WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
Dollars for abortion: The House considers a bill allowing local funding of abortions in D.C. 
We love Jesus (even though he was a liar)!
Steve Thorngate writes about a recent conference for liberal Christians hosted by the Plymouth Center for Progressive Christian Faith. He makes a good point when he says that, if there’s nothing distinctive about liberal, pluralistic, mainline Christianity, then there’s no surprise that nobody listens to them.
A Christianity this pluralistic is unlikely to alienate its allies. But is there anything distinct about it? The Christian right’s unique focus on personal piety and morality, narrowly defined, reshaped conservatism. But progressive Christians are broadly inclusive and care about the same political issues as other progressives. Their action alerts often read like MoveOn’s, but with scripture. Why should anyone care?
A good question. Especially when their conferences include exchanges like this one:
The conference also featured several non-Christian speakers, including Rabbi Or Rose of Hebrew College. “As a Jew,” Rose noted, “I can’t accept that Jesus is the incarnate God.”
“Some of us Christians don’t believe that, either,” a woman responded, to murmurs of agreement. It was a telling moment, as many Christians see this as the singularly defining element of the faith.
Liberal Christians seem to have a good sense of the needs of communities and how the church should be serving them, but it’s a sense that’s founded on secular ideology masking as old-timey faith. I’m all about justice, for individuals and for societies. But it’s a justice founded on the absolute lawmaker and lawgiver, not on radical egalitarianism and utopianism.
back to top56 Comments to “We love Jesus (even though he was a liar)!”
In his classic work “Christianity and Liberalism,” Princeton Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen made it clear that so-called ‘liberal’ Christianity was not Christian at all, but a false gospel. Nothing has changed.
Report comment to moderator
It almost sounds asif many of these people filtered over into religion when their government ‘let them down’ (and they wouldn’t exactly be the sorts to cling to guns).
Report comment to moderator
“Try the United Methodist Church! It’s hardly like church at all!”
Report comment to moderator
They should sell snacks, hot dogs, popcorn and beer in the pews like a ball game to make it a more satisfactory experience for the non Christians and CINO’s in attendance.
Services should only be held on Thursday afternoons starting at 1:33 PM. No sense having a normal day or start time for these non Christian religions where Christ is no longer God but still Jewish
Report comment to moderator
Most of the Christians on WoW would insist that Jesus is God. At the same time most of them would also insist that the rabbi quoted worships the same God they do. But if a “Christian” agrees with the rabbi, he’s an apostate who worships a false god.
Report comment to moderator
NT – THe quote marks are apt. If a “Christian” doesn’t acknowledge Christ, he/she really isn’t a Christian. He/she is something else.
If that ‘not a Christian’ person were to agree with the Rabbi, he/she would be partially on point as to God, but not entirely so (thus, the ‘false god’ appelation is mistaken).
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, you should not confuse mistakes in one’s understanding of God with worshiping a different God.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t. Christians are the ones who are confused.
How many gods are there, by the way?
Report comment to moderator
I guess these folks have become so progressive, they’ve progressed right out of Christianity into something else.
We attended a liberal UCC church down the street and they clearly said Jesus was not God. They called the Holy Spirit a ’she’, to make Father God, Mother God and Son of God. I don’t know what religion that was exactly, but it wasn’t Christian.
Then we went to a UCC church the same distance in the other direction and they were a conservative Reformed church.
I guess church is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re going to get.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, there’s one God. That’s my point.
The God of the Bible is the only God. All the “false gods” are actually non-existent gods or else demons masquerading as gods.
Report comment to moderator
Well, the rabbi rejects the God of the Bible, which is Jesus. He’s not “mistaken” in his understanding. He understands alright, and he rejects Jesus. But millions of Christians say that he worships the same god they do. It makes no sense.
Report comment to moderator
NT – He’s mistaken on the ‘one coming/two coming’ thing with the Messiah. Which does indeed make him mistaken in his understanding (i.e. he mistakenly rejected Jesus as Messiah – which he would not have done if he understood alright).
He worships the same God, but based upon the less than full Scriptural revelation (just the OT, without the NT).
Report comment to moderator
In other words, Jesus and God aren’t indivisible, one and the same, but divisible, separate components. Jesus is kind of, sort of God. He’s part of God, but you can reject Jesus without rejection God, so Jesus doesn’t = God.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for linking to the piece.
After the passages HSK highlights, I went on to offer some possible answers to the question, “Why should anyone care?” I was not trying to imply the answer, “They shouldn’t.”
Progressive Christians may not offer too many clear distinctives in the political realm, but they also don’t claim to. Instead, they focus on praxis, and they do a lot of substantive work in the world. (Whether or not it’s GOOD work is of course a matter of perspective, but that’s different from saying they’re irrelevant or apostate or whatever.)
Also, while I encountered plenty of liberal theology at the conference, I didn’t meet anyone who betrayed any “radical egalitarianism and utopianism.” It was mostly quite practical and rooted, and quite mainstream.
Report comment to moderator
I have just written a blog post on what I think people should do when they can no longer support the traditional beliefs or practices of a group they belong to:
http://renaissanceguy.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/all-in-or-all-out/
HINT: They should leave and form their own group rather than disrupting or destroying the group from within.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Thorngate, I think you have unintentionally highlighted the problem. Liberal theologians and liberal politicians honestly believe that they are “mainstream”. Those of us who are just simple, ordinary working people don’t believe that liberal views are mainstream.
Report comment to moderator
I meant mainstream as opposed to radical. I didn’t mean to suggest that liberals represent the center, the consensus, or “simple, ordinary working people”–only that their views are quite common; that there’s a LOT of them. But “radical” suggests a small fringe, which ordinary liberals are not, regardless of what you happen to think of them.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Thorngate, thanks for the clarification. I suppose in the end one person’s radical is another person’s mainstream.
What you write is certainly true in politics: there are lots of liberals.
In my experience there are fewer and fewer theological liberals. Many evangelical churches are growing by leaps and bounds, both in the United States and in other countries. Meanwhile the mainline churches are dying on the vine. My brother-in-law now acts as the pastor for four congregations because of the shortage of ministers in his denomination.
Report comment to moderator
NT – God is tripartate, singular but with the three facets.
One may not understand that (it has been debated for centuries without people coming to a full understanding) – but be part way down the right track.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder….what makes the “not believing Christ is incarnate God” Christians think they’re Christians? The whole business of being called a “Christian” is because they believe they’re in Christ, the incarnate God. If you don’t believe Jesus is incarnate God, you’re not a Christian.
Unless you’re a progressive liberal Christian, I suppose. Anything goes at that point, perhaps.
Report comment to moderator
Kennethos,
If you are Duck, and call yourself a Rabbit, still doesn’t make you a Rabbit! Right?
Report comment to moderator
NT, there is a thread somewhere on the board within the last month that discusses this “problem” of Jesus and the Jews. Perhaps someone can think of the name of it. I don’t know how to tell you to search. That might help.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
John M, you have written about that same line about the Methodists before. Actually, before Passover, and when a Jewish person at the table wanted to talk about Methodists with me (he agreed with you, by the way), I said I don’t know what they believe. He gave me the impression that they don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God. Is that so? In other words, why do you always say what you said in Post 3?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
We were married in a Methodist church, and some of my family still attend there. My general impression is that American Methodists of today are very slack on theology and consider church to be more of a social club, similar to many mainline protestants. This is not a universal indictment, of course.
In the last Methodist church I attended, some children were playing on the altar and one boy looked up at the cross and said “What’s that big T doing up there?”
Report comment to moderator
It’s interesting that in the post titled “Mind Tricks,” Andree Seu quotes C.S. Lewis, writing about the weeks immediately after the death of his wife in the book, A Grief Observed. Lewis wrote:
I am thinking about her nearly always. Thinking of the H. facts — real words, looks, laughs, and actions of hers. But it is my own mind that selects and groups them. Already, less than a month after her death, I can feel the slow, insidious beginning of a process that will make the H. I think of into a more and more imaginary woman. Founded on fact, no doubt. I shall put in nothing fictitious (or I hope I shan’t). But won’t the composition inevitably become more and more my own? The reality is no longer there to check me, to pull me up short, as the real H. so often did, so unexpectedly, by being so thoroughly herself and not me.
Liberal Christians, or many of them, argue that the story of Jesus in the gospels is less historical fact and more a personal/theological interpretation, and written down decades after the events. If C.S. Lewis felt this subtle reshaping of memory less than a month after his wife died, why should be so unthinkable that those who set out to write of Jesus, separated by much more time and some, if not all, relying only on second-hand accounts, should not have done much greater reshaping?
As to what makes people feel entitled to claim the term “Christian” even if they don’t believe in the incarnation, Kennethos, is that you don’t own the word or the interpretation. Many liberal Christians would argue that authentic Christianity is the religion Jesus practiced (intimacy with God, rejection of hypocrisy, compassion regardless of race or class, among other traits) and not the religion about Jesus that developed after his death.
You and they can argue over who is right all you want, but they can claim the word with at least as much legitimacy as you do.
By way of further illustration, consider the Apostle’s Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
The creed makes two key points about Jesus: He was born in an extraordinary way, and he died and then returned to life in an extraordinary way.
It says nothing to put any real import on the fact that between those events, he lived in an extraordinary way. The creed is an expression of the religion about Jesus. The life, that the creed doesn’t care much about, is an expression of the religion of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
John M: Ohhhhhh. Thanks.
Keep reading that book, SteveG.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, if memory serves, the Apostles’ Creed was originally formulated as an anti-Gnostic creed for a specific purpose: to confess that Jesus Christ was a real historical person. Although it gives a fairly nice summary of Christian beliefs, it is not exhaustive in that regard, nor do I think it was intended to be so.
Report comment to moderator
TJ .. that may be. But in terms of answering the question of how one can claim the “Christian” label and not accept the traditional Christological ideas … I think for most it would be a matter of believing the life, religion and ethics of Jesus are to serve as a model for how we should live.
This is, yes, a belief in Jesus as a “good moral teacher” or a prophet, and not as second person of the Trinity. And so be it … it is a perfectly legitimate belief.
There are also liberal Christians who do believe in Jesus as savior and SP of the Trinity, but still believe an honest and moral religion is more about how we live than what specific theological claims we believe.
The problem with Christological formulae is they divide people who might otherwise get along very well.
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes Steve, heaven forbid we should listen to Jesus’ words about dividing the sheep from the goats, or the wheat from the tares. No, that wouldn’t do atall now would it?
Report comment to moderator
The problem, Make It Man, is very often you end up dividing the wheat from the slightly taller wheat, or the white sheep from the vaguely greyish sheep.
Comedian Emo Phillips used to do this bit about a conversation on a bridge with a suicidal man. After Emo assures him that God loves him, the dialogue goes like this, as Emo tells it:
He said, “I used to believe in God.” I said, “Were you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian,” I said, “Me too! Were you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist,” I said, “Me too! Were you Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Original Northern Baptist or Reformed Northern Baptist?” He said, “Reformed Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Reformed Northern Baptist Missouri synod or Reformed Northern Baptist Wisconsin synod?” He said, “Reformed Northern Baptist Missouri synod.” I said, “Me, too! Reformed Northern Baptist Missouri synod reformation of 1879, or Reformed Northern Baptist Missouri synod reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Northern Baptist Missouri synod reformation of 1915.” And I said, “Die, heretic!” and pushed him off the bridge!
Report comment to moderator
Ah, Emo stole that joke! It’s an old one (albeit in a slightly different form) that’s gone around for a while.
The problem with Christological formulations is that everyone makes them. Adopting a Rodney King approach of just getting along does not bring unity but actually divisiveness. This is nothing new: one of the themes of the book of Galatians, for instance, is that false doctrine divides, and John points out the same thing in his first epistle. In fact, John makes it very clear in trusting in a false Christ cannot save.
If someone wishes to call himself a follower of Christ but rejects (deliberately) the biblical and historical teachings about Christ, then the label of Christian becomes pretty much meaningless, not much different than the “minister” a few years ago who declared herself both a Christian and a Muslim.
I once heard John Shelby Spong asked in a debate (a question for which he had no answer), if an imam wished to call himself a Muslim, and yet denied that Allah was God, denied that Muhammad was his prophet, and denied that the Quran was the word of Allah, in what meaningful way could he be called a Muslim? I guess you could still use the label, but the label is meaningless if that is so, which is one of the reasons we invent new labels like “Evangelical” (but even that loses its significance over time, as you well know).
Having said all that, I would agree with you when you say that an honest belief is demonstrated in how one lives out that faith. Christianity is so much more than an intellectual exercise, and I am right there with you. But one’s theology and the expression of that theology are ultimately inseparable (”a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” and “every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit”). If so-called conservatives are not living out their faith according to the teachings of Christ, then that is bad fruit. But so is when liberal Christians teach a false view of Christ that leads folks astray from being reconciled with God. And that reconciliation with God is the biggest need any of us will ever have, my friend.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder….what makes the “not believing Christ is incarnate God” Christians think they’re Christians?
The fact that Jesus didn’t believe this either?
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #30: This is nothing new: one of the themes of the book of Galatians, for instance, is that false doctrine divides, and John points out the same thing in his first epistle.
The problem is that most people who have a doctrine are convinced that they have the true one and everybody else’s is false.
And everybody thinks it is obvious who is right and who is wrong, and refuses to admit (or is unable to understand) that to someone else it looks just as obvious the other way.
In this particular debate, the liberal Christians think that conservatives have distorted and misunderstood the mission and message of Christ and that they, the liberals, have rescued the real Jesus and the real Christ from the confines of conservative/fundamentalist literalism; and at the same time the conservatives are sure the literalism is how the Bible is to be read and the liberals are spreading a false doctrine.
Both sides are sure they’re right, and both sides inists it’s obvious that they are right.
Report comment to moderator
And everybody thinks it is obvious who is right and who is wrong, and refuses to admit (or is unable to understand) that to someone else it looks just as obvious the other way.
Yes, you are probably basically right about this. Only, this isn’t true about “doctrine” in general. For instance, in posting this, I would assume that you think you are right on this matter and others are wrong. Perhaps you also side with one of these groups over the other and think they are right and the other person is wrong. I suppose we could say that it is human nature to think in such a way. I don’t think, though, that you are suggesting that both sides are correct in their conclusions. They are indeed divided over doctrine, and at least one of them, it seems, is promoting false doctrine (i.e., a teaching that is not true).
But, this does not change the fact that one of the themes of the book of Galatians is that false doctrine divides, and 1 John points to the same thing. I guess you could say that false doctrine is the product of human nature.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: But, this does not change the fact that one of the themes of the book of Galatians is that false doctrine divides, and 1 John points to the same thing. I guess you could say that false doctrine is the product of human nature.
Sure, but the question is, how can you know which doctrine is the false one? If I tell you “The Earth is flat. Do not be taken in by the false doctrine of those who say it is a sphere,” then I’ve both taught you something false AND given you a dire warning against considering the other idea — which happens to be the true one.
I may not do this on purpose … maybe I believe completely that the Earth is flat and the spherists are heretics. But that doesn’t mean I’m right.
You’re taking the conservative Christian view under which the liberal Christology is the false doctrine. The liberal Christians believe just the reverse.
And you’re both sure you’re right, and furthermore, that it should be obvious that you are.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 27
YOU WRITE:…
“There are also liberal Christians who do believe in Jesus as savior and SP of the Trinity, but still believe an honest and moral religion is more about how we live than what specific theological claims we believe.”
What is moral about what is immoral? What is religion if you make up your own? Is it from the Bible or from a book of poems’, is it from your idea’s is that your religion ?-
YOU WRITE post 27 :….
“The problem with Christological formulae is they divide people who might otherwise get along very well.”
So it’s a “get along very well” religion?
How can those who believe in the Bible and those who don’t believe agree?
Report comment to moderator
how can you know which doctrine is the false one
Well, that really is a good question and the important one as well. If it boils down to what you personally believe, then it may very well be little more than a subjective opinion and not much good in the grand scheme of things.
On the other hand, if there is an objective standard on which to base these things, then that is a different matter. Interestingly, the conservatives would say that standard is Holy Scripture — one of the very things that the liberals tend to deny!
A conservative Christian would say that Scripture, as the word of God, is the supreme authority. Also, the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting said Scripture would be a necessity. There would be other useful “guides” (if you will) in pursuing these things, such as the historic testimony of the church (e.g., creeds and confessions). While these are not infallible, they do provide a framework for the what Christians have historically believed. If someone is believing or teaching something that is not taught in Scripture and which Christians have never believed or have historically rejected, then that should at the very least be a point of concern.
Going back to your original point back in # 24, where you ask use the example of C.S. Lewis to question the memories/accounts of the first Christians, you have a problem of equivocation at work. Lewis (as well as you and I) lived in a decidedly different culture than that of first century Christians (and first century folks in general). It is not apples to apples when you compare the two (an this is beside the fact that there are various logically inconsistent problems inherent in such a developmental theological approach). Consider the following from N.T. Wright:
“Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling communities. They sit around in long evenings telling and listening to stories—the same stories, over and over again. Such stories, especially when they are involved with memorable happenings that have determined in some way the
existence and life of the particular group in question, acquire a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology (in narrative as well as in recorded speech), extremely early in their life—often within a day or so of the original incident taking place. They retain that form,
and phraseology, as long as they are told. Each village and community has its recognized storytellers, the accredited bearers of its traditions; but the whole community knows the
stories by heart, and if the teller varies them even slightly they will let him know in no uncertain terms. This matters quite a lot in cultures where, to this day, the desire to avoid
“shame” is a powerful motivation.
Such cultures do also repeat, and hence transmit, proverbs and pithy sayings. Indeed, they tend to know far more proverbs than the orally starved modern Western world. But the circulation of such individual sayings is only the tip of the iceberg; the rest is narrative, narrative with embedded dialogue, heard, repeated again and again within
minutes, hours and days of the original incident, and fixed in memories the like of which few in the modern Western world can imagine. The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more adaptation may be possible; but the more important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told.
And the stories about Jesus were nothing if not important. … Even today, even in a non-oral culture, the story of such an event would quickly spread among friends, neighbors and relatives,
acquiring a fixed form within the first two or three retellings and retaining it, other things
being equal, thereafter. In a culture where Storytelling was and is an art-form, a memorable event such as this, especially if it were also seen as a sign that Israel’s God was now at last at work to do what he had always promised, would be told at once in specific ways, told so as to be not just a celebration of a healing but also a celebration of the Kingdom of God: Events and stories of this order are community-forming, and the stories which form communities do not get freely or loosely adapted. One does not disturb the foundations of the house in which one is living.”
Report comment to moderator
TJ: A conservative Christian would say that Scripture, as the word of God, is the supreme authority. Also, the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting said Scripture would be a necessity.
Right. And so you can say it is true, and it should be obvious … and the liberal across the hall will say it’s not obvious at all and that you’re just asserting it.
There would be other useful “guides” (if you will) in pursuing these things, such as the historic testimony of the church (e.g., creeds and confessions). While these are not infallible, they do provide a framework for the what Christians have historically believed. If someone is believing or teaching something that is not taught in Scripture and which Christians have never believed or have historically rejected, then that should at the very least be a point of concern.
But what can be said of Christ or Christology that Christians have never believed?
Universal salvation? Believed by most of the earliest pre-Constantine church, but unorthodox at best today.
Papal authority, rejected by you and other Protestants? All Christians were obligated to believe that from Constantine to Luther.
Jesus as not fully divine? That was the position of Arius and his followers in the early Fourth Century. Another sect called the Anomeans adopted his ideas and then modified them some.
There is pretty much nothing anyone can suppose about Jesus today that hasn’t been the official position of some Christians at some point in time. Interestingly, most of them faded away not because they lost the debate on logic or evidentiary grounds, but because the Church declared them heresies and then perseucted them into oblivion.
But of course, asserting the
Report comment to moderator
On the other point, I don’t think Wright is right about the importance of oral tradition in Jesus’s time and the decades following. Unlike past centuries, written language was available and the sort of precise oral tradition he refers to was probably not needed any longer.
The mere fact that many stories appear more than once in the New Testament with variations undermines his claims of exacting precision. People will say, well, the differences are not about anything critical to the point, and maybe not, but they do show that stories were not passed down without embellishment or modification.
Matthew and Luke tell very different stories of how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem, and all four canonical gospels have great variations on the details of Jesus’s death, resurrection appearances and even whether his ministry lasted one year or three.
These are not signs of the precision he wants to insist on.
And the stories about Jesus were nothing if not important. … Even today, even in a non-oral culture, the story of such an event would quickly spread among friends, neighbors and relatives,
acquiring a fixed form within the first two or three retellings and retaining it, other things
being equal, thereafter.
Are you kidding? This kind of passing a story around has the exact opposite effect of taking on a fixed form. People are natural embellishers of stories. I can tell my friend at work that I twisted my ankle because I took a bad step on the stairs, and after it goes through 10 or 12 retellings, I’ll get a card wishing me a speedy recovery from my broken leg.
Report comment to moderator
AGAIN
What is moral about what is immoral? What is religion if you make up your own? Is it from the Bible or from a book of poems’, is it from your idea’s is that your religion ?-
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Do you mean is it better to uncritically believe what ancient writings say and your preacher tells you rather than to think for yourself?
I don’t think so, but you go right ahead.
Report comment to moderator
#38
SteveG,
Written language certainly existed in Jesus’ time, but it had a relatively small role in the lives of ordinary people. It was used for business transactions, such as the record of a debt (think of Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward), and for letters of introduction/authority carried when travelling (such as those Paul was carrying to Damascus at the time of his conversion) – but of course most people did little if any travelling. So it was still primarily an oral culture.
Where I might question Wright’s statement is the degree to which the storyteller was allowed to invent/adapt. The statement above ties it to the importance of the story, but gives the impression that the degree of embellishment would be tied to the importance of the story as a whole.
I got quite a different impression from Dr. Craig Blomberg, interviewed by Lee Strobel for The Case for Christ. According to Blomberg, “One study suggested that in the ancient Middle East, anywhere from ten to forty percent of any given retelling of sacred tradition could vary from one occasion to the next. However, there were always fixed points that were unalterable, and the community had the right to intervene and correct the storyteller if he erred on those important aspects of the story.” He also goes on to point out that that range – ten to forty percent – is the degree of variation in the synoptic gospels on any given passage.
So it was the important points in the story that were unalterable, not the entire story. Perhaps the quote from Wright was intended to mean that, but it doesn’t come across clearly.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the error that you keep making is insisting that a first century context is the same as (or nearly so) as a 20th/21st century. As Wright points out (and any historian of the period would concur), an ancient oral tradition culture is far different than anything you have suggested. The writing implements (parchments and the like, even desks!) were scarce or non-existent. Plus, a Jewish context was even different in many regards than a Hellenistic one. Your ankle analogy is a very weak one, as a modified “telephone game” is not really similar, as the quotes from Wright demonstrate.
We are talking about a different culture in a different context, and trying to force such into a modernistic way of thinking, remembering, etc. is simply an incorrect and anachronistic way of handling things.
Report comment to moderator
With Trinity Sunday coming up and befuddlement about the nature of the Trinity, now’s the time to review one of the great creeds of the Church, the Athanasian Creed, which sets out the doctrine clearly and firmly. Here’s for you, Night Train.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — Matthew and Luke tell very different stories of how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem, and all four canonical gospels have great variations on the details of Jesus’s death, resurrection appearances and even whether his ministry lasted one year or three.
Roger — Differences yes, but not contradictions.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #42: SteveG, the error that you keep making is insisting that a first century context is the same as (or nearly so) as a 20th/21st century. As Wright points out (and any historian of the period would concur), an ancient oral tradition culture is far different than anything you have suggested. The writing implements (parchments and the like, even desks!) were scarce or non-existent. Plus, a Jewish context was even different in many regards than a Hellenistic one. Your ankle analogy is a very weak one, as a modified “telephone game” is not really similar, as the quotes from Wright demonstrate.
Well, it’s a weak ankle …
The best evidence that the oral tradition was not a reliable preservation of accuracy lies in the very clear divergences of tradition even within the New Testament itself. I do not argue that people went off inventing wild stories willy nilly, but stories very often do grow in the retelling, especially if they concern a revered figure and the retellings take place over decades of time.
For a more recent example that maybe is not too recent, consider George Washington. Did he chop down his father’s cherry tree and then refuse to tell a lie? Was he strong enough to throw a silver dollar all the way across the Potomac?
A lot of people in the 19th century might have thought so. There’s a direct example of the mythologizing that can go on around the stories of someone elevated to a high status.
Report comment to moderator
Roger: Well actually, I would say that the question of how long Jesus’s ministry lasted qualifies as a contradiction. One year and three years are very different spans of time.
The birth narratives also I think probably qualify. Matthew has a dramatic and violent story involving Herod’s slaughter of the young boys and the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt. Luke has a peaceful story about them traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then coming home without incident. (Not to mention, Matthew has them living in Bethlehem and coming to Nazareth because Bethlehem is still too dangerous for them, while Luke has them living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem to take part in a census.) The stories can’t really be harmonized, but even if they could be, one would have to ask why one author omits clearly relevant plot elements that the other includes.
The resurrection narratives I suppose could all be harmonized to a degree, but again we have the question of why important details appear in only one book or another (or why Mark omits any post-Resurrection actvity at all in the original ending to his gospel.) The gospel writers didn’t know that their work would be read alongside other accounts; for all they knew, their story would be the only one people read (and indeed that was often the case until what we now know as the New Testament was assembled and canonized a few centuries later.) They would have wanted to leave out nothing that was important.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the George Washington analogy still misses the point. The stories can basically be traced to a single source: a book of anecdotes by Mason Weems. Not only is this separated greatly (once again) from the Jewish oral tradition context, it lacks the similarities of multiple witnesses, attestations, and the like that is true of the gospels.
Your comments to Roger concerning the gospel accounts is also inaccurate. You would need to show a logical contradiction (e.g., a and ~a) in order to prove your point, and simply detailing two separate accounts does not do this. There is another logical failing (either pointed out on this or another thread): if the accounts were so dissimilar as is sometimes alleged, it seems a stretch that a) no copyists decided to excise one or the other account since they didn’t jive or b) this was somehow overlooked by nearly 20 centuries of theologians who were very good at dealing the text (not the armchair skeptic that we often see selling books today). Also, the comment about “the gospel writers didn’t know that their work would be read alongside aother accounts” is also inaccurate; even somewhat liberal scholars will claim that the Synoptics were interdependent as source material. Furthermore, a serious reading of John shows that it was meant to read as a companion text to Mark — i.e., it fills in certain details with personal accounts.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #47: Your comments to Roger concerning the gospel accounts is also inaccurate. You would need to show a logical contradiction (e.g., a and ~a) in order to prove your point, and simply detailing two separate accounts does not do this.
I think on the point of the birth accounts it certainly does.
Consider: In Luke, the family live in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. They journey to Bethlehem to take part in the census, and Jesus is born there. They stay long enough to fulfill their religious obligations for the newborn — about 40 days — and come home to Nazareth after passing through Jersualem to present the boy to the Lord, which is where they encountered Simeon.
There is not, in that story, any whisper of Herod’s persecution, an escape to Egypt, or danger in Bethlehem when they return. Nor is there any time for those things to have happened. Luke very clearly says (1) They stayed in Bethlehem for the time of ritual purification; (2) They then went to Jerusalem; (3) Then they went home to Nazareth.
Matthew has them fleeing Bethlehem directly for Egypt and staying there until Herod dies (no telling exactly how long that was, but Herod is believed to have died in 4 B.C.). Then they try to come home — Bethlehem is home in Matthew’s account — but finding it ruled by Herod’s son, they go to Galilee instead and settle in Nazareth.
Not to mention that the census under Quirinius, which Luke uses as a reference, took place in 6 AD, and Herod the Great, Matthew’s historical touchpoint, died in 4 BC. Clearly at least one of them has the timing wrong.
These are entirely different stories, TJ.
There is another logical failing (either pointed out on this or another thread): if the accounts were so dissimilar as is sometimes alleged, it seems a stretch that a) no copyists decided to excise one or the other account since they didn’t jive or b) this was somehow overlooked by nearly 20 centuries of theologians who were very good at dealing the text (not the armchair skeptic that we often see selling books today).
I think it was considered not important because the idea that the Bible is supposed to be taken literally in every detail is a relatively new approach. The stories both make the point that Jesus was the Son of God in a supernatural way, and that is what is most important to the evangelists.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 40
I do think for myself, that’s why I believe what the Word of GOD says.
Making up a designer religion as ’some’ do, isn’t thinking for oneself, its making a religion that allows them the freedom to do as they choose, whatever that might be.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the doctrine of inerrancy itself is not “a relatively new approach.” As far as supposing “the Bible is supposed … to be taken literally in every detail” is enough of a strawman to suggest that there is confusion on the issue. For example, who denies that the Bible uses different genres (poetry, apocalyptic language, etc.) that is not meant to be taken literally. I don’t know anyone, for example, that thinks that rivers literally have hands, that Christ is literally made of stone, or that God is a chicken. Furthermore, it can be fairly easily shown that early Christians, such as Ignatius of Antoich, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, give evidence that they were well aware of the birth narratives and considered them to be accurate historical narratives (and not contradictory). This is simply not a new approach.
Of course, you haven’t really shown a contradiction per se, simply elements that need harmonization. If Matthew said that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and Luke said He was not, that would be a contradiction. If Matthew said that Jesus was born in Nazareth and Luke said Bethlehem, that would seem to be contradictory (from your comments, one of your alleged contradiction seems to suggest that Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth, but that is not so; Matthew 2:1 simply says, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem…”; there is not prior mention of Nazareth, but to call that a contradiction is an enormous stretch). But, of course, nothing like that has been shown. It is an interesting rabbit trail to venture down, and it distracts from the weak analogies pertaining to oral tradition. However, many would probably find it incredibly absurd (as well as arrogant) to assume that somehow, for roughly 2000 years, no one noticed such “obvious” contradictions in the biblical texts. It might make good fodder for skeptical websites to preach to the proverbial choir and generate lots of hits, but it doesn’t really address the issues mentioned above. At any rate, I would not wish to peg you in this way and would give you a lot more credit that simply having such an ideological ax to grind.
Let me use an historical example to show when a seeming discrepancy is not a contradiction. Suppose I have a history textbook on my shelf that tells me that James I became King of England in 1603 while another tells me it was James VI of Scotland. Is that a contradiction? Of course not. Both would be correct and complementary, since both refer to the same man, known by different titles. But, using the same methodology that skeptic often employ, this would be a contradiction that could be reconciled.
As I don’t wish you to think I’ve avoided your observations, I’ve included a couple of links at the bottom to address your concerns (the first of these has a link within it to address the census issue; the second also has a link to a discourse by Augustine on the narratives). But, I suppose at this point, one might ask what would be enough for you to conclude that there is not actually a contradiction in the passage. Logically speaking if one provided a reasonable harmonization, that should be enough (i.e., one counter-example should suffice to negate the original argument). But if such a defense is presented, and there are still objections, then there are deeper problems that exist. These are not with the biblical text itself, mind you, but with the presuppositions of the objector. And if plausible evidence is continually offered but persistently rejected, then one does really begin to question whether the other party is truly being reasonable. But, as I hinted above, I do think you generally to be a reasonable fellow, so I hope and trust the above comments do not fall upon you. You may not agree with the conclusions, but a response that admits that such accounts can indeed be reconciled/harmonized, even if you do not necessarily agree with them, is a respectable one.
http://tinyurl.com/69aq3z
http://tinyurl.com/6foawh
Report comment to moderator
TJ: Certainly the Bible uses a variety of genres and certainly most readers, even most inerrantists, recognize at least some of the poetry and metaphor as intended. I am sure no one, even the most ardent fundamentalist, thinks Jesus’s parables are supposed to be literal true stories, for example.
But the birth narratives don’t fall into that category for most modern inerrantists, do they? You yourself speak of the need to harmonize them, so clearly you think they are intended to be factual accounts, no?
If Matthew said that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and Luke said He was not, that would be a contradiction.
And that is just the case! Matthew says Herod the Great tried to kill Jesus by ordering the slaughter of all boys two and under. Herod died in 4 B.C. Luke says the family traveled to Bethlehem to take part in the census ordered by Quirinius. That took place in 6 AD, eight years after the death of Herod.
One must be wrong. Both may be wrong, but both cannot be right.
If Matthew said that Jesus was born in Nazareth and Luke said Bethlehem, that would seem to be contradictory (from your comments, one of your alleged contradiction seems to suggest that Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth, but that is not so; Matthew 2:1 simply says, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem…”; there is not prior mention of Nazareth, but to call that a contradiction is an enormous stretch).
Matthew strongly suggests that the family lived in Bethlehem because after they return from Egypt, that is where they first seek to return to. If Nazareth was home and Bethlehem just a place they had traveled to, they would have just gone back to Nazareth … which is indeed what happens in Luke’s account.
Let me use an historical example to show when a seeming discrepancy is not a contradiction. Suppose I have a history textbook on my shelf that tells me that James I became King of England in 1603 while another tells me it was James VI of Scotland. Is that a contradiction? Of course not. Both would be correct and complementary, since both refer to the same man, known by different titles.
True, and when I read someone calling Jesus Son of Man and someone else calls him Son of God, the same thing is happening and does not present a problem.
On the other hand, though, if you read one history that said James traveled peacefully from Glasgow to London, and another that said he fled Glasgow pursued by a Scottish army and hid in the forest for three weeks before sneaking back to London traveling only at night, you’d rightly wonder why the other historian had mentioned none of this, and therefore how reliable you should consider it to be.
Wouldn’t you?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you need to read the links I posted. There is a very easy solution to the Quirinius problem. And Matthew nowhere states that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth (as I said above, but this is also addressed in the links).
Complementary harmonization can be seen in each of the links I posted. As I said, you don’t have to actually agree (I really don’t expect you to), but admitting that such harmonizations are plausible is the honorable thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
Concerning the last comment: it is fairly easy, even today, to pick up biographies of famous people that focus on different aspects of their life. One might mention childhood stories, the other might leave out some of those stories, others might focus only on adulthood, etc. None of those necessarily makes the accounts historically unreliable. I have an interesting (but long) article I can link to this effect if you’re interested.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: Well, the linked articles do solve the timing problem (the flight to Egypt vs. Luke), and with nothing more than a bit in the Matthew text I’d forgotten about. So I concede that point.
The Quirinius solution seems speculative to me still though … the evidence that he was actually governor twice, and that the earlier time was in the right time frame, seems possible but hardly certain. But maybe so.
I do still think that the two authors have different ideas about the family’s original place of residence. But there’s no sure proof either way.
I suppose the resolution of the timing problem also makes it less important that Luke doesn’t talk about the Egypt sojourn. My mistake was assuming they were both talking about the time immediately around Jesus’s birth, when in fact Matthew was talking about two years later. (If they were telling the same story with two such different ideas about what facts are important and which could be safely omitted, it would be a problem; as it is, it no longer seems to be.)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I really appreciate you taking the time to read that and think these things through. Too often, too many of us (myself certainly included) become so stubborn that we wind up talking past each other on many things (granted that this isn’t the best medium for discourse). Just know that I have even greater respect for you now.
And getting back to the point of this thread (and conceding a point to you): how much progress could be made if liberals and conservatives would actually get together communicate? If sound doctrine was actually coupled with social concerns … well, who knows?!?
Report comment to moderator
TJ: Thanks. Stubbornness seems to be the rule rather than the exception on Internet forums, but I try to be grown-up enough to admit when I’m mistaken, and I was in this case.
And yes, I do think liberals and conservatives should be better able to communicate. On theological issues, unfortunately, the conservatives brand the liberals as heretics and the liberals assume the conservatives are unthinkingly dogmatic, and very little common ground is ever found.
Report comment to moderator