The End Of Christianity

[j76]

It's surprising that scriptural debates have led to the end of Christian belief. Here are some sample articles
1
| The Jesus Project | Center for Inquiry
(The quest for the mythical Jesus)
2
| The Jesus Project | Center for Inquiry (The Jesus Mirage

3
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price (New Testament Narrative As Old Testament Midrash

4
Case Against Faith: Debunking Lee Strobel and promoting atheism ("The Pious Fraud) :yes:

 

[Oberon]

It's surprising that scriptural debates have led to the end of Christian belief. Here are some sample articles
1
| The Jesus Project | Center for Inquiry
(The quest for the mythical Jesus)
2
| The Jesus Project | Center for Inquiry (The Jesus Mirage

3
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price (New Testament Narrative As Old Testament Midrash

4
Case Against Faith: Debunking Lee Strobel and promoting atheism ("The Pious Fraud) :yes:

first, none of your links even represent sources by experts in the area of NT scholarship, historical Jesus scholarship, or even ancient history. Second, somehow Christianity has gone on despite critical inquiry by scholars into gospel origins over the past several centuries, most of it being ignored by believers. Third, if anything, the consensus of scholarship has shifted towards greater reliability in Jesus tradition than less. Finally, if "scriptural debates" have led to an end in "Christian belief" you may want to alert a number of very erudite and serious scholars (such as N. T. Wright) who continue to belive and use scholarship to support that belief, not to mention over a billion believers world wide who seemed to have missed the fact that their religion is "passe."

 

[Breathe]

Oberon, nice one. I agree with you 100% on this.

 

[j76]

So tell me: Just to pick one, what is the scholarly shortcoming of, say, article number 3?:shout

 

[sojourner]

So tell me: Just to pick one, what is the scholarly shortcoming of, say, article number 3?:shout

Frankly, I don't see where that article marks the downfall of Xy.
John Crossan has much to say on the historical Jesus, too. And he has spoken twice at one of our seminaries.

 

[j76]

Crossan is an old timer, but he still contributed much to the midrash position. What researchers are starting to realize is that what Crossan also says about the un-historical elements in Jesus is just one piece of the puzzle (Read article 1). Frankly, article 2 is just a sampling. If you combine all the contemporary research that has been done into haggadic midrash regarding the New Testament, what you are left with is one huge steaming pile of Jesus that, whether an actual man ever existed behind the fables or not, is nothing more than a Christian re-writing of older stories from the contemporary pagan literature of the time, as well as Homer, Josephus, Euripides Bacchae and the Septuagint.

 

[Oberon]

So tell me: Just to pick one, what is the scholarly shortcoming of, say, article number 3?:shout

I have already addressed this issue extensively in other posts here and here. To give you the cliff notes:
1) Virtually every single expert in the NT and biblical studies (I know of no exceptions) within the past century or so acknowledges and argues for a historical Jesus. The same is true for virtually every single expert in ancient history. Most of them argue we can know quite a bit about him, even those most skeptical about the texts (the gospels, epistles, apocrypha, etc).
2) Paul knew and recieved the Jesus tradition from eyewitnesses to his mission, and Paul was a contempary of Jesus.
3) The consensus of scholarship is that the longer reference by Josephus to Jesus contains a core which is authentic, and an even greater consensus argues that Josephus' second reference to Jesus is authentic.
4) The genre the gospels most closely resemble is not midrash but a type of ancient biography known as a "life" (bio/vita). They take pains, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the author, to reliably record the events they believe were historical, sometimes even when it appears to go against their overall theology or depiction of Jesus.

Crossan is an old timer, but he still contributed much to the midrash position. What researchers are starting to realize is that what Crossan also says about the un-historical elements in Jesus is just one piece of the puzzle (Read article 1).

Have you read Crossan? The fact that others quote him does not mean he "contributed much" to a position he clearly disagrees with completely. Like all scholars Crossan argues that parts of the gospels rely on the OT for interpretation. However, they do not depend on it.

None of your sources cited are from experts in the field of early christianity or historical Jesus research, and yet you make claims to know what "researcheres are starting to realize." What researches? What experts in this field have you read who argue that Jesus was a fictional character or product of midrash (keeping in mind that Price's expertise is in systematic theology, not NT studies, biblical history, or ancient history)?

 

[sojourner]

Crossan is an old timer, but he still contributed much to the midrash position. What researchers are starting to realize is that what Crossan also says about the un-historical elements in Jesus is just one piece of the puzzle (Read article 1). Frankly, article 2 is just a sampling. If you combine all the contemporary research that has been done into haggadic midrash regarding the New Testament, what you are left with is one huge steaming pile of Jesus that, whether an actual man ever existed behind the fables or not, is nothing more than a Christian re-writing of older stories from the contemporary pagan literature of the time, as well as Homer, Josephus, Euripides Bacchae and the Septuagint.

Why is the midrashic basis of the NT gospels a problem for Xy? The authors were working with what they had, in terms of documentation. We've known for a long time that the gospels are, basically, midrash in the haggadic tradition. That doesn't change anything. Quite frankly, all it does is lend more credence to the authenticity of the gospels, for it means that the writers weren't making it up out of whole cloth.

 

[j76]

Oberon: You still have not addressed any of the issue brought up in the article, although I can see why you would be afraid to. The entire panel of experts on the Jesus Project is convening around the issue of Midrash. Whether someone named Jesus actually lived or not is not really the core issue here because the stories about him are actually about other figures - stories that were then grafted on to him to create his life story.

Sojourner: Think about what your saying. If the New Testament is basically a re-write of popular Pagan Myths and Stories, as well as a fleshing out of the actual details of Jesus' life by a re-writing of such sources as the Septuagint, Homer, Josephus, and Euripides' Bacchae, then how does that in any way lend "credence" to the New Testament account? That would be analogous to someone writing a biography of Winston Churchill by using as their only references biographies of Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Otto Von Bismark, and the popular Westerns and comic books of the day as the source texts for their information about Churchill. Your position is ludicrous.

Beyond this, as long as we're debating scripture, there is the problem for you: contradictions

I'm not just talking about the silly little ones, but the fundamental core doctrinal contradictions.

(A) For example, God’s knowledge is self contradictory: Either he knows everything about you and your future: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1-5)“, or else God doesn’t know everything about you (though he may know your future) “the LORD God called to the man, ‘Where are you?‘“(Genesis 3:8); or else God knows nothing regarding your future or even what He Himself is going to do regarding it “Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason. (Job 2:3)“

(B) Also, God’s laws are self-contradictory. For Example:
(1) It’s wrong to lie:
Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Exodus 23:1
Thou shalt not raise a false report.
Exodus 23:7
Keep thee far from a false matter.
Leviticus 6:2-4
If a soul ... lie unto his neighbour ... or hath deceived his neighbour ... Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely. ... Then ... he shall restore that which he took.
Leviticus 19:11
Neither lie one to another.
Deuteronomy 5:20
Neither shalt thou bear false witness.
Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.
Proverbs 13:5
A righteous man hateth lying.
Proverbs 24:28
Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips.
Luke 3:14
Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely.
Ephesians 4:25
Wherefore putting away lying, speaking every man truth with his neighbor.
Colossians 3:9
Lie not one to another.
Revelation 21:8
All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
Revelation 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
(2) It’s okay to lie and can even be the thing that makes you righteous
Joshua 2:4-6
And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax.
James 2:25
Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?.
Exodus 1:18-20
And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.
1 Kings 22:21-22
And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him .. I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.
2 Kings 8:10
And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.



The second one of these, the lying one, can be found at Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon -as well as many others



Over time, you will learn

 

[RomCat]

What does Jesus teach us?
"I will be with you always even until the
end of time."

 

[sojourner]

Think about what your saying. If the New Testament is basically a re-write of popular Pagan Myths and Stories, as well as a fleshing out of the actual details of Jesus' life by a re-writing of such sources as the Septuagint, Homer, Josephus, and Euripides' Bacchae, then how does that in any way lend "credence" to the New Testament account?

Because midrash, in this case, isn't dealing with stories made up out of whole cloth. The gospel writers did the best they could with what literary examples they had. They had the example of mythic writing, ancient Greek biography, ancient Greek history, and Judaic midrash. It lends credence precisely because the NT writers claim a heritage to OT tradition.

That would be analogous to someone writing a biography of Winston Churchill by using as their only references biographies of Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Otto Von Bismark, and the popular Westerns and comic books of the day as the source texts for their information about Churchill. Your position is ludicrous.

You're positing a poor analogy here. That's why it seems ludicrous.
Midrash, biography and history are all genres of literature, with particular styles. The midrashic style was used, in part, as a framework for the new, narrative style.

Beyond this, as long as we're debating scripture, there is the problem for you: contradictions

Contradiction isn't a problem for the serious Bible scholar. The contradictions are there. We acknowledge that, and we move on. Contradiction is only a problem if the texts are treated as 1)absolute, 2) literal word of God, and 3) the sole authority in matters of doctrine. None of these are true for us. We know that the Bible is not absolute. We know that it is not the literal "word of God," and the texts are not our sole authority in matters of doctrine.

Maybe, over time, you will learn.

 

[Riverwolf]

(A) For example, God’s knowledge is self contradictory: Either he knows everything about you and your future: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1-5)“

That one would take precedence over the other two because that's supposedly God himself speaking instead of others writing about him.

, or else God doesn’t know everything about you (though he may know your future) “the LORD God called to the man, ‘Where are you?‘“(Genesis 3:8);

Narrator's problem, not God's.

or else God knows nothing regarding your future or even what He Himself is going to do regarding it “Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason. (Job 2:3)“

Job, as far as I can understand, is purely a work of fiction intended to convey an important spiritual message that is found in Job's conversations with his friends, and eventually with God himself.

It's clear to me based on what you've provided that the authors of the Garden of Eden story and the book of Job believed God to be anthropomorphic, and Jeremiah believed God to be omnipotent.

 

[Smoke]

It's surprising that scriptural debates have led to the end of Christian belief.

On the contrary. It's surprising that they haven't.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon: You still have not addressed any of the issue brought up in the article

You are right. I spent an enormous amount of time ALREADY addressing them all in the links I gave you. Why would I do it all over again.

although I can see why you would be afraid to.

Why would I be afraid? I'm not christian, so the only difference this theory would have on me if there was anything to it would be a change in direction in the field I work in (NT studies). Its happened many times, and it will continue to happen.

The entire panel of experts on the Jesus Project is convening around the issue of Midrash.

Unlike you, I am actually familiar with they scholarly publications of the members of this "project" who actually ARE experts (e.g. Bruce Chilton, James Robinson, Gerd Ludemann, etc). None of them argue against a historical Jesus. And again, ALL experts in the field of NT argue that the gospel authors (not to mention all of the earliest christians) used "scriptures" to understand Jesus and his teachings. This doesn't mean that the gospels are best described as "midrashim." Have you ever read midrashim? They don't look like the gospels AT ALL. It is clear that the gospel authors used similar techniques to interpret various parts of the Jesus tradition, but to say that the gospels were CREATED using midrash techniques is to ridiculous, and none of the experts in NT studies (even those in the Jesus project) make this argument.

 

[sojourner]

You are right. I spent an enormous amount of time ALREADY addressing them all in the links I gave you. Why would I do it all over again.


Why would I be afraid? I'm not christian, so the only difference this theory would have on me if there was anything to it would be a change in direction in the field I work in (NT studies). Its happened many times, and it will continue to happen.


Unlike you, I am actually familiar with they scholarly publications of the members of this "project" who actually ARE experts (e.g. Bruce Chilton, James Robinson, Gerd Ludemann, etc). None of them argue against a historical Jesus. And again, ALL experts in the field of NT argue that the gospel authors (not to mention all of the earliest christians) used "scriptures" to understand Jesus and his teachings. This doesn't mean that the gospels are best described as "midrashim." Have you ever read midrashim? They don't look like the gospels AT ALL. It is clear that the gospel authors used similar techniques to interpret various parts of the Jesus tradition, but to say that the gospels were CREATED using midrash techniques is to ridiculous, and none of the experts in NT studies (even those in the Jesus project) make this argument.

Actually, My NT prof is a member of the Seminar. And he notes that the gospels are midrashic in nature -- in that they use narrative to describe scripture. This lends authenticity -- not inauthenticity -- to the gospels. Note that he doesn't say that they are midrash of OT texts -- he says that they make use of the genre.

 

[Oberon]

Actually, My NT prof is a member of the Seminar. And he notes that the gospels are midrashic in nature -- in that they use narrative to describe scripture. This lends authenticity -- not inauthenticity -- to the gospels. Note that he doesn't say that they are midrash of OT texts -- he says that they make use of the genre.

Exactly. That's my point. Every scholar of the NT knows that the gospel authors make use of midrashic techniques (althought exactly what should be considered midrash or "midrashic" is not agreed on; for example, John the Baptist is obviously modelled after OT prophets, but it is very likely the historical John the Baptist actually did this deliberately. The same could be said for many actions and words of Jesus, so what is midrashic technique by the authors and what is Jesus consciously modelling himself after OT figures, beliefs, expectations, etc. is debated).

However, to argue that the gospels ARE midrash is ridiculous, as in their entirety they don't look at all like the genre (again, they are far closer to the genre of bioi/vitae).

 

[sojourner]

Exactly. That's my point. Every scholar of the NT knows that the gospel authors make use of midrashic techniques (althought exactly what should be considered midrash or "midrashic" is not agreed on; for example, John the Baptist is obviously modelled after OT prophets, but it is very likely the historical John the Baptist actually did this deliberately. The same could be said for many actions and words of Jesus, so what is midrashic technique by the authors and what is Jesus consciously modelling himself after OT figures, beliefs, expectations, etc. is debated).

However, to argue that the gospels ARE midrash is ridiculous, as in their entirety they don't look at all like the genre (again, they are far closer to the genre of bioi/vitae).

Exactly. It is the narrative form, itself, that is midrashic, according to him -- not the content that is "midrash." In fact, Mathew is considered by many sources to look a lot more like ancient biography, and Luke reads like ancient history.

 

[j76]

You guys are funny. Not much in terms of rhetorical metal or biblical knowledge, but funny. I would suggest a beginners' course for you in systematic theology and the New Testament so you can bring yourself up to date on some of the current scholarship, but you seem a little too far behind at this point. Anyway, it was fun chatting. :help:

 

[Oberon]

You guys are funny. Not much in terms of rhetorical metal or biblical knowledge, but funny. I would suggest a beginners' course for you in systematic theology and the New Testament so you can bring yourself up to date on some of the current scholarship, but you seem a little too far behind at this point. Anyway, it was fun chatting. :help:

Right. You are correct that I don't know a whole lot (nor do I care to) about systematic theology. It also has nothing to do with the study of the historicity of the NT, which is my field of study as a grad student. I do know a great deal about this, and have actually read the publications of the experts you cite, and I know that they disagree with you. Price is not one of these experts.

 

[J Bryson]

You guys are funny. Not much in terms of rhetorical metal or biblical knowledge, but funny. I would suggest a beginners' course for you in systematic theology and the New Testament so you can bring yourself up to date on some of the current scholarship, but you seem a little too far behind at this point. Anyway, it was fun chatting. :help:

That's the equivalent of going up against Tyson and Ali in their prime, and suggesting sparring lessons.