be argued that far from being an encouragement, it is a grand deception. I however, as you know, consider the message to be true.
If you are correct, I need to be convinced about every episode of pain, heartache, unfairness, slavery and death, historic and contemporary, and how any of it has any meaning, as opposed to being a sad and weary lament on life. No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer. The trouble is this, whether I like it or not, I am culpable for some of the injustice in this world, I can't solve all the problems, most of us don't even try all that hard. Removing God does not remove our problems. Slaves continue to be slaves, injustice prevails, I continue to drink coffee, all of our good deeds are a mere scratch on the dust of the earth, and if some day, misfortune befalls me, then there will be no one to rescue me.
In the end it's much more important to know how to doubt than how to believe.
Complain about this comment
H Peter:
You say that slaves continue to be slaves and injustice prevails. Slavery has been abolished in most countries, thanks to people who had a philosophy that sought to improve this world, instead of one that was preoccupied with the next.
You say that removing God does not remove our problems. If there is still racial discrimination, sexism and homophobia in the world, then I think I would seek a philosophy seeking to remove them, not one that apparently endorses them instead.
Complain about this comment
I believe Humpty Dumpty also said:
"It is a MOST PROVOKING thing when a person doesn't know a cravat from a belt!"
Brian should you ever decide to 'get saved' I hope you realise you have the makings of an excellent fundamentalist.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne - this is another "heavy" post, but if you can raise the nature of reality, then I feel I'm in good company.
Brian
1) How is the concept of "greater goods" incoherent? How is sacrificing the Good of Sex and Children to serve others a bad thing (Paul clearly being aware of Jesus' teaching)
2) Is it wise to have children in a period of economic crisis?
3) Paul clearly states that marriage is sanctifying, and clearly expects marriage to include sexual intercourse for purposes other than reproduction.
4)In Ephesian's, which is at least Pauline in it's theology, sex is used as a metaphor for Christ's relationship to the Church. Clearly, not a taboo subject then.
5) As I have said slavery was a complex affair in Roman Corinth, many slaves refusing the opportunity to buy their freedom. In verse 1 Cor 7 v 21 Paul encourages slaves to pursue their freedom, but also states there is no shame in being a slave. In verse 23 he discourages the practice of selling yourself (and your family) into slavery to escape financial difficulties. You have skipped straight to verse 24, just like a good fundamentalist, thrown the *immediate* context to the wind. Never mind the historical context.
6) Paul was in the business of building a Church, not social revolution. This is were Paul should be attacked by Secularists - being too heavenly minded to be of earthly use.
7) Where does Paul state anything comparable to Aristotle's teaching that some men are ("naturally") born to rule others?
8) Even Government is merely part of God's Providental order to restrain evil in Pauline thought. There is no indication that he thought of Government as part of the Edenic order, which is what it would have meant for Paul to consider Government "natural" - never mind a natural class of rulers and slaves
9) In Philemon Paul pleads for the legal manumission of the slave. There was no "underground railway" that would carry Onesimus to a slave - free society.
10) Paul's comments in 1 Cor 6 are not just aimed at homosexuals; and in fact pederastry seems to be his greatest concern at this point. He also includes anyone who does not live up to traditional sexual ethics, as Jews perceived them (fornication and adultery are on the list). As are those who covet. Now that could describe anyone. The point Paul is driving at is that while forgiveness is available for all, a restored relationship with God through Christ demands a change in behaviour. Whereas some parties in the Corinthian church believed that anything was permissible for those in the Kingdom. In no sense was he saying that any past sin, or set of Temptations ruled someone out.
11) I've said before that I am only committed to the authority of the whole canon - not it's parts. I cannot build a theology on Paul alone - or as you seem to assume, one or two verses.
12) If I believe in a Providential God, then it is not so difficult to believe that he could arrange an infallible Scripture.
13) If I believe in the Incarnation, and the Resurrection, then it is not so difficult to believe in infallible Scripture.
14) Paul may have made many mistakes - but I don't reconstruct the mind of the Apostle and make that my authority. I believe God speaks in Scripture.
15) Nor do his letters on their own provide a sound foundation for Christianity in the absence of the Gospels, and the other NT literature. A great deal of editorial work went nto the Old Testament, and the Church quite some time to decide on the canon of the New Testament (but not it's core). So it should not be surprising to anyone to find an overall general coherence. It is in that coherent structure that all Scripture should be read.
15) You have demolished a naive fundamentalist view of Scripture - in fact your posts may prove very helpful when I am discussing Scripture with proof-texting Fundamentalists. But you haven't engaged with my view at all. I have much, much more that I could say on the subject. But posts 12 and 13 are the heart of the issue. If you cannot accept those propositions as rational, how on earth could you even begin to take the idea of Scripture seriously?
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
Many thanks for your considered comments. I will 'engage' with as many as possible. But I have to say that you are whitewashing Paul's actual words.
Let's take the first 8 for the moment, otherwise I shall go on for ever. 1 Corinthians 7 is one of the most deplorable texts in the entire Bible.
1/3. The concept of a greater good is not incoherent. But here it is more a case of the lesser evil. To imply that Paul regards marriage as a 'good' at all is ludicrous in view of his remark that it is better for a man not to touch a woman (does this really mean that is good to touch a woman but even better not to??). He goes on to say, "nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Corinthians 7:2). This is hardly a good reason for marriage. Later, he says: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widowed, it is good for them to abide even as I" (1 Corinthians 7:8). Then he adds: "If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7:9). I presume this means: 'burn with passion or lust', rather than 'burn in hell' (but it could mean both). I am not sure which is a worse indictment of Paul. But let's assume the former. Here again, he is saying that marriage is acceptable only as an outlet for sexual passion. Indeed, he also says that every act of sexual intercourse which has not been made legal, as the lesser evil, by a marriage contract is a sin of unchastity, and will be punished eternally by God.
If we want to talk historical context, we should note that the earliest Christian theologians were almost at one in regarding sexual abstinence as superior to marriage, and in this they were interpreting 'Holy Writ' correctly. Anyone who was able to do so should lead the more perfect life of strict continence. The second century Marcionites and Montanists totally rejected marriage, and even for those Christians who didn't go this far, the ideal form of marriage was 'spiritual', i.e. no sex, as it was assumed to be the case with Joseph and Mary.
Governing all of these approaches is of course the basic split between two forms of love: agape (love for your god) and eros (sexual love). They are seen as constantly battling for victory in the human soul. What this means is that no matter how devout you are, if you are married your god will always take a back seat to your lover. For centuries, priests set the example of abstinence, and of course the Catholic Church still tries to uphold this silly approach.
2. You ask whether it is wise to have children in an economic crisis. He does refer to marriage in this passage. But you are now giving a very materialistic reading to an issue which you and Peter have insisted all along is spiritual. I find it odd that you should reduce marriage and children to a matter of economics! Do you think this would be a good message for the Third World at present. Don't marry or you and your children will starve?? A wiser option is surely promoting the use of condoms.
5/6/7/8. What a whitewash! Apparently, telling slaves that there is no shame in being one is code for: "I know you should really be free, even though I can't say so in case I get executed for it", or whatever.
Actually, this is wrong. Paul's entire message is about submission. obedience, passivity, total subservience to the powerful on the false grounds that all power comes from God and that the poor, the humbled, the enslaved emanate from a heavenly will and a divine decision. He calls on everyone to pay his due because disobeying one of his men - tax inspector, soldier, dignatory, senator, slaveowner - was to rebel against God.
Therefore, God approves the diseases of the diseased, the poverty of the poor, and the servility of the slaves. With Paul's message, the Christian 'church' enters a partnership with the state, setting it squarely on the side of tyrants, dictators and autocrats. That is precisely what happened under Constantine and after, for at least another thousand years.
Complain about this comment
Brian (#186, last paragraph)
Not all Christians would endorse the use of the term 'Holy Writ' to describe the Biblical texts. I would also take issue with your suggestion that compassion, forgiveness, and mystical communion with God are only made possible by ignoring many passages of scripture.
I am sure that, as a political scientist (if I recollect correctly), you would never suggest to a young activist that an informed commitment to the ideals of modern democracy is best achieved by ignoring the rise of fascism in inter-war Europe.
I believe the Bible was written by men trying to find God and trying to order society: many men, different approaches, varying degrees of success. I believe there is a lot to be learned by engaging with the text and by studying the process. Sometimes there is most to be learned by paying closest attention to those areas you find disagreeable or contentious and this is, of-course, something no-one could accuse you of failing to do.
There is a lot in the Bible with which I would strongly disagree but little I would ignore. In arriving at a right religion being aware of the pitfalls and the errors made by previous seekers is of prime importance in avoiding their repetition.
Reason and language are inadequate vehicles for communicating anything important about God but they enable us to test moral and social values. I can read the Bible and find a lot with which to contend - knowing that the process of engagement will deliver insights. If one closes one's eyes, however, to context and contemporary exegetical practices one will learn nothing and leave the exercise impoverished rather than enriched.
Complain about this comment
Brian
1) Let's summarise what else Paul says about sex and the body (a) 1 Cor 6v16 - he endorses the "one flesh" ideal. (b) Romans 1 v 26-27 would indicate that Paul believed heterosexual sex to be natural - otherwise his argument against homosexuality collapses (c) 16v15 our bodies are members of Christ, and 6 v 19, Temples of the Holy Spirit. (d) 7 v 14, marriage is a sanctifying force (e) Wives and Husbands should not deny each other sex. This in an age when Plutrach tells brides that they should consider it a compliment if their husbands sought sex elsewhere. Paul affirms female sexuality.
2) Let's summarise Paul's argument. (a) It's good to sacrifice married life to serve others - 7v32 makes it perfectly clear that the responsibilities of marriage consume time. He does not mention a negative view of the body.
(b) Some Corinthians are trying to pursue this ideal, when God has not gifted them for such a life. (c) Pursuing this ideal without the gift is actually likely to lead to sexual indiscretion - as evidenced in chapter 6. (d) Some present distress (economic calamity seems likely given the famine of 51 AD) would make the single life wise.
3) Nothing above necessitates a low view of sex. Neither was Paul presenting a systematic treatise on everything he believed about sex. At no stage does Paul say that the purpose of sex is to avoid fornication (he has already stated in ch6 that it is to make two people one flesh). What he does say is that abstaining from sex in marriage, or not marrying (and therefore not having sex) is likely to lead to sexual immorality, unless you are have a gift for such a life. (If you are so gifted, but married, notice, you are not allowed to withold sex ).
4) Christians didn't rescue orphans, or give help to the poor? What New Testament are you reading? Do you know any Church history, beyond atheistic propaganda. That is an absurdly simplistic summarisation of Christian History, Brian, and you know it. Read Helmut Koester (radical critic) here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html
5) Should Paul have recommended a slave revolt? Spartacus could not defeat the private armies of the Republic. What chance would any revolt have had against the professional legions of the Empire?
6) In any case, Paul clearly did not consider some natural rulers, and others natural slaves.
7) Christians were the naturally subservient to the state, due to Paul's teachings. Yes, that would explain all the persecutions, and the Roman fear that Chrsitianity would undermine the social fabric of the Empire.
8) I've no problem with Birth Control. You are obviously correct - Paul should have put the wives of Corinth on the Pill.
Graham Veale
Armagh
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
In response to your posting, I shall summarise 'The Closing of the Western Mind' by Charles Freeman on Paul (next time, if you like, I'll do the same with J.B. Bury's 'A History of freedom of Thought').
He (Paul) appears never to have married and to have been ill at ease with sexuality, above all homosexuality (p109).
He was certainly unusual in not being married, especially as mainstream Judaism was actively hostile to celibacy (p109).
His life appears to be one of constant conflict (p109).
Many passages in Paul suggest that having faith is in itself sufficient to ensure salvation in Christ... in other passages, on the other hand, Paul stresses the importance of charity (p117).
While the rewards for those with faith are great, the corollary dimension of Paul's teaching, the fate of those without faith, has had an equally powerful and enduring influence. Once again, Paul's teaching is inconsistent: at times he suggests the faithless will be condemned when Christ comes again, at others that all might be saved (p118).
For those who believe in the importance of using reason to define the truth, this surrender (to faith) must raise real concerns... as Paul's writings came to be seen as authoritative it became a mark of the committed Christian to be able to reject rational thought, and even the evidence of empirical experience. Christians would often pride themselves on their lack of education, associating independent philosophical thinking with the sin of pride (p119).
Paul appears preoccupied with the evils of sexuality. In Romans he fulminated against... 'filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they (non-Christians) dishonour their own bodies' and 'degrading passions', which cause both sexes to commit homosexual acts (Romans 1:24-32) (p120).
Sex, he tells the Corinthians, 'is always a danger'. Paul stresses the value of celibacy, his own chosen path, but he accepts the importance of marriage, not least as a means of containing sexual desire (p120).
Central to Paul's teachings, therefore, is the condemnation of a variety of activities, idol worship, sexuality, and -implicitly - the practice of philosophy (p121).
The paradox of Paul is that while he created a Christianity from the Greco-Roman world, he also confirmed or implanted within Christian theology elements that set it in conflict with Greco-Roman society and traditions, over sexuality, art and philosophy (p124).
Gentile Christianity, through Paul, had declared war on the Greco-Roman world, its gods, its idols, its mores (p127).
Complain about this comment
Brian
Thankyou very much for the effort put into that post! I always enjoy our exchanges, as you inevitably point me to gaps in my reading, as well as putting my ideas to the acid test.
It is this "received view" of Paul that I am challenging. I don't believe that it fits the evidence. For example, it does not seem to acknowledge the Jewish Wisdom tradition that Paul drew on, or his own allusions to Greek philosophy. When Paul condemns philosophy in Colossians, he seems to have something akin to gnostic speculation in mind.
But I was unaware of Freeman's work, and thank you very much for the time you took to compile these quotes.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham:
You are wrong about Paul.
In 1 Corinthians 22-23 he writes:
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness".
He called on the Corinthians and Timothy to turn their backs on the 'addled and foolish questionings' and 'hollow frauds' of philosophy. He says in 1 Corinthians 2: 1-4: "When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God".
I don't think you realise the extent to which Paul arguably distorted Christianity. Thomas Jefferson said: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus".
George Bernard Shaw said: "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus".
Carl Sagan said: "My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts - the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul".
Jeremy Bentham said: "If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul".
Bishop Spong said: "Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul - a vast difference".
I mentioned J. B. Bury's 'History of Freedom of Thought' in my earlier post. Essentially he argues that under ancient Greece and Rome there was a high degree of freedom of thought. The general rule of Roman policy, he writes, was to tolerate through the Empire all religions and all opinions. Blasphemy was not punished. The principle was expressed in the maxim of the Emperor Tiberius: "If the gods are insulted, let them see to it themselves". He calls the period of ancient Greece and Rome, 'Reason Free'.
However, the next period, of Christian hegemony until, from the end of Constantine to the Renaissance, he calls 'Reason in Prison'. During the two centuries in which they had been a forbidden sect the Christians claimed toleration on the ground that religious belief is voluntary and not a thing which can be enforced. When their faith became the predominant creed and had the power of the state behind it, they abandoned this view. They embarked on the hopeful enterprise of bring about a complete uniformity in men's opinions on the mysteries of the universe, and began a more or less definite policy of coercing thought.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Your argument that the church, with the power of the state behind it, embarked on an enterprise of coercion has merit. That this church was responsible for some terrible crimes and a grasping after power is not in dispute; however it is only one chapter of church history, and during this period of time you mention, from Constantine to the Renaissance, (and indeed beyond it) there is another stream of church history. The story of a range of individuals and groups who did not seek power and authority and who on occasions were subject to persecution by the church.
Complain about this comment
Brian
A few words about Paul.
1) Paul was certainly prpeapred to use arguments to support his faith - in Romans 1 and 2 he alludes to arguments that Stoic and Epicurean philosopher would recognise. His "virtue lists" also would have been familiar to philosophers of the day.
2) As I have mentioned before, he attacks "futile" philosophy in Colossians - it seems esoteric speculation was in view. Josephus could refer to Pharisaic thought as philosophy. Paul also would have taken exception to the older Greek idea that salvation can be obtained through philosophy. That does not mean he was against reasoning things out.
3) Philosophical discourse would have been "pop" entertainment for many in Corinth and Athens etc. It is worth noting that many of the "street" philosophers were sophists - orators, rather than intellectuals. They could make quite a tidy sum training the sons of the rich.
4) Analytic philosophy was not condemned by Paul - nor was Scientific study. He couldn't - neither existed. "Philosophy" can refer to so many schools of thought that we need to be sure that we are not jumping to conclusions when we hear Pual condemn it.
5) The Gospel was not foolishness to the Greeks because it was irrational - rather the Resurrection of a body did not fit neatly in to Greek schools of thought. The Jews could not conceive of a Crucified Messiah.
6) As to your quotes, not one is a Pauline scholar, and all have axes to grind. Paul gets it in the neck as no-one wants to be seen condemning Jesus; but someone has to be to blame for the Christian religion.
7) For a long time Paul was seen as a Helleniser, but that view (though popular in the media) is an unnecessarily complex hypothesis.
8) Continuities between the Gospels and Paul have been brought to the fore by David Wenham and others. Paul passed on oral traditions about Jesus that cohere with Luke for example. He also is aware of Jesus' apocalytic discourse, and many of his ethical teachings. The Gospels share a very high Christology with Paul's letters. (See my discussion with H. for some of the references - I can give you a fairly comprehensive list if you want). So whoever "invented" Christianity, it wasn't Paul.
9) As to the effect of Christianity on Rome, I don't know enough about the classical period to comment. However I do know enough about the Early Church to know that they considered Plato "another Moses", and believed that Philosophy prepared the Greeks for the Gospel, just as the Torah prepared the Jewish people. The "logos" brought the light of truth through Philosophy.
10) However, this meant marrying Christian thought to a world renouncing Neo-Platonism, and loosening the New Testament from it's Jewish moorings.
11) A more balanced account of the Churches effect on the Roman world can be found in Richard Tarnas's "The Passion of the Western Mind". He has some very interesting thoughts on the matter. It might be worth comparing notes, so to speak.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS