A couple of days ago, I wrote a response to Wayne Rossiter’s critique to Part 4 of my series in which I addressed Ken Ham’s attempt to address the Theodicy question (i.e. How can one reconcile the idea of a good and loving God with the reality of suffering and death in this world?). In Part 4, I gave my answer to the Theodicy question. Amazingly, within to hours of my response post to Wayne’s critique, Wayne had posted his response to my response. Wayne’s response to my response can be found here: Rejoinders to Joel Edmund Anderson’s Response.
“Well then,” I thought to myself, “I guess I’m going to have to write a response to his response to my response of his critique of my critique of Ken Ham’s answer to the Theodicy question!” Here it is…
Wayne’s World 2
1. Concerning Wayne’s pushback on my point that Genesis 1-3 does not say God created a “perfect” world: Notice that this necessarily requires that God made a less-than perfect creation. He did less than He was capable of, intentionally. I could have written a perfect response, but I decided to go for the marginal one that was just okay. Really?
Yes, really. I think Wayne’s assumption (and yes, that of many other people) is somewhat akin to deism: that God made a perfect world, like a clockmaker makes a functioning clock, and then something went wrong—the perfect “clock” broke, so to speak. I disagree. Let me use C.S. Lewis’ analogy in Mere Christianity. God is the great sculptor, and human beings in their present form are like statues that God has crafted. The statues are not the finished product—they might be in God’s image, but they aren’t fully like God yet. God’s intention is to breath life into those statues and make them true human beings who are not only in God’s image but are truly like God. As Lewis said (I’m paraphrasing), “This world is like a great sculptor’s shop, and there is a rumor going around that the statues are going to be brought to life.”
Like I’ve said before, this creation and human beings in their present condition are not examples of God’s “Plan A” that has “fallen from perfection,” and that salvation in Christ is God’s “Plan B” to get everything back to that original Edenic perfection. No—this creation and human beings in their present condition are examples of God’s “Phase One” (i.e. God’s sculptor’s shop in which human beings are akin to statues: in God’s image, but not yet fully like God), and salvation in Christ is God’s “Phase Two” in which God transforms His original creation into something better.
This is basically what Irenaeus said in his book Against Heresies regarding Genesis 1-3: “God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.”
[God] “knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.”
“He learns from experience that disobeying God, which robs him of life, is evil, and so he never attempts it…. But how would he have discerned the good without knowing its opposite? For firsthand experience is more certain and reliable than conjecture… The mind acquires the knowledge of the good through the experience of both and becomes more firmly committed to preserving it by obeying God. First, by penance, he rejects disobedience, because it is bitter and evil. Then he realizes what it really is – the opposite of goodness and sweetness, and so he is never tempted to taste disobedience to God. But if you repudiate this knowledge of both, this twofold faculty of discernment, unwittingly you destroy your humanity.”
“How could man ever have known that he was weak and mortal by nature, whereas God was immortal and mighty if he had not had experience of both? To discover his weakness through suffering is not in any sense evil; on the contrary, it is good not to have an erroneous view of one’s own nature… The experience of both [good and evil] has produced in man the true knowledge of God and of man and increased his love for God.”
Bottom line, that has been the view of the story in Genesis 1-3 from the very earliest of days of the early Church. Related to this, we go back to how to interpret Genesis 1-3. I think it is intended to be interpreted, not as a historical account, but rather as a myth-story that serves to explain and illustrate the nature of human beings and the state of the world.
2. This leads to a second comment by Wayne regarding the early Church Fathers: You claim to take the early church fathers seriously. But essentially all of them were young earth and believed in a literal Adam & Eve.
I submit that is a misunderstanding of what the early Church Fathers were doing. First of all, let’s be clear, YECism is a 20th-21st century phenomenon that has no basis in the first 1900 years of Church history. None of the early Church Fathers made the pseudo-scientific claims that modern YECists make. Furthermore, in their discussions on Genesis 1-3, they were combating pagan philosophy, therefore, it is misleading to take their comments and act as if they were addressing modern scientific questions. That is a whole other issue in and of itself. Let me suggest reading Peter Bouteneff’s great book, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. I quote him a few times in my book The Heresy of Ham. (Here is one I find most relevant:
“None of the fathers’ strictly theological or moral conclusions—about creation, or about humanity and its redemption, and the coherence of everything in Christ—has anything to do with the datable chronology of the creation of the universe or with the physical existence of Adam and Eve. They read the creation narratives as Holy Scripture, and therefore as ‘true.’ But they did not see them as lessons in history, or science as such, even as they reveled in the overlaps they observed between the scriptural narrative and the observable world. Generally speaking, the fathers were free from a slavish deference to science” (83).
3. Wayne questions my claim that there is a clear distinction in writing between Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50: This simply isn’t true. It’s said a lot, but it doesn’t hold up to even cursory scrutiny. He then focuses on the genealogy in Genesis 11 that leads into the Genesis 12 and the story of Abraham. Basically, his question is this: “Where does myth end and history begin?”
A little over a year ago, I wrote a blog series on how to understand Genesis 1-11. Here are the posts: Genesis 1, Genesis 2a, Genesis 2b, Genesis 3a, Genesis 3b, Genesis 4-5, Genesis 6:1-4, Genesis 6-8, Genesis 9-10, Genesis 11.
I also address this issue in Heresy of Ham. For an in-depth look, I’ll recommend both the posts and the book. For this post, a few brief comments will have to do. First, there are clear literary parallels and commonalities found in Genesis 1-11 with other known ancient Near Eastern stories, whereas these similarities are absent from Genesis 12 onward. Second, Genesis 1-11 skips through (according to the genealogies) thousands of years within a few verses, with no really story or history. We have personages that supposed lived for hundreds of years mentioned in a portion of a single verse, whereas as soon as you get to Genesis 12, things slow way down: Abraham gets 13 chapters devoted to him, Jacob is present from Genesis 25-50, Joseph’s birth in is Genesis 30, and he is the main figure in 37-50. Furthermore, once you get to Genesis 12, there are places mentioned that we actually know about.
Yes, as Wayne points out, Genesis 12-50 is in the form of story—but that story is rooted in actual history. Whereas Genesis 1-11, things are (to be kind) extremely historically ambiguous at best. Furthermore, as I discuss elsewhere, there is a clear literary structure to Genesis 1-11 that lays out a fundamental theme that runs throughout both the Old and New Testaments: that of the war of the offspring. I discuss that in more detail in both Heresy of Ham and the blog posts.
4. I have to ask, what does it mean when the crucified Christ yells, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The veil is torn, the sky darkened, etc. This all is indicative of Jesus taking on our sins, and God turning from those sins. What else would it mean?
One key thing to understand when the NT writers quote the OT is that they are more times than often quoting a part of a fuller passage that they want the reader to understand and interpret in light of whatever event they are describing. For example, Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1—If you read the entire Psalm, it starts with the speaker crying out to God because it seems God has forsaken him, but by the end of the Psalm, it is clear that God hasn’t forsaken him—in fact, the speaker is praising God for his faithfulness in the midst of the congregation. If you realize that, it should make you rethink what Jesus is saying on the cross. To the point, I interpret it as him saying, “You all think that God has forsaken me, but check back in three days, and you’ll see that he hasn’t!”
As for the imagery of the veil being torn: reconciliation with God has been made for everyone; the sky darkened: it is apocalyptic imagery that echoes many passages in the OT prophets in which they describe the Day of YHWH that is meant to denote an “earth-shattering event” so to speak. The significance of the cross and the resurrection is that it signals the defeat of the rule of sin and death—but like I’ve said elsewhere, it is also clear that sin and death are overcome through suffering. You can’t have resurrection without a crucifixion first.
5. But, would it be your view that, if we did not sin, we would not die? I think not. At that point, we would still need salvation, even as we are blameless. Thus, my original point would hold true: God is the physician who offers us the antidote only after He poisons us. I do wonder how you take Paul’s writings on this issue.
“If we did not sin…” but we do. We never were blameless. There is not use throwing out hypotheticals that have never been true. The reality that the Bible emphasizes is that we are slaves to sin, we all suffer and die, and God somehow uses all that to bring about His greater purposes. Therefore, to go back to the original analogy of a physician who poisons only to then heal doesn’t work—it assumes there was a “perfect state” to begin with. And again, the Bible doesn’t say that.
Paul’s comments in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 largely bear this out. When talking about humanity, he uses the story of Adam and emphasizes what I have been emphasizing: in Adam, all sin, all die; those who “bear the image” of the first man are of dust and will die—it has to be that way: what is “sown perishable” is “raised imperishable.” The very description of “Adamic” humanity as a seed should make it obvious: the seed isn’t meant to be a finished product.
6. Moving on, you write, “as is virtually on every page of the New Testament, it is through suffering and death that resurrection and transformation happen.” That’s an assertion not evidenced thus far. I don’t see that as the central theme at all.
Aside from the actual parts in the Gospels about the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as quick word search in the New Testament of words like “suffering” “trials,” and “tribulation” show that the NT writers emphasized this very thing. In other words, the entire Gospel message is evidence of this.
7. If the Bible really teaches, “you were intentionally made imperfect of no fault of your own, and suffer, of no fault of your own,” then the only recourse is to say that God did it.
That objection is the theology of Job’s friends: “Your suffering is your own fault, Job. God isn’t behind it in any way—if you even imply that, you’re saying God did it! And we’re here to defend God!” And what is God’s response to that? “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” (Job 42:7).
Again, Genesis 2 does not tell us that Adam and Eve were perfect. The very description of them as naked, without knowledge of good and evil, without wisdom, shows them as child-like and naïve—hence, immature and imperfect. This is what Irenaeus emphasizes. The Bible also clearly shows that suffering and death are part of this world, and even good people (like Job) suffer, and the reason they suffer is not because they deserve it or that it’s their fault. It just happens and God isn’t obligated to give us an answer—that’s the point of the Book of Job. In the New Testament, though, that answer that is given is that Christ suffered died and rose again, thus conquering death; and that if one puts their faith in him, one must take up their cross and follow him, for through the power of the Holy Spirit, suffering and death are used as the means by which we become Christ-like and ultimately overcome death itself.
It is not that suffering and death are “good” and that everyone is transformed and made better through suffering. Suffering and death are bad. They will destroy those who don’t have Christ, but for those in Christ, they will be turned back on themselves and bring about new life and resurrection. That is the Good News of the Gospel—Christ didn’t suffer, die, and resurrect so that we will escape suffering and death and go off to be bodiless spirits in an immaterial heaven. He did so, so that we will go into suffering and death and come out the other side, conquering death as Christ has, with transformed, resurrection bodies living in the new creation.
For the life of me, I don’t know how any Christian would see that as antithetical to the Christian message, for that is the Good News of the Gospel.
8. I do wonder how you would interpret Genesis if the mainstream consensus was that humanity is just 12,000-6,000 years old. Just a thought.
I wouldn’t interpret it any differently. Genesis 1-11 isn’t about what the literal age of the earth is, etc. If there was a historical Adam and Eve living about 6,000 years ago, the message of Genesis 1-3 isn’t any different. And that message is this: human beings are made in God’s image, they sin, they suffer and die, and they are in need of salvation—and still, for some mysterious reason God hasn’t divulged to us, that has been God’s plan all along. He created this creation so that Christ the Savior and Sanctifier would have something to save and sanctify.
I see the appeal in Annihilation but I wonder what you do with scriptures like Luke 16:19-31 and similar times when Jesus speaks about Hades?
“He created this creation so that Christ the Savior and Sanctifier would have something to save and sanctify.”
Paraprhase: The perfect God created a universe in which human beings and animals endure massive, horrific suffering for tens of thousands of years—just so that he could eventually send his son to perform a bloody human sacrifice to save and sanctify them.
How can you possibly believe that such a being is “good”? Saying that “it’s a mystery” is a cop out. If this is what your “perfect”, “good” God did, then the words “perfect” and “good” have no meaning. This is sadistic behavior.
17,000 children under the age of five die from starvation each and every day. There is NO justification for allowing this to happen if one has the ability to prevent it. Isn’t this strong evidence that your God is either: impotent, dead, non-existent, or the epitome of evil?
Gary,
You’ve spent the last few days arguing how morality is just a “herd instinct” and that in the big picture there really is no such thing. All is just evolutionary processes, etc. And now here you rage against how immoral God is? You can’t have it both ways. Sorry, but that strikes me as extremely disingenuous.
Let’s ignore my “moral standards”. I am an atheist. My views on this issue are irrelevant to Christians such as yourself. Let’s look at this from YOUR morality., Joel. How can your God’s behavior be moral in YOUR morality?
Question: One of the most famous photos ever taken was of a starving, dying little girl in Africa and of a vulture waiting nearby for the opportunity to eat her. The photographer was harshly criticized for doing nothing to help her. Do you believe that it was wrong, immoral, for the photographer to have done nothing to prevent this girl’s death? If you say, “yes”, then how can you not condemn your God for doing exactly the same thing>
I pasted a copy of this famous “starving child/lurking vulture” photo on my blog along with a review of your post:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/theologian-says-god-created-a-universe-of-suffering-so-that-jesus-could-save-us-how-sick/
Sorry, your moral standards are what is at issue. You cannot look at the pain and suffering in this world and say, “Ho hum…no real morality anyway! Just evolution at work!” and then turn around and look at the exact same pain and suffering in this world and say, “Oh, if there is a God, then he is an immoral sadist!” That is patently illogical and disingenuous.
And to answer your question, I believe God IS doing things to save people. That’s the point of the Gospel. But, like I said in my previous posts on this issue, the Gospel is still, nevertheless, hard–it says NEW life and RESURRECTION life only can come THROUGH pain, suffering and death. That absolutely sucks–but in the Gospel, that is the reality.
But back to what is at issue, you cannot be an atheist with any credibility if you say there is no such thing as morality and that pain and suffering is just part of the evolutionary processes of live, and then level a criticism against belief in God and charge God for being IMMORAL. You have THROWN OUT morality as even being real–so no, you CANNOT make ANY moral arguments, given your stated position.
“the Gospel is still, nevertheless, hard–it says NEW life and RESURRECTION life only can come THROUGH pain, suffering and death. That absolutely sucks–but in the Gospel, that is the reality”
The Gospel = Good News
In other words: “New life and resurrection life only can come through the pain, suffering, and death of 17,000 starving children each and every day. That absolutely sucks, but in the Good News of Jesus, that is the reality.”
Good News??
Which is worse:
Dear starving children: Your horrific situation is due to global economic inequalities, uncontrollable forces of nature, political corruption, and the indifference of wealthy nations to help you. I’m sorry to break the news, but no supernatural being is going to come to your rescue, So you can stop praying. Spend your time more productively looking for food. Life is not fair.
Dear starving children: Jesus loves you. Jesus died to forgive you of your evilness. Jesus will give you eternal life in a magical place of bliss, prosperity, and peace. But first, Jesus wants you to starve to death. Sorry…and God bless.
Again, given your past comments, you are in NO position to make any moral claims. You are resorting to emotional appeals and emotional manipulation.
If I was an atheist with the view that morality is just herd instinct and life is nothing more than evolutionary forces, I’d look at people who believe in God and say, “Oh how cute.” I’d smile and go on with my life.
But you don’t do that. You’re on a crusade. You still have the same mentality you had when you were a Fundie. I see the same in ex-Fundies like Erhman and Barker.
Gary, the Doc is right. An atheist cannot criticize God for being immoral. Not and be rationally consistent. But when it comes to the God question many atheists approach it from a decidedly emotional standpoint. I’m gettin’ that vibe from you right now.
Where are the atheist hospitals and clinics? Why is it that the Christian Church founded the first hospitals and free clinics? For that matter, it was the church who founded the first universities in Medieval Europe.
As former atheist CS Lewis admitted about himself, you’re hostile towards the god you claim not to believe in. That seems roughly akin to me of someone claiming not to believe in extraterrestrials yet excoriating the ETs for not doing more to save the earth.
Pax.
Lee.
Whatever you may think of my morality, you cannot claim that your morality is consistent or based on objective principles if you would condemn the photographer for not helping the starving, dying child yet give your God a pass for doing exactly the same.
I dont think anything about your morality. I’m pointing out how horribly inconsistent you are. Given your stated stance, you are in absolutely no position to speak of morality at all.
I am willing to admit that my morality is subjective and inconsistent. Can you admit, Joel, that your morality is also subjective and inconsistent?
You’re not seeing it. By your own position, you don’t even have a “morality” for it to be either subjective or objective. You have instinct and evolutionary forces, and that’s it. Therefore, you CAN’T even begin to speak of “morality” without being horribly nonsensical.
My view is taken from early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and modern thinkers like CS Lewis, particularly his analogy of a tin/toy soldier being made into a real human being. It would require taking the tin off and replacing it with real flesh, etc. From the tin soldier’s subjective perspective, he thinks you’re killing him–and in a way you would be. But what he doesn’t see is that you are making him into a real human being, not just an image of one. That is the Christian perspective in regard to suffering and death. The forces in this world that bring suffering and death are not good, but God is using them to bring about something better than this creation.
That is the challenge to the theodicy question, be it Job or a starving girl in Africa. If there was pain and suffering and death, and those who put their faith in God just died and that was it, then that WOULD be immoral. But then again, that would mean there was no God, so that how could it be immoral? It would be, like you said, just the inevitable reality of life. But if there is a God, and if the Christian message is true, then that would be that a whole bunch of “tin soldiers” are being made into something better, and that is wholly good, and hence not immoral.
Long story short, if there is no God, then suffering and death aren’t immoral–they’re just harsh realities. If there is a God, then suffering and death, though horrible, are used by God to create something better–and that is wholly good.
So, allowing a little girl to starve to death is “good” because it provides Jesus the opportunity to save and sanctify a small minority (“narrow is the way and few that find it”) of the human race? I wonder if the little girl (if she is still alive) would see it that way.
I think your morality is really warped, Joel. I may be an immoral atheist, but at least I am consistent about this starving little girl: Anyone who has the power to protect children from harm and suffering but does not is a monster. Period.
How are you an “immoral” atheist? Morality has no meaning in your view. You are absolutely inconsistent. You keep making moral claims and judgments while denying that morality exists at all.
I’ve admitted that I am inconsistent and that my views on this issue are subjective. Can you admit that your belief system on this subject is also inconsistent and subjective?
No, because it is not inconsistent.
Would you condemn a man who stands by and does nothing while a little girl is raped and murdered in front of his very eyes?
Read Job…
Uncle! I’m wrong and you are right, Joel. I have seen the truth.
I have no right whatsoever to condemn your God for not stopping thousands of little girls from being raped and murdered every year. Nor do I have the right to condemn your God for allowing 17,000 little boys and girls to starve to death each and every day.
That’s correct. You have no basis or right to decry suffering and pain, given the fact that you have stated that there is no such thing as morality to begin with. You are simply being wholly inconsistent and disingenuous. So please, stop with the petty, self-righteous emotional manipulation. You are not a serious person, and quite frankly I’m tired of your sophomoric tactics.
Gary, what difference does it make? If atheism is true, there is no Moral Law, hence, as Joel says, the death of that girl isn’t “good” or “bad,” it just “is.” Under atheism, that’s life. People starve. Life is cruel. Suck it up. There’s nobody to hold accountable and pretending that there is is just silly.
Calling the god you don’t believe in a “monster” for not acting according to a Moral Law which doesn’t exist, is illogical. Yet the very fact that you find the whole idea of the suffering of an innocent problematic says a lot more than you realize. You want *somebody* to be held accountable but yet don’t believe in God. Well, I’m sorry. If God doesn’t exist you can’t blame anyone.
But if you posit the Christian God, then, as horrible as the death of that girl is in the short term, in the long term she will be resurrected in a physical body even better than the one that starved to death.
You want God to wave his magic wand and anhilate evil, suffering, and death immediately, right now.
You know What? So do I!
But you’re not God and neither am I. We’re limited in our perception/understanding, but God, standing outside the space-time universe, isn’t. All we know is what we can see or experience from our limited vantage point. So how do you *know* death is the end? How do you *know* suffering is ultimately meaningless?
Death is the end and suffering serves no higher purpose if atheism is true. Thus for you to think it’s immoral for anyone to let a girl starve to death is nonsense. If atheism is true. You might not *like* it, but so what? I don’t like broccoli. That doesn’t make broccoli “evil.”
But if God exists in the way we Christians believe he does, then maybe his view of suffering/death is more accurate than ours, hence the seemingly meaningless suffering of an innocent child isn’t meaningless and will be set to rights one day. That may not satisfy you. Honestly some days it doesn’t satisfy me, either. But ultimately it makes more rational and emotional sense than atheism, which denies that the universe has any meaning, all the while pretending as if it *does.*
Christianity explains your feeling that the needless suffering of innocents is immoral because it allows for the existence of true, unabashed EVIL–and if evil exists, God exists. As NT Wright says, our longing for justice is an echo of God’s voice. That’s why your world-view, atheism, causes you to live a lie; it tells you morality is merely a human construct yet then tells you that certain things, like the suffering of innocents, are categorically *wrong.*
What other echoes of that voice might you be hearing?
Pax.
Lee.
Hi Lee,
Would you condemn a man who stands by and does nothing to prevent a little girl from raped and murdered in front of his very eyes?
We’ve already been over this.
You want a simplistic answer for why a just God could/would allow innocents to suffer. We’ve given you some stuff to mull over. You might not find our reasoning convincing, but then we don’t find atheism’s arguments convincing.
If atheism is true, it doesn’t make any difference one way or the other. Life is cruel.. The sooner the kid gets used to that the better off she’ll be, and perhaps face her impending meaningless rape and murder with at least a modicum of stoicism. If atheism is true the guy has just as much “right” to rape and murder the girl as she does the “right” to try to resist being raped/killed. Neither position is “moral” because “morality” doesn’t exist. The rapist is doing what’s in his best interests while the victim tries to do what’s in hers. But ultimately none of it makes any difference because the universe is all there is and the universe doesn’t really care. As some cynical ancient Romans had carved on their epitaphs: “I was. I was not. I don’t care.” In other words, “I lived, then I died, but because I’m dead I don’t care.”
Pax.
Lee.
I’m going to have to side with Gary, I think. It appears that our non objective, non subjective herd instinct morality has taken the high road. Only a believer could possibly side with god against his own species. Shameful, really. As mans morality continues to improve against the will of the churches, they become less and less relevant. Even if I believed in god I would distance myself from it. Oh wait, by submission I forfeited that ability of moral autonomy.
Again, like it said with Gary, if you say “morality” isn’t really real, and it is all just herd instinct and evolutionary processes, then your anger and outrage at what you deem an imaginary God is mystifying. Other than that, if you want to get a better and more informed understanding of the last 2,000 years of history, I recommend Rodney Stark’s “Triumph of Christianity.”
I’m not mad at all. I don’t even get angry Joe. I’m not even upset, just a little embarrassed it took so long to see clearly.
I’ve found the morality argument for a god to be the absolute weakest for the simple reason that we have hard evidence that this thing we call “morality,” which is really nothing but a formative sense of good (positive) and bad (negative) behaviour, is a product of neurological processing power. The more neurons, the more accute an organisms understanding of it. Countless studies, across numerous species, prove this beyond any rational doubt. It is not a human phenomena, and its anything but complicated.
How is it that I can see the immorality of the Bible, but a believer can’t? Moral autonomy. You just repeat what others have said before you. These aren’t your thoughts at all. You have given away your right to make moral judgment through submission and worship. That is immoral in itself.
Fascinating. But no, you are wrong. There isn’t scientific evidence for morality. Science studies what “is,” not what “ought.” No one claims a lion killing and eating a gazelle is “immoral.” That’s just what lions do. No one claims a bird feeding her young is doing a “moral” action. That’s just what birds do. You have fallen into the lie that thinks scientific description of natural processes and phenomena explains morality, which is unique to human beings.
And again, if you define morality as herd instinct, then on what are you basing your claim that the Bible is immoral? I find it fascinating that some of the people who are most obsessive over morality/immorality are atheists who deny that there really is such a thing. And we won’t even go into your nonsensical statement trying to analyze my mindset and who I am as a believer.
There are plenty of studies on fairness, which is what all species crave, and give to get it. Basically the inherent drive of morality. I never denied morality, just no make believe god necessary. It’s very particular to like species, natural, even crosses between species quite often, if you’d care to look. I do see you getting upset. That’s the norepinephrine causing the fight or flight response when beliefs are challenged. It’s just a friggin belief without any substance, but it challenges your right to hope. That’s the hormones working for you. “The faith is strong with this one, Obewan”
Hahaha….okay. Again, animal instincts and behavior are different than morality. When monkeys fight and literally tear each other limb from limb, that is not deemed “immoral” behavior. It is animal behavior–that’s what they do. If a person did that to another person, it would be deemed immoral.
Kudos for having the ability to psychoanalyze and sense bodily changes over the internet. haha
Oh I’m not sensing anything. T’is a fact. You could check the research yourself, but, if your afraid to look you already proved my point. Belief and faith are truly the best manipulators. We honor strong faith like it’s a virtue, but it is merely relabeled pride. Congratulations. Not just regular pride either. It’s stubborn pride. Trying a lifetime to prove pretending is real.
Oh, and the Bible is an immoral representation. Any mom and pop or three person committee could do better. The writers were so blind to their wickedness, they didn’t even cover it up! What they did to women and slaves, unconscionable. Murdering onan for ejaculating on the ground. Pretty moral. Lol
Well, I happen to have a PhD in Biblical Studies and teach at the college level. Your understanding, I’m guessing, is probably a bit uninformed. But I’m sure you don’t think so.
Never underestimate your opponent. You have all attended the same schools that I did. Apologetics 101, being one of them. I used to be you. Handwaving and telling people what they believe. I’m uninformed? I’ve read your material. Have you read mine without the blinders of faith? Drawing your info from a poisoned well from the approved schools. Your mind is not your own. I suppose the PhD put sunk cost fallacy into play.
Belief is only necessary when something isn’t real. It only exists without any evidence. That is the gem of Christianity. It was imperative there be no evidence for the trick to work. I can explain it very thoroughly if your interested.
What is your background? What Fundamentalist background did you come out of?
There isn’t scientific evidence for morality.
You’re wrong. But it’s clear you’re not interested in looking at the libraries of studies that show you’re wrong.
This thing we call ‘morality’ is nothing but the scoring of behaviours, and there is nothing sophisticated, or even vaguely mysterious about scoring behaviours as being either positive or negative, beneficial or detrimental, favourable or unfavourable, helpful or harmful. Empathy and reciprocity (the two pillars of morality) are not magical gifts. Their origins lay deep in evolutionary history, and they are sharpened with increased neural/cultural complexity (memetic evolution). You need only compare the behavioural/social complexity of a group of, say, meerkats to a group of bonobos, and that group of bonobos to a Palaeolithic human clan, and that Palaeolithic human clan to a community in, say, Sweden today to see the “improvement.”
Jim, in the Bible, “is” doesn’t equal “ought.” In other words, just because the Bible describes a certain behavior doesn’t mean God or the author endorses said behavior.
But if you’re an atheist none of this should bother you because Morality doesn’t exist. So I find this constant atheist obsession with the “monster” OT God and his “evil” laws curious because both “monster” and “evil” are subjective terms. Thus evil is in the eyes of the beholder.
As for this so-called “herd instinct” definition of morality, which is supposedly nothing but the human herd acting pragmatically in order to survive, as I keep asking Gary, who says the human herd *should* survive? What gives us special status over lions, lizards, insects and amoebas?
Secondly, what do you do when one human “herd,” like the Nazis, decides to exterminate another human herd, the Jews. Gary said that the Nazis are guilty of violating the rules of the larger human herd, thus the Allies had every “right” (in quotes because under atheism “rights” don’t exist either) to punish them, yet Isn’t the Holocaust simply a localized instance of one herd doing what it takes to ensure its survival? So under atheism “justice” is another meaningless subjective term. Who or what gave the Allies the “right” to punish the Nazis? Nothing but the fact that Allies won, and under atheism “might makes right.”
As for faith or as you put it “belief,” if you’ll stop and think a minute, you and billions of people operate on faith on a daily basis without even being consciously aware of it.
For example, when your wife makes you a glass of tea, you drink it, based on the *faith* or *belief* that she hasn’t poisoned it in order to kill you. Is your wife “real”? You don’t have any “evidence” of your wife’s previous behavior to judge how she’ll probably act in this situation?
When you drive to work every morning, you have *faith* or *belief* that the other drivers on the road aren’t going to cause a wreck. Are the other drivers “real”? You have no prior evidence of how typical morning drivers behave behind the wheel?
When you drink water out of the tap, you operate on *faith* or the *belief* that it isn’t contaminated. Is the tap water “real”? You have no prior evidence for how the water’s gonna come out of the tap?
When you fly, you have *faith* that the pilot isn’t going to crash the plane. Is the pilot “real”? No past history of flying?
Do I need to list more?
There’s a difference between *science* and *scientism.* The belief that science can explain everything is *scientism,* For example, science can tell us how to split the atom and make a bomb. But it *can’t* tell us whether it’s morally *right* to drop that bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As Doc Anderson says, morality deals with what I *ought* to do, while pragmatism tells me to simply do whatever works. Big difference.
Pax.
Lee.
Joel,
I have been following your discussion with Wayne, and I do find it interesting and worthwhile. Candidly, he is my brother and we discuss these things frequently. However, I am not here to “team up” with him or something of the sort.
I was reading through 1 John last night, and it really stood out to me with regards to your dialogue with Wayne. I am interested in your views on a few things.
First, do you believe that Satan exists? I ask because it seems that it would be extremely hard to square with your essential view, which is that the world we live in exists in its “good” created form. It has not fallen from some previous state of existence, so to speak. What we see around us is what was intended.
Along the same lines, I think the biblical perspective on human sinfulness and the purpose of Christ’s atonement are probably impossible to explain. Consider the following:
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 1:8 -2:2).
Also, see 1 John 3:8: “The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.”
These views are very consistent throughout the Bible, particularly the NT. We have a clear discussion about the world being sinful, often evil, and out of sorts (i.e. out of the created order of things). We also have evil entities that plays a hand in this. In a very real sense, Jesus came to conquer both sin and the work of Satan. If those are part of the created order, it is counterintuitive (at best) that Jesus would need to conquer them. The same applies to death.
I would be interested to see what your thoughts are, and how you feel this relates to the view you have laid out in the last several blogs. Thanks
Hi Brian,
Yes, my first thought when I saw the last name was, “I bet it’s Wayne’s brother!”
As to you basic question, yes I think Satan exists. As CS Lewis says in Mere Christianity, there is a Dark Power in this world. I don’t see how any I said about suffering and death would preclude that.
As for what you said here: “I ask because it seems that it would be extremely hard to square with your essential view, which is that the world we live in exists in its “good” created form. It has not fallen from some previous state of existence, so to speak. What we see around us is what was intended.” I’ll say this: God simply tells us all the details concerning evil and suffering–that is the point of the Book of Job. As Christians, we have to hold a whole bunch of things in tension: (A) Creation is good and has order, (B) God is good, (C) Human beings are created in God’s image, yet are sinful, (D) Suffering and death are a reality within God’s creation, (E) There is a Dark Power (Satan) who was there from the beginning, (F) Christ came to free us from the bondage of sin and death, and when He comes again suffering and death will be defeated completely, (G) The way to new, resurrection life in Christ is through the power of the Spirit as we go through the inevitable suffering and death.
We have to leave it at that. As soon as we start postulated there was an original “perfect” creation and that a historical Adam screwed it up for everyone, then we are going beyond what the Bible actual says.
Thanks for your response Joel.
I do not disagree with any of the tenants of faith you listed (A-G). I think those are both biblical and necessary Christian beliefs. The issue is that some of these cannot be supported by your views expressed in these blogs. You seem to subscribe to the belief in a fallen world (a world out of sorts from its original state) with Christ coming to redeem it (think A-G you listed), while also believing that it’s not actually fallen. It’s an odd position.
To illustrate, consider the last line about both Creation and Adam: “As soon as we start postulated there was an original “perfect” creation and that a historical Adam screwed it up for everyone, then we are going beyond what the Bible actual says.”
The “perfect” creation is a red herring, really. What do you mean by “perfect?” What do you propose that others mean by it? Those who typically talk about a perfect creation simply mean it was in its intended and uncorrupted form, as God meant it to be. It was “perfect” in that it was how it was intended. It doesn’t entail some highly philosophical view or the belief in an indescribable existence.
The “good, not perfect” distinction allows for a ton of flexibility (or even subjectivity). One can basically incorporate anything—good, bad or ugly—into their view of Creation and justify it because Creation was “good, not perfect.” Your view that death and suffering are just part of how it all works—essentially, they were intended by God—is evidence of this. Those things can supposedly exist in a good creation, whereas they would not in a perfect one.
The issue with Adam is more problematic. The Bible literally says that sin and death entered the world because of Adam, who was an actual person. Romans 5:12-14: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” The rest of the chapter is just as clear, with verses 18-21 repeatedly mentioning the effects of Adam’s sin on the rest of the world. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 records: “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”
Also, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (ch. 3) literally mentions Adam as a real person. Whatever one might say about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, it cannot be said that the people listed were not believed to be real. It would be incredibly difficult to posit that Adam was not a real person, or that his disobedience did not result in a world that needed a Second Adam.
I have a lot of thoughts on Job also, since you use that book quite often. I won’t go into it now, but that book screams that it is a metaphor about Israel and its experience with the exile (perfect numbers of things, storybook intro and ending, people and places we cannot pin down in history, and others). I don’t think its intended purpose is to explain our individual suffering and the existence of evil.
I apologize for the length of this response, but I appreciate your time and consideration.
My concern is that “tension” seems to be used here to roughly mean “contradiction.”
//(A) Creation is good and has order, (B) God is good, …(D) Suffering and death are a reality within God’s creation, …(F) Christ came to free us from the bondage of sin and death, and when He comes again suffering and death will be defeated completely//
Unless suffering and death is redirected as the result of someone’s sins/actions, then you have a good God creating something not good (i.e., evil in the form of suffering and death) and subjecting us to these evils, just so He can defeat it. At a minimum, it strains credulity from the standpoint of logic.
Well, do you believe God created Satan? If so, then Satan goes bad; God must have known that when He created him, right? No matter how you slice it (i.e. God creating Satan, who later goes bad; or God creating Adam, who later goes bad) ULTIMATELY God is Sovereign, God created everything, and yet there is sin and death in the world–ULTIMATELY it all goes back to God, and God doesn’t owe us an answer.
“Well, do you believe God created Satan? If so, then Satan goes bad; God must have known that when He created him, right? No matter how you slice it (i.e. God creating Satan, who later goes bad; or God creating Adam, who later goes bad) ULTIMATELY God is Sovereign, God created everything, and yet there is sin and death in the world–ULTIMATELY it all goes back to God, and God doesn’t owe us an answer.”
So many seeming contradictions in the character of God!
Joel believes that instead of trying to understand the “why” of all these seeming contradictions, we should just trust that God knows what he is doing, and, since God cannot do anything evil, there must be a good explanation for issues like the existence of evil and massive human suffering.
I suggest that there is another possibility: Maybe these stories are nothing more than folklore about what these ancient peoples BELIEVED that God the Creator must be like. THAT is why there are so many contradictions. The versions of these stories that we find in our Bibles are amalgamations of several versions of the original story. Many scholars believe that this is why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are so very, very different. They are two different versions of the same original Hebrew Creation Story!
“Tension” is a major concept in Lutheranism. For instance, Lutherans believe that God has chosen those who will enter heaven, but believe that man sends himself to Hell. God sends no one to Hell. Calvinists (and most everyone else) laugh and say that this is a non-sensical statement. Lutherans are 100% serious about it being true because they believe that this is what Scripture teaches. In Lutheranism, just because something is not logical does not mean it isn’t true.
Here is what Martin Luther said about logic (reason):
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
Brian,
It basically comes down to the fact that I don’t think Genesis 1-11 is intended to be read as history. I think it sets the stage to understand God’s involvement in history beginning with Abraham. If you read Genesis 1-3, for example, through a historical lens, that leads to the assumption that there really was a time in history when there was no death of any kind in this creation. The point of ancient myths (that is a big word, and almost always misunderstood) is to lay out the basic beliefs of that given culture–not to give a history lesson. For example, in ancient Greece, it would be wrong to think that there was a historical time BEFORE Pandora opened her box. The myth as a whole was stating what the ancients believed about the state of the world (i.e. women are the problem!).
Genesis 1-3, therefore, isn’t doing history. It is painting a picture to understand the state of the world and the nature of human beings. It is laying out the whole situation that God addresses beginning with Abraham and culminating with Christ. And those are the points I mentioned earlier. As for the issues regarding Romans 5, I Corinthians 15, and Luke’s genealogy, I’ve written on those in other posts and my Heresy of Ham book. The long and short of it is that Paul is obviously referring to Genesis 2-3, but he’s not doing a history lesson. He’s referring to the story to explain the state of humanity, of which the figure of Adam represents.
Luke is (obviously) just using the genealogies in Genesis 1-11–but what’s his point? He’s writing to a Gentile audience and therefore is emphasizing that Jesus is the savior of all of humanity. Matthew’s genealogy is considerably different. And no, one is not through Mary, the other through Joseph. They both supposedly go through Joseph. Matthew’s genealogy goes through all the Davidic kings, whereas Luke’s doesn’t. Why? Because Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience and is showing Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. Both are using the genealogies for Christological purposes–not strict historical ones.
The genealogies in Genesis 1-11, by the way, have a distinct literary function within the overall literary structure of Genesis 1-11. Again, though, I write about this elsewhere. Just poke around on the blog–type in “Genesis” in the search, and I’m sure you’ll find it.
Hi Joel,
So basically, Gen 1-11 is not doing history, nor is anything recorded thereafter that references the people/events of Gen 1-11, nor are the genealogies of Matthew and Luke? I just want to be clear if that’s your position.
If so (among other things), of what purpose is any genealogy if it is tracing a line back through people who didn’t actually exist? Either Adam is the exception, or Scriptures far beyond Gen 1-11 are not doing history, either.
Basically, yes. When you read Genesis 1-11 in light of the ANE context, you see that it is addressing and subverting the very ANE worldview, and it is using the genre of ANE myth to do that. In the ANE, common people were worthless–all that mattered were gods and kings. The Sumerian King list, for example. Right off the bat, though, Genesis insists there is one God, not many, and that human beings–not just kings–are made in that God’s image. Therefore, they have dignity and worth. At the same time, though, they are sinful. Still, that good God promises to eventually deal with sin, evil, and death, and that He is going to work through humanity (i.e. the woman’s offspring) to do just that.
The genealogies in Genesis 1-11 trace the lines of the woman’s offspring and the serpent’s offspring–beginning with Cain and Seth. And it isn’t claiming that Cain’s line was some kind of “serpent people.” It is showing that the ultimate battle God is waging against sin, evil, and death, takes place in the course of human history (all the “bad countries” in the OT are found in the genealogy of Cain and Ham). The genealogies function to tease that idea out. But (as strange as it may sound to us) those genealogies have a literary/theological function, not a historical one.
And so when Paul is refering to Adam, or when Luke is using the genealogy of Genesis 1-11, they’re not doing it in an attempt to do history. They are using those chapters the way they are intended: to illustrate the truth about the state of humanity and to explain the work of Christ, given that state of humanity that Genesis 1-11 lays out.
Brian: “So basically, Gen 1-11 is not doing history, nor is anything recorded thereafter that references the people/events of Gen 1-11, nor are the genealogies of Matthew and Luke? I just want to be clear if that’s your position. If so (among other things), of what purpose is any genealogy if it is tracing a line back through people who didn’t actually exist? Either Adam is the exception, or Scriptures far beyond Gen 1-11 are not doing history, either.
Many scholars believe that the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke were also not meant to be understood in a literal sense. The authors created these genealogies for theological and literary purposes, not as true historical genealogies. This was perfectly acceptable in the literary genre in which they were writing. Some modern readers may see this as an act of deception, but readers in the first century would not have.
Holy crap, Gary, we agree!
“Holy crap, Gary, we agree!
Miracles do happen! 🙂
Joel, your response to me was rather weak. In your mind, though certainly not present in Scripture, God is unavoidably the source of evil. That’s frankly heretical. If he creates me, but I sin, did God sin? Of course not. The same applies to Satan.
No Wayne, I did not say God is the source of evil. I said evil, sin and death are in this creation, and that God is sovereign. And He does owe it to you or me to explain why there is/he allows sin, suffering and death. In Christ, He has shown what He has been working toward all along–the defeat of sin and death THROUGH the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ–and we are called to follow that cruciform life. As long as you are obsessed with finding someone to blame, you are not responding in faith.
Brian Rossiter expressed what I have always understood about Genesis 1–3.
My understanding has always been that God created a “perfect” world where human beings were not subject to physical death and spiritual death. Then came the fall, in which man sinned, thus ushering in the physical and spiritual death of man as well as causing creation to be subject to bondage (Rom. 8:20-21). I think God tells Adam in Genesis 3 that the ground was “cursed” because of his sin.
I’m totally on board with parts of Genesis 1-3 being figurative and not being literal record of creation/the fall. For example, there didn’t have to be six literal 24 hour days and a *literal* talking serpent.
But I’ve always understood there to have been a “perfect” creation that was broken by sin. As I understood it death was not a part of God’s original design. Certainly when God told Adam the result of disobedience would be death and Paul refers to death as the final enemy to be conquered (I. Cor. 15:26), it always seemed that death was the result of creation being broken or infected by sin. And the way Paul contrasts Christ, the 2nd Adam, the perfect human being, with the first Adam, the sinful broken human being and the way Paul says death came through the first Adam but life through the second Adam.
But if I understand Dr. Anderson, he’s saying that Genesis describes the way things *are,* not *how they came to be that way.* Correct me if I’m wrong.
Pax.
Lee.
Basically, yes. I’d write more, but I’m out with my kid.
“I’m totally on board with parts of Genesis 1-3 being figurative and not being literal record of creation/the fall. For example, there didn’t have to be six literal 24 hour days and a *literal* talking serpent.”
Lee, are you on board with parts of Matthew, Luke, and John’s Appearance Stories being figurative?
So, Babel is just reworked ANE, but a 75 year old dude present in both chapter 11 and 12 isn’t. What of Sodom and Gamorrah? Myth? Why does chapter 12 suddenly = real history? And Paul and the gang were so smart, they wrapped their hidden theology in ancient mythical references and EVERYBODY for 1500 years didn’t get it. They thought the characters were real. Hmmmm.
Yes, there is a clear difference in writing between Genesis 11 and 12. Sodom and Gomorrah is within the Abraham narrative, so I think they were two real cities that got destroyed.
But no, what happened is that after the Enlightenment, there came an assumption that in order for something in the Bible to be TRUE, it had to always be HISTORICAL and/or SCIENTIFIC. It’s more like people in the West for the past 300 years have lost the ability to read and interpret certain passages correctly because they are viewing the Bible through a modern/Enlightenment lens.
Wayne. How can you identify each of the following three types of Christians: a conservative fundamentalist, a moderate fundamentalist, and a liberal?
–one believes that all stories in the Bible are historical facts.
–one believes that all stories in the Bible containing supernatural claims are allegorical.
–one believes that many stories in the Bible MAY be allegorical, but the stories of a virgin birth and sightings of a resurrected corpse are absolutely, positively, unquestionably historical facts.
JIM: Have you read mine without the blinders of faith? Drawing your info from a poisoned well from the approved schools.
LEE: So far I’ve read works by Isaac Asimov, Jerry Coyne, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Antony Flew (both pre and post theism), Stephen J. Gould, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, David Hume, Karl Marx, Thomas Nagel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, etc. I’m always looking for new atheist authors I haven’t read before. If you can recommend any authors I haven’t read, please do.
One thing I’ve noticed is that most of these authors, while brilliant scientists, are poor philosophers and many of them approach their atheism from a decidedly emotional standpoint. Many of them come off as angry at the god they don’t believe in. And Dawkins’ most recent books are embarrassing for atheism. He doesn’t really make any arguments, just hurls diatribes at organized religion. And many of these authors have bought into scientism.
Still, I’m open to reading anyone I haven’t read before.
Pax.
Lee.
Hi Lee,
I would suggest reading, “The Death of the Messiah”, both volumes, by Roman Catholic scholar, Raymond Brown. Fascinating book.
“Well, I happen to have a PhD in Biblical Studies and teach at the college level. Your understanding, I’m guessing, is probably a bit uninformed. But I’m sure you don’t think so.”
How much respect would you give to someone with a PhD in Book of Mormon studies? Not much, I would bet. You are an intelligent man, Joel, and I would bet a very decent human being, but even a small child can see a silly superstition when he sees one. Virgins do not have babies; humans cannot walk on water; brain dead corpses do not come back to life. To believe otherwise is to be superstitious. The supernatural is not real. It only exists in your very indoctrinated (brain-washed) brain. Come into the light of science, reason, and rational thought, Joel.
Gary, I really don’t mean to be rude, but it would be best that you stop. As you say on your blog, you’ve come out from Fundamentalism. What I see in your comments is what I often see with atheists who came out of Fundamentalism–I can’t really explain or understand it. Although they leave “the faith,” their basic approach to trying to understand reality, the Bible, and their zealous determination to “spread the good news of atheism” reflects that same Fundamentalist mindset. Simply put, you’re still reading the Bible like a Fundamentalist–Ehrman does it, Dan Barker does it.
In fact, Ehrman went to Wheaton College. So did my dad. When we read in one of his books that he was just thrown for a loop when he learned about textual criticism and textual variants at Princeton, and that started him doubting the reliability of the Bible, I remember my dad saying, “I just don’t get that. That sort of stuff was covered in the Biblical Studies courses in Wheaton–how did he miss it?”
It is something I can’t explain. I’ve had former students whom I’ve taught for years (and I am NOT a Fundamentalist), who went off to college, became atheists, and then have told me the reasons why they rejected the faith and reliability of the Bible. And I just think, “What? That’s not what the Christian faith is. I didn’t teach you that about the Bible.” But the fact is, they were saturated within Fundamentalism, and so whatever I taught just went in one ear and out the other. This is what I see here in your comments. The way you are even presenting the Bible tells me that although you might have read scholars like NT Wright or Bauckham, I think the bulk of what they arguing just went in one ear and out the other. You’re still throwing out a Fundamentalist-like understanding.
Not only that Ehrman was a grad student of Bruce Metzger. Until his death Metzger was probably the foremost NT textual scholar and asserted the reliability of the gospels.
What drives people like Ehrman from fundamentalism to atheism isn’t the actual evidence for authentic Christianity but their fundamentalist presuppositions which they mistake for authentic Christianity. Then they try to demolish authentic Christianity using those fundamentalist caricatures.
Pax.
Lee.
Ding ding ding! 100000% correct!
Actually, if you ask Bart Ehrman, he will tell you that he transitioned to liberal Christianity after leaving fundamentalism. He remained a liberal Christian for several years until the issue of suffering finally caused him to deconvert. He currently describes himself as an agnostic.
And that gets back to my view (and Lee’s) that when one grows up within Fundamentalism, one continues to assume the Fundie way of reading Scripture, even after leaving Fundamentalism. Ehrman still carries into his reading of the Bible a boatload of Fundie assumptions. And yes, you do too. Sorry, but it seems obvious to me.
This can be seen in Ehrman’s view of apocalypticism. He ASSUMES that Jesus’ followers thought he was going to fly back down from heaven and the world would end within their lifetime–but when it didn’t, they then changed everything around about their beliefs. Well, his very assumption that they viewed Jesus’ “coming on the clouds” of Heaven along the lines of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye is the root of the problem. He (and I’m guessing you) are STARTING from a faulty Fundie understanding of what the Bible is saying.
If I were a fundamentalilst atheist I would be a mythicist. I am not. I accept evidence, regardless of who’s “side” it helps. That is why I believe in the historicity of Jesus, the historicity of some (but not all) of the Israelite kings mentioned in the OT, the historicity of Paul of Tarsus, and even the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus. I get a lot of flak from mythicist atheists over my position on these issues.
I respect and accept majority expert opinion. Period.
Like mythicist athiests, too many conservative Christians only accept majority expert opinion when it fits with their theology (their worldview). If the majority expert opinion contradicts or hurts their theology, they alleged a bias on the part of the experts. But this is what mythicists say about the majority expert opinion regarding the historicity of Jesus and Paul! I believe that both conservative Christians and mythicist atheists have just one goal: to win the argument. I seek the truth…whatever that may be.
And to prove that I accept evidence and that I seek the truth is the fact that at one time I agreed with Bart Ehrman and other skeptical scholars that the Empty Tomb is non-historical. However, after reading NT scholar Raymond Brown’s “The Death of the Messiah”, I now accept the Empty Tomb story as most likely historical.
I accept majority expert opinion on ALL issues. Do you, Joel? If not, why not?
Care to quickly bullet point what parts of the gospels/life of Jesus you do consider historical?
–Jesus was a real historical person (not a myth).
–he was an apocalyptic preacher.
–he developed a reputation as a healer and miracle worker.
–his teachings and activities upset the Jewish authorities.
–he was crucified by the Romans.
–he was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
–sometime after his death and burial, some of his followers believe that he appeared to them in some fashion.
–his brother James, and other family members, became members of this movement.
–(most, at least,) early Christians believed that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead, not just spiritually.
–the resurrection belief was rejected by most Jews but rapidly spread among Gentiles. By the end of the first century or mid second century, the Christian movement was overwhelmingly Gentile.
–Saul of Tarsus joined this movement after experiencing an alleged “appearance” of Jesus.
I probably missed a couple of minor things, but those of the major historical points I accept.
Okay, by and large, you accept the general historical reliability of the picture of Jesus in the gospels. Two things:
1. What do YOU mean by “apocalyptic preacher”?
2. Where in Judaism was there a belief that someone would be “spiritually” resurrected?
Gary, it isn’t only religious people who are capable of being indoctrinated. Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t make you any more rational or less capable of being indoctrinated than me or Doc Anderson. That you make such a fallacious argument says a lot.
Can you *prove* to me that “the supernatural is not real?” No. You can’t. Not any more than I can prove it is.
A lot of the world’s most intelligent scientists (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Msgr. Georges Lemaitre (came up with the Big Bang Theory) Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, former dir. of the Human Genome Project) have been Christians.
As for the “light of science,” in western Europe science was supported by the established Church for over 1200 years. You should thank the Roman Catholic Church. because they founded the first universities in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. We wouldn’t be doing science in the west, as an applied, institutionalized discipline, had it not been for the medieval Church.
Pax.
Lee/.
To piggy back on that, I would highly recommend a number of Rodney Stark’s books: The Triumph of Christianity, Bearing False Witness, The Rise of Christianity, God’s Batallions among others. And, of course, my own books: The Heresy of Ham and Christianity and the (R)evolution in Worldviews in Western Culture.
Stark has become a favorite author of mine.
Pax.
Lee.
I just finished his “Bearing False Witness” and “Reformation Myths.” A lot is just rehashed things from his other books, but man–so good!
“Gary, it isn’t only religious people who are capable of being indoctrinated.”
Absolutely, but religions and cults tend to be more aggressive in their methods of indoctrination. Any organization that tells it members that if they leave the organization they are evil and will be punished in some form, is a cult. People should examine all claims for EVIDENCE, no matter who is making the claim. Never believe something “by faith”. Never believe something just because an authority figure or a revered book tells you to believe it. Likewise, never believe something because it is the political correct thing to do. Check the evidence. Belief in universal truth claims should always be based on evidence, evidence, and nothing but evidence.
“Can you *prove* to me that “the supernatural is not real?” ”
Can you prove to me that unicorns are not real? How about leprechauns? Fairies? I’m not being glib, Lee. I’m serious. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something that does not exist…does not exist.
Here is the thing with the supernatural: I never claim that I know as a fact that the supernatural does not exist. What I say is, “I see no good evidence to believe that the supernatural, unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies exist. Provide good evidence, and I will believe in these entities.”
For me, it always comes back to evidence and majority expert opinion. There is no consensus expert opinion on the origin of the universe. Therefore, I take no position on this issue. I am waiting for a consensus of experts. In the meantime, I look at the evidence around me and this is what I see:
–If there is a God, then he (she, they, or it) is either indifferent, impotent or enjoys massive human and animal suffering. That doesn’t sound like any of the gods of the world’s major religions.
–If there is a God, then he has established that the supernatural NOT operate within this universe. I see no convincing evidence that the laws of nature have ever once been violated. I regard all claims of “miracles” as unproven hearsay.
So, to me, the evidence indicates that even if the supernatural exists, it does not operate in this universe, and if the supernatural does not operate in this universe, then your gods Yahweh, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Spirit or either liars or non-existent. Odds are, they are non-existent.
@ Lee
Actually,Lee, I think you will find that people deconvert from religion because of a lack of evidence for the claims religion makes.
It might be enlightening to read some of the testimonies on the Clergy Project.
Some of them are real eye openers.
ARKENATEN: Actually,Lee, I think you will find that people deconvert from religion because of a lack of evidence for the claims religion makes.
LEE: Ark, this ain’t my first rodeo. I’ve been talking to atheists online for nearly 20 years and 90% of the atheists I’ve dialogued with on the internet were fundamentalist Christians before their deconversion. That or they were already atheists who simply took the fundamentalist view of Christianity for granted as the orthodox across the board expression of the faith.
A few had been hurt in some way, usually psychologically, by organized religion or someone professing it. A few were only Christians because their parents or families forced them to be and left as soon as possible.
But most were just as I described. Almost *none* of them left the faith after a careful, dispassionate weighing of the evidence. Nearly all of them operated out of heightened emotional dislike of organized religion in general, Christianity in particular. Many of them displayed an almost visceral hatred of Paul and the Jesus he served and which they claim not to believe in.
If I were a clinical psychologist I could get a paper out of that phenomenon. It’d be roughly akin to an adult being really angry at Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
Pax.
Lee.
Very well said, Lee. I’ll just add that many then project that “fundamentalist” label on you if question or challenge them.
“Almost *none* of them left the faith after a careful, dispassionate weighing of the evidence.”
That was not my case at all. I left my beloved confessional Lutheran Christianity kicking and screaming. I left because of evidence, and no other reason.
Joel: Okay, by and large, you accept the general historical reliability of the picture of Jesus in the gospels. Two things:
1. What do YOU mean by “apocalyptic preacher”?
2. Where in Judaism was there a belief that someone would be “spiritually” resurrected?”
Gary: Jesus was preaching that God (Yahweh) would soon usher in the messianic kingdom. Jesus taught that he was the messiah. In his view, the world as was then known would end.
As to the nature of “Jewish resurrection beliefs”, I defer to the experts. Some scholars such as NT Wright believe that there was only one Jewish belief about resurrection and that was a bodily resurrection. Ehrman and others believe that this was one of SEVERAL Jewish resurrection beliefs. I personally accept that most early Christians quickly came to believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected, probably within a few years of his death, as is evidenced by the Early Creed, which most scholars date within three to five years after Jesus’ death.
1. You are basically echoing Ehrman’s then, right? I find his understanding of apocalyptic more akin to Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye’s view than that of a 1st century Jew or Christian.
2. Erhman is wrong again about the resurrection. Wright is correct–that massive “Resurrection of the Son of God” is pretty conclusive.
If it helps, I accept Gary Habermas’ “Ten Minimal Facts”, including the most disputed fact, the Empty Tomb.
So, do you owe me an apology for calling me a fundamentalist atheist? 🙂
Lol…not quite. Haha. I find Ehrman to still has somewhat of a “fundamentalist” lens through which he reads Scripture, and you seem to lean into his camp. Yes, you’re certainly not a Mythicist, though. But I do think your general approach to reading Scripture is still affected by, as you say on your blog, your own fundamentalist background. To a certain extent, that’s inevitable. Like I said, I see that in Ehrman too, as well as a few other famous atheists who came from rather Fundie backgrounds. You used the term “blinders” before…that’s kind of what it is. No offense intended.
None taken.
I accept majority expert opinion on ALL issues. So what do you believe are my blinders?
GARY: I personally accept that most early Christians quickly came to believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected, probably within a few years of his death, as is evidenced by the Early Creed, which most scholars date within three to five years after Jesus’ death.
LEE: As I’ve asked numerous times, how do you explain this, seeing as how no Jews who believed in resurrection expected one man to be resurrected ahead of the rest. They certainly didn’t the guy who was resurrected to be executed first! Nor did mainstream Messianic Judaism place bodily resurrection at the center of the faith as Christianity did. If you’ll remember I posted about six Christian mutations of standard Jewish resurrection belief that skeptics have to account for if the early Church was simply making all of this up.
Pax.
Lee.
How do you explain Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road, Lee? According to the author of Acts, Paul only saw a bright light in a “heavenly vision”. He never claimed to have seen a BODY on the Damascus Road. If the author of Acts is correct, Paul believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus WITHOUT seeing a resurrected body! This contradicts your assumption that since “no Jew who believed in resurrection expected one man to be resurrected ahead of the rest” they would never come to belief in the reality of a resurrected body without seeing a resurrected body.
And Joel’s claim that Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected body of Jesus at some other later point in time is irrelevant to the discussion. Paul’s belief in the reality of the resurrected Jesus came BEFORE he saw a body (if he ever did, since “opthe” can also mean to “see” something in a vision).
Paul’s account of this event, as recorded by the author of Acts, is proof that first century Jews COULD come to belief in the resurrection of one person without seeing a resurrected body. It is proof that my contention that the entire “resurrection of Jesus belief” COULD HAVE originated from visions, dreams, and illusions is very plausible. if Paul can “see” Jesus in a vision, and admit to only seeing a bright light, then why couldn’t this have happened to Peter, James, and the rest??
Gary, you are arguing against something neither I nor Lee have claimed. Heck, we both believe Jesus was bodily resurrected, but neither one of us actually have seen Jesus physically stand before us in a resurrected body. You are trying to claim that because Paul’s encounter on the Damascus Road involved him seeing a bright light, that THEREFORE, it is possible that the very origin of the resurrection claims of Jesus was that of the disciples having dreams and/or visions of Jesus after he died.
Both Lee and I are simply saying there is no evidence of what you’re trying to claim. Therefore, it’s not plausible. The reason why it couldn’t have happened is because there is no evidence for it. What we DO have are texts that say the disciples DID talk with a resurrected Jesus–and again, if first century Jews used “resurrection,” they meant physical, bodily resurrection. Furthermore, like I pointed out in I Cor. 9:1, Paul said he SAW the resurrected Lord Jesus.
Your argument is completely speculative and from silence.
Of course its speculative, Joel!. We all do this when we hear a fantastical claim. For instance, the prophet Mohammad states that he flew to heaven on a winged horse. Do you have proof that this did not happen? No, What do you think is the origin of the story? Your probable answer: He was dreaming; he was drunk; he was hallucinating; he was lying.
Yet you have no evidence for any one of these POSSIBLE explanations for Mohammad’s stories, do you? This is exactly what I am saying about the origin of the “Jesus is risen” belief. I am speculating. I am not proposing WHAT happened, only what MAY HAVE happened.
As a matter of historical reality, Muhammad’s night journey cannot have happened. The claim is the flew a winged horse to Jerusalem, went into the Temple, talked with Jesus and Moses, and then a golden chain came down out of heaven, he stepped on the rock in the Temple, took hold of the chain, and was taken up into heaven to behold unspeakable wonders. He claimed that happened in what? 600ish AD? The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There was no Temple in Jerusalem at the time of his claim.
So yes–historical proof it did not happen.
But again, you are speculating after you dismiss the historical claims about the resurrection that are found in ancient historical biographies that are quite historically reliable.
Joel,
Many religions make claims of alleged spectacular supernatural events which cannot be disproven, yet you yourself do not believe them as fact even though you can’t prove them to be false. Even if we discount the historicity of Mohammad flight to Jerusalem and heaven based on historical anachronisms and other inaccuracies, you cannot disprove that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammad and gave him a new message from God. Neither can you disprove that an angel named Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith.
The Hindus say that the Buddha caused a water buffalo to speak in a human language for a prolonged period of time. Can you prove this did not happen? No. Can you speculate as to what may have led people to come up with this story. Yes.
“you are speculating after you dismiss the historical claims about the resurrection that are found in ancient historical biographies that are quite historically reliable.”
It baffles me that you say this. First, most scholars believe that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies, a genre of ancient literature in which embellishments were perfectly acceptable. Second, most scholars, including even some evangelical scholars, believe that there is or at least may be embellished, non-historical stories in the Gospels, such as:
–The Woman Caught in Adultery Story
–The Angel Stirring the Pool of Bethesda Story
–The Guards at the Tomb Story Story
–The Dead Saints Shaken out of their Tombs Story
And a significant percentage of scholars, including many Roman Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown, believe that the Appearance Stories in the later three Gospels contain embellishments (non-historical accounts).
So why do you insist that we must accept the three Appearance Stories as historical, when you reject the historicity of so many other stories in the Bible, such as the Genesis Creation Story?? You can’t claim that I am ignoring the literary genre, because as I pointed out above, the genre in which the Gospels were written allowed for embellishments (fictional details).
Yes, very early after Jesus death, some of his followers believed that he had “opthe” to them? But were these sightings of a literal, visible, touchable, walking, talking body or sightings in one’s mind (visions, dreams) or sightings in one’s environment that one misinterprets (illusions)? One cannot claim that these sightings were literal simply because that is what three Greco-Roman biographies state.
Gary, sorry, but you are really straining to avoid acknowledging what the texts and the early Christian witness state. There is no sense continuing this. When Christian NT scholars talk about NT Gospel writers using literary/artistic license, they are not saying the writers just fanciful made things up. I won’t say you are purposely misrepresenting scholars like Brown, but you certainly are misunderstanding what he’s saying. Case in point, Brown still believes that Jesus was physically resurrected. So you are trying to take his comments to mean something he is not saying.
And again, if they had claimed Jesus had just appeared to them in a dream or vision, they wouldn’t have used the term “resurrection.” You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to ignore the plain facts of reality. If you don’t believe Jesus was resurrected, fine. If you think the disciples were wrong or mistaken to claim that, fine. If I were an atheist I’d simply say, “Sure, the Gospels talk about a historical Jesus. Yes, he claimed to be the messiah, taught, was thought to heal people, had 12 disciples, was crucified by Pilate. But no, I don’t think he resurrected.” And I’d leave it at that. If someone pressed me to come up with a plausible reason how the claim got started, or why his followers continued on, when no other group did after their messianic leader was killed–I’d say, “No, I don’t have to. I don’t think he resurrected.” And I’d move on with my life.
But you seem obsessed with giving an actual explanation for something you don’t think happened. I don’t get it.
Raymond Brown, highly respected, “moderate” Christian scholar (who believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus:
“I find the special material [material unique to Matthew; not found in any other gospel] that Matthew has grouped around the birth and the death of Jesus a consistency that suggests a source, but one of another nature than Mark and Q—a source that reflects popular dramatization through storytelling, much like expanded birth and passion narration ever since.
With regard to the common Synoptic passion narrative I argued that OT allusions or citations did not create the basic passion narrative sequence but helped to fill in the established, skeletal preaching outline. In the instance of the Matthean special material, however, the OT background may have actually generated the stories, eg., of the manner of Judas’ death.”
–The Death of the Messiah, pp. 60-61
Allegory, allusions, “filling in”, popular dramatization = fictional material added to a historical core. But the big question is: What is the core story? Was a walking, talking body a part of the core story? Not if we look at the Early Creed!
Joel: “Gary, sorry, but you are really straining to avoid acknowledging what the texts and the early Christian witness state.”
I would encourage you to read Raymond Brown’s “The Death of the Messiah”.
Obviously, I disagree with much of the putative rebuttals offered here. I don’t want to kick the dead horse too much, so I’ll just point out a couple things, then flag one last concern.
“First of all, let’s be clear, YECism is a 20th-21st century phenomenon that has no basis in the first 1900 years of Church history.”
I see this as a cheap way of avoiding the obvious. Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis, did not pen “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” and think he was describing a 13.5 billion year old universe, expansive beyond imagination, nor did he envision cosmic (or organic) evolution. Nobody reading that for the next couple thousand (maybe more) years did either. Essentially every theologian up until the 16th or 17th century thought Adam was real, and that the earth was a recent creation. That’s my only point, and it’s the only one that matters in this particular part of the discussion.
While you did attempt to address many of my point, I noticed you skipped one of some importance: I wrote,
“It is true that the Christian can rejoice in suffering. But, notice that almost all of that commentary (seen throughout the New Testament) involves reference to “the evil one,” as “Lord of the air,” and “ruler of this world.” That is, essentially all of the New Testament authors (including Jesus) saw suffering as us standing up to a fallen world and the powers of Satan, with the full assurance of eternal salvation and victory. Like Jesus, both in earthly form and beyond, and as with the angels, we are at war with something counter to God. This view is almost the polar opposite of what you’re arguing.”
I would add to this 1 John 3
8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.
So which is it? Is the falleness of the world at least partly explicable by the work of evils outside ourselves? Or, as you seem to be alluding to, do we lay it at the feet of God?
You say,
“The Bible also clearly shows that suffering and death are part of this world, and even good people (like Job) suffer, and the reason they suffer is not because they deserve it or that it’s their fault. It just happens and God isn’t obligated to give us an answer.”
But, I don’t see any way you can avoid saying God did it.
Wayne,
Quickly: (1) Genesis 1 isn’t making scientific claims either way. It isn’t “young earth” and it isn’t “old earth.” That’s not the point of the chapter. And YECism as I see it is the modern attempt to argue that Genesis 1-11 is scientifically and historically accurate–talking about rock layers, fossils, “time zones in space” (thank you Jason Lisle!), etc. For the first 19 centuries of Christianity, nobody made those YEC arguments. YECism is a modern, 20th-21st century phenomenon. It is just plain wrong to read our modern scientific questions and assumptions back onto Genesis 1-11. Those chapters weren’t addressing modern scientific concerns.
(2) As I responded to your brother (somewhere on this insanely long comment thread!) the Bible DEMANDS that we hold certain things in tension. You can scroll up and I’m sure you’ll find my comments somewhere.
“Bible DEMANDS that we hold certain things in tension.”
This is “theologicalese” for, “It’s a mystery”, which is another way of saying,”we have (yet another) set of contradictory statements in the Bible which we can’t explain away. So, instead of admitting that there is a contradiction, we are going to call it a “mystery” so we don’t have to admit the Bible is full of errors and contradictions.”
There is the old “fundie-atheist” mentality I’m talking about! 😉
Or is it clear, rational thought after throwing off the blinders of supernaturalism and “faith” (wishful thinking)?
Question: If something is a mystery, how do you know for a fact that these apparent contradictions aren’t in fact true contradictions?
My point is that Genesis was taken literally by the authors of the other books of the Bible, as well as most of the church fathers through history.
I’m saying that it is problematic to assume they read it as if it were speaking to scientific questions that the ancient Israelites would not have been asking. Genesis 1-11 addressed and challenged the prevailing ANE worldview and beliefs; it wasn’t addressing modern scientific questions or the modern Enlightenment worldview. The ancient Israelites didn’t read Genesis 1 and say, “Wow, this really blows a whole in the claim that the universe is 14 billion years old!” They said, “What? There is only ONE God? He created everything? Those lights in the sky aren’t gods? They’re just lights? Creation wasn’t formed from the carcass of a loser god? It is GOOD? People are made in the good Creator God’s image? They aren’t made from the excrement of defeated gods?”
That’s the point. We are grossly misinterpreting Genesis 1 when we try to make it out to be some sort of challenge to modern science.
You’ve hit the proverbial nail right smack on the head, Wayne.
You see, to enlightened moderate Christians such as Dr. Anderson, it is irrelevant what the ancients believed these texts meant. In fact, to many moderate Christians, it is irrelevant what the authors of these texts BELIEVED they were saying when they wrote down these statements. What matters is what these moderate Christians believe that the Holy Spirit INTENDED for these statements to convey, as part of the overall message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
If you just had a little more theological training, you too, would see this, Wayne!
In other words, Wayne, you are just a dumb fundamentalist (like Gary) who has the AUDACITY to believe that the Bible means what it actually says! (I for one think you are actually very intelligent to recognize this fact and not be snow-balled by a lot of sophisticated theological psychobabble.)
No Gary. I’m insisting that the original authors had intent, and that intent was not to challenge 21st century scientific debates.
Original context is what is important. Sorry, but you are ignoring it, and instead are reading the text through a modern Enlightenment lens.
Joel,
How can you possibly know the intent of the author of Genesis when we don’t even know who he (or they) was (were) ?? You can’t. The only way we can guess his intent is by looking at how the people after him understood his writing. Can you present any evidence that the Hebrews/Jews of Jesus time and before read the Genesis account in an allegorical, non-literal fashion?
Studying the ANE, understanding what the genre of ANE myth is about, etc.–that provides a context by which we can understand Genesis 1-11 better. And I can guarantee you that my interpretation that Genesis 1-11 is addressing ANE questions is a whole lot closer to reality that the assumption that it is addressing modern scientific concerns. 😉
And if I remember correctly, Karl Giberson has a whole bunch of material on this in his book “Saving the Original Sinner.” Also check out Peter Bouteneff’s “Beginnings.”
I read your reply to my brother. But, you seem to be suddenly avoiding the issues raise. You answered him without answering him. Either God is the cause of evil and suffering, or He is not. Which is it? Either Satan plays a role in the falleness, evil and suffering of this earth, or he doesn’t. Which is it? Those are the basic points he was getting at. Me too, for that matter. Alluding to tensions doesn’t answer the question. I’m just trying to feel out where you sit on these things.
I’m not avoiding anything. The biblical witness is this: (A) There is suffering and death in this world, (B) Human beings are made in God’s image yet sin and die, (C) God doesn’t want people to be like Job’s friends and “defend” him and claim that people like Job suffer because they are being punished for their sins, (D) God doesn’t give us a clear explanation other than, “I am God, I am sovereign,” (E) In the NT the answer that is given is there is an Evil One, and that through the suffering and death of Christ and through our own suffering and death (if we follow Christ), death and the Evil One will be defeated.
To go beyond that is to try to make the Bible say more than it does. And to be clear: The Bible does NOT say that there was an original perfect creation with two perfect people, and that historical couple ate a piece of fruit and screwed up that “perfect” creation.
So then, the claim that God sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself may be true. You’re not sure. The Bibles, in your mind, is ambiguous on this point. God could be the arbiter of evil and suffering. It could be his fault.
I’m saying we have to be okay with the fact that God hasn’t given us a complete and clear answer regarding the origin of suffering, death, and evil. The conundrum boils down to this: IF you believe God is truly sovereign, then ON SOME LEVEL you have to accept that even suffering and death are under His sovereignty. It seems you’re rather obsessed with having to blame someone for sin, suffering and death. You’re constantly saying, “Yeah, but who’s responsible? Whose fault is it?” I think you need to be willing to accept the Biblical response: God doesn’t need to explain Himself to you or I. Suffering and death is a reality; through Christ, death can be overcome; through Christ, there comes the new creation–that is all you need to know. Be content with what God HAS revealed, and don’t obsess over trying to find an answer to what He has already said He’s not giving.
Getting a moderate or liberal Christian to give a clear, concise answer on any biblical question is like trying to catch a greased pig with your bare hands, Wayne.
That’s your inner Fundie talking, Gary. Real life is complicated. Shallow and simple answers are for the simple-minded.
In your opinion, when we read Gen. 11: 16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
etcetera…
27 This is the account of Terah’s family line.
Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milkah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milkah and Iskah. 30 Now Sarai was childless because she was not able to conceive.
31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there.
32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Harran.
Is that literal history?
When we read Gen 12:4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.
Is that literal history?
I discuss the genealogies in Genesis 1-11 here:
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/understanding-genesis-4-5-cain-abel-and-whats-up-with-those-genealogies/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/understanding-genesis-11-the-tower-of-babel-and-yet-one-more-genealogy/
Most modern historians and archaeologists believe that the stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the Forty Years in the Sinai, and the Conquest of Canaan are folklore. They are not historical, therefore, Abraham was most likely not a real historical person, according to the majority of experts.
https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-History-Israel-Second/dp/0664239137/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Iain+Provan&qid=1559770472&s=gateway&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Ancient-Israel/dp/0664224369/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=Victor+Matthews&qid=1559770499&s=gateway&sr=8-5
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Kenneth+Kitchen&qid=1559770525&s=gateway&sr=8-1
How about Paul’s claim of a “heavenly vision” involving a bright light on the Damascus Road, according to the author of Acts. Should we consider that story as historical?
Yes. He was really going to Damascus, and he encountered the risen Christ. He was blind for a few days, was healed by Ananias–and that changed his entire life.
Abraham was presented as real historical person in my 7th grade world history textbook. Oh, there was no talk of miracles but he was presented as a real figure.
As for these OT stories, many academic scholars take them as reliable history.
For decades academic scholars insisted that the OT stories about an Israelite king named David were simply myths. And then they discovered n ancient stele in Israel inscribed to an Israelite king named David.
A hundred and fifty years ago academic historians insisted the City of Troy was a myth and never really existed. And then Heinrich Schliemann discovered its ruins.
Pax.
Lee.
Gary: “Getting a moderate or liberal Christian to give a clear, concise answer on any biblical question is like trying to catch a greased pig with your bare hands, Wayne.”
Yes. I agree. It seems they always want to equivocate on and contort their positions. The only thing they know is that your interpretation is wrong. But, In Joel’s defense, he’s worked hard to answer lots of questions here. I have a pretty good idea of where he really sits on this stuff at this point. Sure, I could continue to press points, but I think it’s been product…and it’s best to stop before it becomes destructive.
“Yes. He [Paul[ was really going to Damascus, and he encountered the risen Christ. He was blind for a few days, was healed by Ananias–and that changed his entire life.”
Paul says that his experience on the Damascus Road was a “heavenly vision”, and that all he saw was a bright light—at least according to the author of Acts. So much for the claim that first century Jews needed to see an actual resurrected body to believe that a bodily resurrection had occurred.
Gary, I’m sorry, but you are constantly misunderstanding what I’m saying. When first century Jews spoke of “resurrection,” they understood that to be a claim of a physical, bodily raising from the dead. That’s what “resurrection” meant. No one is saying that the only way first century Jews would believe a resurrection had occurred would be if they had firsthand witnessed the resurrected person. Yes, Paul said he saw a light on the Damascus Road. He also said in I Corinthians that he had actually “seen the Lord.” Whether that is a reference to the Damascus Road, or possibly another instance, we can’t say. In addition, he proclaimed that Jesus was resurrected. He wasn’t equating “resurrection” with “seeing a light.”
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with me that it IS possible that the belief that Jesus had been bodily resurrected originated from visions similar to Paul’s.
Well, certainly his Damascus Road experience was pivotal–started him “down that road” so to speak. But again, as a first century Jew, when Paul claimed Jesus had been resurrected, he didn’t equate that with just “a vision.” I take what he said in I Corinthians 9:1 seriously. He claims to have actually seen the Lord Jesus, not just a bright light–and that is why I think what he’s claiming in I Cor. 9:1 is not a reference to the Damascus Road experience.
But Paul converted to the very movement he was persecuting because of his Damascus Road experience alone. We are told in Acts that immediately after his Damascus Road experience, Paul believed in Jesus as the Christ and as the Son of God. We are not told that Paul had another sighting of Jesus prior to his conversion.
If the author of Acts is correct, Paul came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth had been bodily resurrected from the dead, not because he saw a resurrected body with his own two eyes, but because he saw a talking bright light in a “heavenly vision”.
I do not question that Paul believed that resurrection only meant physical, bodily resurrection. He was a pharisee. That was the resurrection belief of all pharisees. What I am contesting is that the only way the bodily resurrection of Jesus belief could have started was by someone literally seeing a resurrected body. The conversion of Paul found in Acts is strong evidence that the belief that Jesus had been bodily resurrected could have occurred due to non-literal sightings of Jesus, such as in visions, vivid dreams, or illusions.
When Paul says in his epistles, “have I not seen the Christ”, the Greek word used, “opthe”, can mean “to see in a vision”. Therefore we have no solid evidence that Paul ever claimed to have seen a literal body, in reality, with his own two eyes.
I didn’t say he wasn’t immediately a changed man. You asked if his belief in the resurrection of Jesus originated with the Damascus Road experience–I said yes. Of course that’s where it originated. At the same time, I pointed out (again) what “resurrection” meant to first century Jews and the fact that later in I Corinthians 9, Paul claims to have actually SEEN the Lord (not just a bright light).
What you say in your third paragraph goes too far. Nowhere in the Gospels is it claimed that the disciples just say a “bright light” or “vision” of Jesus. It is pretty clear: they saw, talked with, and touched the body of the resurrected Jesus, THEN he “ascended to heaven” in some way, and THEN Paul had his encounter. There simply is absolutely no evidence that the original claim of Jesus’ resurrection originated from a “non-literal sighting” (i.e. visions or dreams). Your claim is an argument from silence.
I’m guessing you don’t know Greek.
If that was all that Paul based his faith on I might concede your point. But this is not all that Paul based his faith on.
Before his conversion Saul of Tarsus was an enemy of the Way. He thought the Jesus movement was a dangerous heresy. Thus he was not predisposed to see Jesus period, whether in the flesh or in a vision. So who or what induced this “vision” as you keep calling it, which caused Paul to go to his death at the hands of Nero believing his “vision” had actually been bodily resurrected?
This attempt to explain away the resurrection, like all the others, ultimately requires more faith than believing in the resurrection does.
Pax.
Lee.
“they saw, talked with, and touched the body of the resurrected Jesus”
This is what the detailed Appearance Stories in the Gospels say, but not even respected Roman Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown would ever say that such stories should be assumed to be factual. Yes, very early on, the followers of Jesus believed that he had been bodily resurrected. The question is: Why? You seem certain that the reason is that they saw a walking, talking body. But the belief that it is an historical fact that the disciples of Jesus talked to and touched a resurrected body is a very fundamentalist interpretation of the texts and current scholarship.
I think we have exhausted this discussion. Thank you for your time and indulgence.
Gary, if the gospels claim that Jesus appeared to them bodily and then ate broiled fish with them it isn’t “a very fundamentalist interpretation” to take them at their word. Thousands of years before the first fundamentalist Protestant ever lived (early 20th c.), this was exactly the position taken by the Christian Church.
Maybe you don’t understand what *fundamentalist* means? “Historical” or “factual” and “fundamentalist” aren’t the same thing.
An example of a fundamentalist approach would be to insist that Jesus couldn’t have been nailed through his wrists (as modern scholars assert would’ve actually been the case) because the gospels say the nails were driven through his hands.
As for the historicity of these accounts, you aren’t taking into account the fact that bodily resurrection wasn’t on anyone;’s radar at that time (let alone a crucified Messiah!) so if they were embellishing why would would go so far off book as this? Why insist that Jesus was a) crucified and b) bodily resurrected, when there was a good chance no other Jews would believe them? Why not invent a faith that would be more palatable to Jews and Greeks?
Pax.
Lee.
I do not believe that anyone invented the resurrection belief. The evidence indicates that the earliest Christians sincerely believed that this event occurred. The idea that the disciples conspired to concoct a big lie is absurd. People do not die for something they know is a lie.
But many people have died for a sincere, but mistaken, belief. This is what I and many “historicist atheists” believe probably happened.
So how does a small group of very devout first century Jews come to believe that one individual had been resurrected? I do not know. However, the concept of “”bodily resurrection” WAS part of Jewish culture. Eventually Jewish Christians were saying that Jesus was the “first fruits” of the (general) resurrection. We know this from Paul’s epistles. To me, this demonstrates an evolution in the concept of “resurrection” among Jewish Christians. This is classic cognitive dissonance.
Yes, bodily resurrection was a tenet of 1st c. 2nd Temple, Messianic Judaism however in Judaism everyone, righteous and unrighteous would be resurrected together to receive their reward or punishment. Nobody in 1st c. 2nd Temple Messianic Judaism was expecting *one guy* to be resurrected *before* everyone else.
So unless Jesus actually was resurrected, or at the very least they *thought* Jesus was resurrected you can’t explain this. If you’re claiming they saw a vision which they mistook for a real flesh-and-blood Jesus, what could’ve induced that, seeing as how Judaism already had a vocabulary for dreams and visions which nobody ever claimed occurred in the real, space-time universe?
They weren’t expecting Jesus to be executed. The fact that he was executed by crucifixion in their understanding as pious Jews meant THAT he was not only a false messiah but actually cursed by YHWH. So at this point Jesus was the *last* person anyone expected to see alive again three days later.
And I just have a real problem believing that the 500 witnesses and Paul couldn’t tell the difference between a real person and an apparition. Who’s going to stake their life on what probably was nothing more than a dream or vision? I thought I saw a UFO once but I was 13 and it was 35 years ago. I certainly wouldn’t stake my life based on my 13 year-old belief that I’d seen a real UFO.
Furthermore, of all the dozen or so would-be messiahs either side of Jesus, Jesus is the ONLY one whose followers insisted that he was bodily resurrected. For that matter, Jesus’s followers were the only Messianic Jewish movement which didn’t disintegrate after the death of the founder.
I just can’t believe all of that and 2,000 years of subsequent history boils down to a vision or apparition.
Pax.
Lee.
@ Lee
Exactly what evidence is there for those who claimed that Jesus was bodily resurrected?
“Gary, if the gospels claim that Jesus appeared to them bodily and then ate broiled fish with them it isn’t “a very fundamentalist interpretation” to take them at their word.”
Unless the authors of the books containing these stories did not mean for these stories to be taken literally. After all, even they state in their books that they were writing works of evangelization. And they were writing in a literary genre that allowed for allegories, parables, and embellishments. You are reading your 21st century mindset into these ancient texts. Whether that is behaving like a fundamentalist or not, I will let Joel decide.
Gary, neither Lee nor I are reading the gospels through a 21st century lens.
No Gary, I’m not. I’m reading these texts as their authors intended.
Evangelization doesn’t automatically = fiction. Just because they were writing from a bias and trying to prove a point doesn’t mean they were making it all up. The ancients could tell the difference between real history and pious myths. The gospels are written as actual history and don’t evidence the kinds of pious embellishment you seem to think they do. Compared to other Greco-Roman texts the gospels are positively restrained in their accounts of, say, the resurrection.
Just because someone is writing from a bias or trying to prove a point doesn’t mean they’re making stuff up. Nobody is entirely free of bias.
And with the gospels, what they’re trying to get us to believe, is that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily resurrected in the middle of recorded space-time history. They aren’t trying to push a Christianized version of say, the Osiris myth. They knew it and their Jewish and pagan opponents knew it. Jesus was clinically dead then three days latter clinically alive again. Paul knew as well as you do how outrageous that sounds and yet he went to his death insisting that it had actually happened. The various theories that attempt to explain that away take more faith to believe than believing in the resurrection does.
You can’t accept the resurrection because your materialist worldview can’t/won’t allow for it. My worldview can/will accommodate that belief.
As I said a couple of weeks ago, the Romans didn’t care about some collective vision 500 people had of their dead guru which they would then carry around in their hearts. But the Romans DID care about a God-man, bodily resurrected back from the dead who claimed to be King instead of Caesar.
No, if Christianity was nothing but a series of pious myths like Mithras or Cybele we wouldn’t be debating it now because the Romans wouldn’t have bothered with it and it would’ve died out with Mithras and Cybele 2,000 years ago.
Pax.
Lee.
Great post, I especially appreciate the final comment. Even if the Earth really is 6,000 years old, that’s still NOT what Genesis is about.