Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Study finds growing religious pluralism
A new study reveals that 57 percent of evangelical church attendees don’t believe their religion is the only way to eternal life. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life report, which surveyed 35,000 adults last year, also found that 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.
“The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles wide and only three inches deep,” said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion.
“There’s a growing pluralistic impulse toward tolerance and that is having theological consequences,” he said.
While the findings have raised concerns that Americans dismiss or don’t know fundamental teachings of their own faiths, others say the study shows greater religious security. “People are comfortable with other traditions even if they’re different,” said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance. “It indicates a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone.”
back to top120 Comments to “Study finds growing religious pluralism”
Personally, I believe in ecumenism but not universalism. In other words, there may be more than one way to Jesus, but only one way to God.
Report comment to moderator
Very good news. The artificial barriers are slowly falling away and exclusivism is receding.
Report comment to moderator
“The artificial barriers are slowly falling away and exclusivism is receding”
So there is no such thing as truth, I suppose. If I kinda beleive that I’m a hedgehog rather than a human, I might be sorta correct?
It greives me, but the 57% are damned if they continue their heresy. I’m not sure this is new, however. Billy Graham long posited that the majority of church members might not actually be saved.
Report comment to moderator
There is a growing simplistic impulse toward tolerance and that is having theological consequences.
Report comment to moderator
The Oprah influence is in full effect. Believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you are not intolerant of other’s whacko beliefs. We’re intolerant of your intolerance…
Report comment to moderator
religious pluralism = persecution of Christians
Report comment to moderator
Now if we can just get militant Hindus and militant Muslims throughout the world to embrace the same “Our religion isnt the only way” attitude.
That would be major headlines, no?
Report comment to moderator
Let’s be careful. Tolerance doesn’t actually mean thinking that everyone is right. That is how our liberal friends want to define it, but it actually means allowing others to believe or practice things that we thing are wrong. If we didn’t think that the other person’s beliefs or practices were wrong, then there would be no need to exhibit tolerance toward them.
The survey also had 21% of people who called themselves atheists saying that they believed in a God or universal spirit, with 8% of them saying that they were certain of God’s existence.
Because this is a survey of people, it is bound not to be logical, consistent, or even accurate.
Report comment to moderator
Why should this be surprising? Jesus said,
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
The number of Jesus’ true disciples is therefore always smaller than the number who falsely claim to be His disciple. We all need to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith and to produce fruit worthy of repentance.
These words of Jesus come from the liberals’ favorite passage of scripture, the sermon on the mount. I never hear them quoting this part, though, oddly enough.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: The survey also had 21% of people who called themselves atheists saying that they believed in a God or universal spirit, with 8% of them saying that they were certain of God’s existence.
I think that hinges on how one defines “atheist.” I know people who fit this description. They call themselves atheists because they don’t believe in a discrete, personalized deity, but they do believe in a spiritual dimension to existence and a force that might be called God but would not be what a Christian or Jew or Muslim thinks of as God.
So are they atheists? In that they don’t believe in God as a “person,” yes. But if atheism is defined as one who believes the material universe is all that can possibly exist, they’re not.
Words are not always easy to define, even the ones that seem like they should be.
Report comment to moderator
ZZ at #3: So there is no such thing as truth, I suppose. If I kinda beleive that I’m a hedgehog rather than a human, I might be sorta correct?
Depends on how hairy you are, I guess.
Report comment to moderator
It indicates a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone.”
This really has nothing to do with humility. Pluralism is about a lack of conviction and the desire not to offend anybody: “There, there, your religion can be right too” without actively searching out the truth and trying to make sure other people know the truth.
Kyle A aptly noted that we are being tolerant when we let other people practice their own religion. That also involves humility (not foisting one’s religion on uninterested unbelievers).
KBELLS, I’m not sure what you mean in 1. Please explain.
Report comment to moderator
A new study reveals that 57 percent of evangelical church attendees don’t believe their religion is the only way to eternal life.
If 57 percent of evangelical church attendees don’t believe their religion is the only way to eternal life, that means 43 percent believe their religion IS the way to eternal life. This means that 100% of evangelical church attendees are mistaken in their belief that religion, whether theirs or others, are the way to eternal life.
Religion has nothing to do with eternal life.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, but my point was precisely that people don’t always know what words mean. That’s why I don’t put much stock in such surveys.
Atheist doesn’t mean non-Christian. The prefix a- indicates that one does not believe in a God of any kind.
To believe in some kind of spiritual dimension is to be an animist, pantheist, spiritist, or some such thing.
And an evangelical by definition is somebody who believes that one can be saved only through faith in Jesus. Someone who doesn’t believe that is not an evangelical and should not call themselves one in such a survey. But of course some people do.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I thought about that too.
Evangelicals that I know would never answer a question about what religion provides eternal life. They would answer that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ results in eternal life.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly, I don’t believe that only Baptist go to heaven. I do believe that only Christians go to heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Ahhh … OK, I get it KBELLS.
Report comment to moderator
Religion has nothing to do with eternal life.
I do wish people wouldn’t start getting upset about the word “religion.” Religion is a word indicating the faith that one practices and adherence to a standard creed.
I practice the Christian faith (which is defined since Antioch times as believing in Christ), so my religion is Christianity; I adhere to the Christian creed, etc.
It’s really not a problem.
Report comment to moderator
Religion has nothing to do with eternal life.
Roger, please don’t go there — you’ll put us all to sleep.
And an evangelical by definition is somebody who believes that . . .
Alright, already. In God’s eyes, the 57% aren’t really evangelical. If God’s right about that, what are these frauds doing in evangelical churches and what are the other 43% doing about it? Theologians have had their say about this perennial circumstance and have nothing to add.
Evangelicals would be well advised to listen to what anthropologists and sociologists think about the gap between norms and practice in human culture.
The reason the 57% attend evangelical churches and mouth assent to outlandish doctrines and moral strictures is that authoritarian religion has use value for them, even if its truth is questionable. Evangelicalism enables evangelicals — whether echt or ersatz — to play good cop. Liberalism however requires individuals to play bad cop, a role they resent (because they don’t really believe).
Report comment to moderator
Personally, I think this study is a striking indictment on the American church. While denominationalism needs to go the way of the dinosaur, it’s apparent that people don’t even understand the issue. I think the American church doesn’t even know where to begin to help people understand the Truth of scriptures. Their only solution is to hire someone to stand up and talk for 30 minutes a week and somehow this is supposed to work? One more confirmation to our family leaving the institutional church and joining the simple church movement!
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals would be well advised to listen to what anthropologists and sociologists think about the gap between norms and practice in human culture.
Interesting observation, Scroop, but probably most don’t want to play “good cop”–except to themselves. We all like to feel good about ourselves, to feel that we’re doing something right, and the Christian religion is fantastically easy to imitate (since, unlike Islam, for example) it has no huge long list of rules and depends on an internal change not observable and sometimes not challengeable.
So … they straddle the fence between going to heaven themselves and saying everybody else is going to heaven.
Eventually they’ll have to ‘fess up to themselves and be honest: they can’t have it both ways.
Report comment to moderator
One more confirmation to our family leaving the institutional church and joining the simple church movement!
Does this mean all organized church activites are bad, that we should withdraw from fellowship from other (if flawed) believers?
Report comment to moderator
Very interesting study. Like SteveG I often harp on the eternal damnation issue because it seems to me so self-evidently true that human beings don’t deserve eternal damnation for original sin and that there has to be more than one way to God. This is, I believe, the law that is written onto the hearts of men that you know deep down to be true. I would use the 57% as evidence of this self-evident truth.
Yet, on the other hand, orthodox Trinitarian Christianity has always held itself to be a “narrow path,” that the vast majority of “Christians” in every single “Christian” age (especially the age of America’s Founding) are actually “nominal” as opposed to “regenerate.”
This is something that one of my heroes Roger Williams understand (and he was in your camp as an uber-orthodox Christian). He said the inevitability of “real Christians” existing only as a minority along with un-regenerate “Christians” made it blasphemous for ANY nation to consider itself “Christian” although some real Christians were in it. “Regenerate Christians” have always been a minority in every Christian populace, without exception. So the 57% figure should come, to the orthodox, as no surpise and as nothing new.
I just put my card in with Oprah and the 57% of evangelicals and even most Roman Catholics I’ve come across who know the exclusiveness of “narrow path” orthodox Christianity has such horrific implications that it can’t be true.
Report comment to moderator
Eventually they’ll have to ‘fess up to themselves and be honest: they can’t have it both ways.
Hmm. You mean that an evangelical who thinks “everybody” is going to heaven won’t go to heaven, as one of the requirements for going to heaven is the conviction that “everybody” won’t. But that explanation for evangelical heterodoxy doesn’t make sense to me, KIMBERLY. Evangelicalism has no use whatsoever to people who want to ride the train to glory without a ticket. On the contrary, it’s liable to increase their anxiety about being thrown off. No, I’ve got to go back to the anthropological concept of norms and practice. People are convinced of the need for norms, but they recognize the value of leeway in regards to practice. So they assign the job of establishing norms to someone else — James Dobson, for example — which also transfers the risk of hypocrisy and the unpleasantness of scolding. Conservative evangelicals offer these services, enabling the phony evangelicals to be nice guys. Liberal denominations won’t play this game, because they don’t give you anything to wink at,
Report comment to moderator
I think our conservative Christian friend have it right. What we need is an America that is less tolerant and less diverse. We need more people who will stand up and say “It’s my way or the highway”. We need more people screaming in each other face “I’m right and you’re going to hell!”. We need a country that is divided along sectarian lines, with pitched battles between different religions and denominations. Why settle for the American dream, when we could be so much more? We could be the “Lebanon” of the Americas. How cool would that be?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca (6): religious pluralism = persecution of Christians
Frank: Well, at leat those Christians who insist Jesus meant it when he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”
Report comment to moderator
Well, at leat those Christians who insist Jesus meant it when he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”
I’d like to think if this is true, that the Arminian Trinitarian Universalists are right when they assert something along the lines that this means Jesus acts sort of as a cosmic bell-boy as He escorts everyone to Heaven.
I think the Calvinists are right when they insist that Universal Atonement necessarily leads to Universal Salvation. The Arminian notion of people using their Free Will to reject God and send themselves to Hell is logically untenable.
Report comment to moderator
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe @26,
“the Calvinists are right when they insist that Universal Atonement necessarily leads to Universal Salvation.”
What the heck are you talking about? The L in the Calvinist TULIP is Limited Atonement and is there, among other reasons, specifically to *deny* universalism.
Report comment to moderator
David,
That’s exactly what I said in not so many words words. Perhaps I could have chosen my words differently. Calvinists insist that Universal Atonement necessarily leads to Universal Salvation and for that reason they reject Universal Atonement and posit Limited Atonement.
I’m simply saying they are right in their logic: Universal Atonement leads to Universal Salvation. And if Christ’s died for all, then all get into Heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Ahhh, I see.
Report comment to moderator
Think of it this way Jon Rowe:
The Calvinists are the “Skull & Bones Society” of Christianity. It’s an exclusive little group of the “elect”. Once you’re in, you’re in forever. Behind the closed doors of the S&BS you can be as debauched as you want – no worries – you can’t be kicked out. They have the Gold Circle seats in heaven with special access to Jesus’s skybox.
The Armenians are the “Animal House” of Christianity. Large numbers of people wander in and out, get drunk, pass out on the couch, pee in the front yard, and generally break the rules with impunity. You don’t particularly have to know anyone to get invited. You just sort of invite yourself. The Armenians occupy the bleacher seats in the outfield of heaven. The closest they’ll get to Jesus is if he waves at them from his skybox.
But the great thing is that both the Calvanists and the Armenians get a birds eye view of the arena floor where millions of heathen are being cast into the pit of hell. The crowd roars – George Carlin has just fallen into the pit!!
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #14: Atheist doesn’t mean non-Christian. The prefix a- indicates that one does not believe in a God of any kind.
Not really. It is from the Greek a Theos, meaning a lack of belief in Theos, that is, a discrete being called God or a god.
Other spiritual beliefs that have a less personal, more diffuse idea of he Divine — such as pantheism and panentheism — are very much non-materialist spiritual beliefs but still not theism — belief in Theos.
I would be interested to know if that’s what the atheists in this survey meant or if they really are just confused.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop:
You mean that an evangelical who thinks “everybody” is going to heaven won’t go to heaven, as one of the requirements for going to heaven is the conviction that “everybody” won’t. I don’t mean anything here, and certainly don’t presume to decide–especially regarding a bunch of people I don’t know–who is going to heaven and who is not. I’d hazard a guess that a good bunch of the pluralist evangelicals probably aren’t going to heaven, but that’s not my call. It may be most of them are.
Evangelicalism has no use whatsoever to people who want to ride the train to glory without a ticket. On the contrary, it’s liable to increase their anxiety about being thrown off. You have a point here, but I think it really depends from church-to-church. Fundamentalist churches certainly increase anxiety; many contemporary evangelical ones won’t because of so-called “easy believism:” all you gotta do is say you’ve accepted Jesus into your heart and don’t “drink, smoke, cuss or chew” and that sets you all up. Popular evangelical churches of the type that says all roads lead to Heaven usually destress self-examination and emphasize back-patting and encouragement.
I’m also suspicious of theories which claim to know what people do subconciously. Do you really think the 53% or so of pluralistic evangelicals sat down and said to themselves, “All religions lead to heaven, but I think I’ll be a Christian evangelical so I can be a good cop?” Sounds a bit twisted to me ….
Finally, you say, Liberal denominations won’t play this game, because they don’t give you anything to wink at . That’s not really a virtue here. If you want to stick with the good cop illustration, then find. The evangelicals can be the “good cops,” but that makes the liberals corrupt cops who claim there are no criminals.
Report comment to moderator
Oops … too much italics. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Serious question:
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just going to continue to spew angry rhetoric? You’re coming close the the likes of Ed again, and I’m tending to scroll right past your comments. I know you can do better…
Did some Christian get mean and personal with you recently?
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR: I think our conservative Christian friend have it right. . . We need more people screaming in each other face “I’m right and you’re going to hell!”.
You’re forgetting where you post, ANLIR. The conservative Christians here created the brand, Compassionate Conservative (TM). These are ultraconservatives, who deliver more intolerance, without the screaming. They’re right and we’re going to hell and their intolerance is compassionate.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (32): The Calvinists are the “Skull & Bones Society” of Christianity. It’s an exclusive little group of the “elect”. Once you’re in, you’re in forever. Behind the closed doors of the S&BS you can be as debauched as you want – no worries – you can’t be kicked out. They have the Gold Circle seats in heaven with special access to Jesus’s skybox. …
Frank: Yeah, whatever …
It must be a terrible burden to bear, being so clever. [eyeroll]
You haven’t a clue.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Anlir and Scroop Moth,
I appears in your posts that you’re telling Christians (of an exclusivist stripe) how they ought to believe.
How do you resolve this apparent inconsistency?
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just going to continue to spew angry rhetoric?
I think it’s a matter of perspective. I see things differently than you do. In the big scheme of things, my comments are really insignificant.
**********
Frank,
You haven’t a clue.
Likewise.
**********
Yeah,
If conservative Christians can tell the rest of us what we ought to believe, I figure turnabout is fair play.
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Christians aren’t telling anyone what to believe. No Christian here would tell anyone what to believe, what faith to practice, because every Christian here knows that Christ stands at the door and knocks and it is up to the individual to open the door and let him in.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon practicing Christians to remind those who want to distort Christ’s words into something they are not, what Christ actually said. It has nothing to do with Calvinism, Trinitarians, Armenians or any denomination or view of theology. It all comes down to one question: whether one believes Jesus Christ when he said he is the Way and no one comes unto the Father except by Him. Either you believe Jesus or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways and every which way to Sunday. Believe whatever you want, but if a Christian cannot say he/she believes that Christ is the Way, such a Christian has failed the very test that Christ Himself established. It is a simple test, a simple yes or no question. If you want to fit into a “democratic” society and waterdown and/or amend the faith, knock yourself out. You have your reward, as Jesus would say. If you don’t want to believe there are consequences outlined by Christ, knock yourself out. But Victoria’s reference in No. 28 says it all.
Report comment to moderator
But Anlir, by your very proclamations in here, turnabout should not be fair play. Why intend to be inconsistent? I don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
“religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles wide and only three inches deep,”
That is the answer in a nutshell. The deepest Christians I know are on a blog (hello everyone!). It’s lonely out here …
Report comment to moderator
Well said NJLawyer.
Anyway, I’m having a hard time making sense of the proposition that other religions lead to eternal life. For one thing, I doubt other religions will find common ground on the concept of “eternal life”.
For instance, some religions teach the doctrine of reincarnation, which isn’t really eternal life in the Christian sense, but more like the combination of perpetual recycling and Zeno’s paradox.
For some, history is circular and illusory (rather than linear and purposeful), which would understand the concept of eternal life in a completely different way than Evangelical doctrine.
Other doctrines teach that miracles are impossible and since eternal life is a miracle that violates the law of entropy, eternal life would be impossible too. How would these religious systems lead to eternal life?
I’m just wondering if the postulate that other religions lead to eternal life is a logically meaningful statement.
Know what I mean?
Report comment to moderator
Would you explain that?
If it’s simply the (seeming) contradiction of an omnipotent God being frustrated in his designs, I think it’s possible for the terms to be defined in such a way that the logical inconsistency vanishes.
But perhaps you have something else in mind?
Report comment to moderator
Religion has nothing to do with eternal life.
I do wish people wouldn’t start getting upset about the word “religion.” Religion is a word indicating the faith that one practices and adherence to a standard creed.”"
James 1:23 “For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: 1:24 for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 1:25 But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing. 1:26 If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man’s religion is vain. 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
Report comment to moderator
47 (the James quote) is in response to #18 which is quoted before the James verses. I forgot the beginning quotation marks at the top, sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #45: For instance, some religions teach the doctrine of reincarnation, which isn’t really eternal life in the Christian sense, but more like the combination of perpetual recycling and Zeno’s paradox.
Most religions with a doctrine of reincarnation do not say that it goes on forever. The purpose of the multiple lives is to allow the soul to grow progressively more spiritually mature and, once the soul has reached a suitable level of enlightenment, the earthly incarnations end and the soul lives on eternally as spirit.
Report comment to moderator
Most religions with a doctrine of reincarnation do not say that it goes on forever. The purpose of the multiple lives is to allow the soul to grow progressively more spiritually mature and, once the soul has reached a suitable level of enlightenment, the earthly incarnations end and the soul lives on eternally as spirit.
Thus Zeno’s paradox. Just can’t get close enough.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I do know what you mean. I’ve been “accused” here on occasion of being too simplistic using the “legal” approach of either it is or it isn’t, but I really do believe that’s what Christ is asking, which is why literally anyone can be saved. You don’t need a fancy education or super intelligence to believe, just decide in your heart.
I watched a McLaughlin Report last Saturday morning, and he had as guests an imam and a Christian minister (Baptist, I think, but I could be wrong there). After listening to the imam explain what Islam teaches about Jesus Christ, there is no way any Christian who believes Jesus is the Way can possibly believe that Muslims who follow the Koran/Mohammed will find eternal life.
As long as I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe, they should have no problem letting me believe what I want to believe. Not to be harsh, but it’s not my job to make the decision about Christ for other people. And it’s also not my job to change my faith to make nice and accommodate the latest version of what is “politically correct.” I don’t plan to do it.
Report comment to moderator
46,
What I have in mind is that when people use their “free will” to decide what to believe in, they aren’t rejecting that which they KNOW to be true. But rather are choosing to believe in something which they BELIEVE is true, but may ultimately be wrong.
That is, atheists like George Carlin, Mormons, Muslims do not believe: I know there is a God, He is Triune in nature, the Bible is inerrant, men are justified in grace, (what evangelicals hold one MUST believe in order to be saved) but I use my free will to reject it. Rather, assuming the theology is ultimately true, unsaved folks in “good faith” make theological errors.
The atheist George Carlin genuinely BELIEVED that there was no God. He didn’t reject that which He knew to be true. Mormons genuinely disbelieve in the Trinity and genuinely believe the Book of Mormon to be a third testament to Jesus Christ. Muslims genuinely believe God’s name is “Allah” Mohamed was his messenger and the Koran is His revelation. None use their free will to reject a God they know to be true.
The good old fashion Calvinist simply replies: They are not of God’s elect so to Hell with them.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 51,
a very insightful comment here:
“Not to be harsh, but it’s not my job to make the decision about Christ for other people.”
and yet of course we see certain conservative Christians trying to make decisions about Christ for other people all the time in this blog.
You used the word believe sevral times in your post. The realization that these are beliefs, and not objectively proved truths, is critical to understanding the limitations of our religious understandings.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I am always talking about what I believe, but it is based on the original text — Scripture. That’s my starting point.
And I actually believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians who post here have the same understanding. What I find offensive is how often people who are not Christians look upon those who are faithful as being “intolerant.” I don’t care what anyone else believes, but I will not go down the road of changing Scripture to accommodate people who want to change the very clear, very easy to understand “yes or no” of the New Testament. That’s what many of our liberal and atheistic posters want, which I might add, goes against the First Amendment they so often cite.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 54,
of course, but when you say:
“but it is based on the original text — Scripture. That’s my starting point. ”
we must remember that everyone is interpreting scripture, and there are many different interpretations.
So we are back to beliefs, and the realization that others may in good faith disagree with our beliefs AND THERE IS NO WAY TO UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVE WHICH SET OF BELIEFS IS CORRECT, if indeed correct even has a meaning here.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, Musing, Musing,
Jesus said “I am the Way…”
Nothing to interpret there, my friend! Either Jesus is the Way or He isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 58,
yes, but what way was he talking about?
I see many Christians with many different ways. It does seem that it may not be nearly as homogeneous as you seem to be suggesting.
What they all have in common is that they try to follow Jesus in the best ways they know how.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, Jesus was talking about eternal life.
“What they all have in common” is trying to get around the clear, plain text — something you are famous for. Parsing words to make themselves feel better so they don’t have to face their sin. What “they” want is to change the words so that they don’t have to follow.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 58,
when you say:
“What they all have in common” is trying to get around the clear, plain text”
I suggest that thge interpretation of the clear plain text is not nearly as straightforward as you suggest.
If it were, there would be no disagreements among strong traditonal Christians and there wold have been no need for different denominations.
So the simple example: should the Bible be interpreted in a strict literal sense.
The majority of Christians say no.
A minority of Christians say yes.
The impact of this one disagreement alone ricochets thorughout all the theological discussions.
In short, your model appear to be too simplisitc and does not match the obeserved behavior of Christians.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #54: Musing, I am always talking about what I believe, but it is based on the original text — Scripture. That’s my starting point.
Do you believe that the truth of Scripture is self-evident to everyone, or do you believe that you are simply choosing to accept it as a starting assumption and then building from there?
#56: Jesus said “I am the Way…”
Nothing to interpret there, my friend! Either Jesus is the Way or He isn’t.
There is the question of whether he really said it or whether it was a statement attributed to him many decades later to express the theological direction of a particular group.
If you assume the Bible is true all through, you don’t deal with this question and you assume if it is in there, he said it. But if you are not already pre-decided to take the Bible as inerrant, the question looms large.
That aside, there are many other things that are very much open to interpretation. Witness the debates here over whether God at one point in history condoned slavery and polygamy, or of whether Jesus’s admonitions about not repaying violence with violence refers only to revenge or could also refer to self-defense.
Also, I echo Musing’s point in #59: The Christians who assume the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and always literally true except in those cases that are clearly metaphor (Jesus’ parables for example) are in the minority. Outside of the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist churches, you won’t find many of them.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the basics are there. An “I am” statement is pretty plain language. If you claim to be something, either you are or you’re not.
Christianity is very simple. You either believe Jesus is who he says he is or you don’t. You either believe he resurrected or you don’t.
Sometimes you just have to get down to the nitty gritty and decide. It’s kinda like being on a jury.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 61,
well you are now simplifying down significantly which is a good thing: it reduces the number of errors.
However, once we accept that the Gospels were written by people many years after the fact, arguasbly generally based on oral tradition AND we note that we have tracked variations in the Gospel materials among our early texts AND we don’t really have any of the first century or really much of the second century materials, it is a fair question to ask what can we infer to be true ij the Gospels. We have eivdence from second century matierals that the events as portrayed in Mark are as a minimum out of order.
The following seems reasonably supported as having been agreed to by the earliest traditions:
1) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
- this itself is an interesting study
2) Jesus provided some teachings of which it is reasonable to infer a minimal set whch is arguably most authoritztive
- one way to look at this is touse the “Q” materials
3) Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate (Tacitus provides possibly some independent materials here)
4) the tomb was empty on the third day
It is hard to argue definitively any other points.
Even the resurrection of Jesus and what is meant by this term is a subject of dispute among Christian sects.
What you are really arguing is that Christians who come from a Pauline tradition and who are conservative Christians in the American model all agree on your points.
This is actually about 10% of the American population and a small fraction of the worlds population. It is a very small minority of people and it is a small minoirty of Christians.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 61,
so my preferred model, given the uncertainties, is to note that I would believe in Jesus and follow his teachings EVEN IF HE WAS NOT RESURRECTED.
In fact, when I ask what the key theological points are which requires the resurrection, Christians are amazingly silent.
The classic response is that it gives us also the promise of everlasting life, to which I respond: so do you need to be bribed with the promise of everlasting life to be a Christian?
Report comment to moderator
Variations in the Gospel? Come now. They all say Jesus was crucified, they all say he resurrected. It’s up or down, Musing. Make a choice.
This one amused me: “Even the resurrection of Jesus and what is meant by this term is a subject of dispute among Christian sects.”
Spong? Be real.
No matter what you claim is in dispute, it still comes down to the yes or no questions I asked before in 61. It’s very simple. The only uncertainties are in YOUR head.
The whole deal hangs on the resurrection. The wages of sin is death. Jesus took on our sins. Jesus overcame death. If you don’t believe he resurrected, you’re missing the point.
I don’t know how to make it easier for you.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 64,
I suggest perhaps you need to go read Mark again remembering that Mark ends at Mark 16:9.
There is no post resurrection appearance of Jesus in Mark.
The post resurrection appearances in all the Gospels are highly inconsistent: I have been known to state that we have better Elvis sightings reports that we have post resurrection sighting reports.
I suggest, if you look carefully, Christianity actually hangs on the crucifixtion, not the resurrection. Jesus died for our sins, not Jesus was resurrected for our sins.
But if it hangs on the resurrection, then you should be able to explain to me what aspects of Christian theology, other than the promise of eternal life, hinge on the resurrection.
And your answer? Interestingly there is one, but it itself introduces some interesting complications and discussions.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Christianity is very simple. You either believe Jesus is who he says he is or you don’t. You either believe he resurrected or you don’t.
Well you obviously didn’t read my post. The question I raised is not what the statement means; it’s whether Jesus ever really said it.
“believe Jesus is who he says he is” assumes that he made the statement and that it was recorded correctly. If either of those conditions are not met, then we cannot base anything about the real Jesus on this statement.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG post 66,
but of course ou are assuing that NJLawyer is approacing this question logically.
As NJLawyer has presented the argument so far, it would seem that this is not the case.
I am looking forward to the post responding to the resurrection question. Traditional discussions on this point find very little of Christian theology hinges on the reusrrection but a great deal on the crucifixion.
Report comment to moderator
but of course ou are assuing that NJLawyer is approacing this question logically.
Well no, Musing, I don’t assume that. But one can always hope.
Report comment to moderator
What did you want Jesus to say about the Resurrection. Resurrection is an act, not a verbal statement.
My Bible has Mark ending with 16:20. I’m literally reading in verse 9, however, that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. And then you should keep reading. What are you talking about?
You guys want to make this far more difficult than it really is. That won’t fly with me. (And just so you know, insults from a liberal are a badge of honor.)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 69,
no I was asking you what theological aspect of Christinaity requires the resurrection.
If there is no theological requirement for the resurrection, then you can not say that the reusrrection is necessary for Christianity.
So far you have provided no theological necessity for the reusrrection, which pretty much matches earlier discussions in this blog.
Therefore whether the resurrection occurred or did not occur does not in and of itself appear to change any core Christian beliefs.
By contrast the crucifixion is required as a sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. This then reflects back on to the narrative of the fall in Genesis: hence the crucifxion is required.
Likewise the baptism of Jesus by John is argued to have a requirement from the prophecies, although this is a much more complex discussion.
So far, however, you seem to have demonstrated nicely that the resurrection is not in fact required for Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
There would be no Christianity without the Resurrection. Without it, all you have is a nice guy who willingly went to the cross believing his death would accomplish what?
You are making no sense to me at all.
Report comment to moderator
There’s always that Jesus said he would arise on the third day which shows that Satan, that death, had no hold on him.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 71,
acutally you are clearly dmeonstrating that you can find no need for the resurrection in Christinaity. If you could, you could say something more substantive that “because I said so”.
I know you can argue better than that.
Report comment to moderator
You would not have Christianity AT ALL without the Resurrection. It wouldn’t exist. I’m thinking that a “need” for the Resurrection. The whole faith hangs on that singular event. If you don’t believe happened, there is no point to believing in Jesus Christ as the Way.
Either I really don’t know what you have going on in your head or you can’t accept a simple fact.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 72,
now this is a more substantive statement BUT you now fall into SteveG’s argument of how do you know Jesus said this?
And now we are forced to examine what we can and can’t say about the reliability of the Gospel texts: see post 62.
We can make the following observation based on the best understanding of the original traditions as reflected in the text: Jesus was a person of his times and did apparenlty speak in terms of Apocolytic Judaism.
One simple approach to critically evaluating the Gospels is to take each piece and compare in how many of the Gospels this piece is repeated. The more commonality between the Gospels, the more plausiblity the argument goes that such a tradition was held by the earliest Christians.
Some add the Epistles of Paul to this list (very light support for the Gospel materials by the way: it seems that Paul knew little of what became the Gospels) and some add the Gospel of Thomas (which has a very high overlap with the Q materials).
When I do this as I noted I get:
1) the baptism of Jesus by John (four accounts that match)
2) the crucifxtion (four accounts that match fairly well)
3) the empty tomb (four accounts that match quite well)
I will need to go home and check the references to Jesus claiming he would arise ont he third day before I can make any statements on this point. My brief reivew over the last little bit was inconclusive. What are the verses you are referring to here?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 74,
since you have provided no theological necessity for the resurrection, I suggest your statement that all of Christinaity hangs on this singular event is your belief, but is without any logical support.
In fact we can say most clearly that Christianity hangs on Jesus Christ. And does so with or without the reusrrection: the statement is definitional as posed.
Now you do make an interestng point that Christianity might not exist without the resurrection.
But you do see that you are saying that Christinaity only survived because it could lay a claim on “magic” and not because of the importance of the message it presented.
I tend to think that Christianity was stronger than that.
A better supported verion of your argument is that Christinaiy depended on the work of Paul for its existence. This is indeed reasonably well supported by the materials.
Think this point through carefully, however, if you are to call yourself a follower of Christ rather than a follower of Paul!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 74,
and of course I have seen no response to my observation that there are no post-resurrection sightings in Mark.
Report comment to moderator
See #69. Your Bible seems to be shorter than mine.
I do not know what you mean by “theologial necessity.” I don’t know what you’re after.
Report comment to moderator
You might want to read Mark 16:16.
Report comment to moderator
The Resurrection is not magic. It is a one time historical event which God(Jesus) performed because he is/was God(Jesus) and it illustrates his supreme power over death and sin.
I cannot prove the Resurrection. We have the Gospels and Paul’s later experiences. Either you believe or you don’t. See Mark 16:16.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 79:
Well when I look at Mark 16 [NIV]:
Mark 16
The Resurrection
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6″Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
It explicitly notes that the oldest versions of Mark end at mark 16:8.
This is supported by the following:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm
I can continue the references if you like, but if you are using a verson of mark which ends at Mark 16:20 then you appear to have a version of mark which is not consistent with our oldest editions.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 79,
and of course this is one of my great amusements: people keep referring to portions of the Bible which in fact are latter additions. Or they refer to portions of the Bible which have tanscription errors.
And then they attempt to argue that the Bible is “correct” even with known defective copies.
So out of curiousity does your Bible also have John 7:53 – 8:11 as well?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 80,
now when you insist that the resurrection is historical, what is your source for historical validation of the resurrection? Do you have any non=-Christian sources which priovide supporting corroboration?
If you do not, then it is not clear on what basis you are insisting that the reusrrection is historical.
Do note that I provided a possible independent source suggesting that the crucifixion may be historical.
So we have reasonable evidence that Jeuss lived, that he was crucified, and this his crucifixion was under Pontius Pilate.
Do you have any such evidence for the resurrection?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, based on your lack of supporting mateirals for the reusrrecton, I am led to conclude the following:
1) you have no evidence or supporting argument which makes the resurrectio critical for Christinanity
2) you have noevidence that the resurrection was historical
3) you appear to be working with arguably defective versions of the Bible
I suggest that you have your opinions and beliefs but that these opinions and beliefs are not supported by the evidence nor even necessary for Christianity.
So it is the ultimate in hubris to insist that I must believe the resurrection is required for Christinaity.
Do note that I do not challenging that you belief that the resurrection is required for Christianity, merely that you are in no positon to insist that I must believe this.
I do tend to follow a believe and let believe model. It would seem that you are not granting me the same courtesy.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I think what Musing is getting at is that our theology of salvation requires Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins. There are people (who consider themselves Christians) who do not think the cross was necessary, that God forgives us simply because He is loving and merciful, and that Jesus died because he was perceived as a threat to those in power, not because God planned it that way. Their theology does not require the crucifixion.
So he is asking, what does our theology require the resurrection for? If we are saved by Jesus’ dying for our sins, would we not still be saved without the resurrection? (his question, not mine)
My understanding is that the resurrection demonstrates Jesus’ power over sin and death, which in traditional Christian theology are closely linked. What kind of salvation would it be to be saved only from sin but not from death? It also is seen as evidence of Jesus’ deity, though I don’t know that it is logically required in order to believe in his deity.
I think there has been a great deal more written about the meaning of the crucifixion than the meaning of the resurrection. Lots has been written on evidence for the resurrection, but less from a theological viewpoint.
Personally, like you, I think it integral to the Christian faith and it’s hard to pick out specific areas that it impacts because it impacts everything. If sin is only paid for, but new life is not given, we are like pardoned convicts but without the hope that we can make a fresh start that will be any better than the old life. Our hope would not only be only for this life, but even in this life there would be little hope of overcoming sin on an ongoing basis.
Of course, there are people who do think that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave, only that his spirit rose, as will our own some day. And I don’t know that it is logically necessary for his body to have risen in order for God to make us able to live righteously or hope in life after death, even though it might be harder to have confidence in that without such powerful evidence of God’s power.
By the way, Musing is correct that Bible scholars today – including evangelicals – generally accept that Mark 16:9-20 are a later addition. One explanation is that the gospel of Mark in general keeps showing how the disciples did not understand who Jesus was. Consistent with that focus, it ends with them still not understanding. That doesn’t mean Mark didn’t understand or that his readers didn’t – they had the advantage of hindsight. But for whatever reason, at least a part of his purpose in writing was to show how everyone, even the disciples, misunderstood Jesus during his time on earth. Perhaps he knew his readers did understand perfectly well, and didn’t need him to stress that aspect, he was writing to tell them the parts they didn’t know.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding Mark 16:9-20. Irenaeus (disciple of John the Apostle) quoted this passage, that would prove that it was well known. Then you can count Hippolytus 170-236 A.D. also sites these passages. Now we have two who have clearly made known these passages.
Polycarp was murdered/martyred in 156 A.D. Polycarp was a disciple of Apostle John, …. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D. had these same writings, and sat under, and was a student of Polycarp.
Because the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus do not list Mark 16:920 or John 7:53-8:11 does not mean its correct, or it was right to leave them out.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline
This is incorrect Pauline – The disciples knew and understood who Jesus was, they knew he was God the Son. Jesus spent 40 days after HIS resurrection with his Apostles, you can read this in Act 1. To say that the disciples didn’t understand who Jesus was makes no sense if you study the NT.
Below are many passages which PROVE that the Disciples KNEW EXACTLY who the LORD Jesus Christ was/is — if they were ignorant of that fact they would have been unable to teach/preach the Gospel, never mind the nerrant inspired Word of God we have today, the BIBLE –
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
1 Timothy 1:1
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1 John 5:20
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.
Titus 2:13
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Titus 3:4
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
John 20
If ye believe not that “I am “, ye shall die in your sins.
John 8:24
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Philippians 2:6
Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us.
Matthew 1:23
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Acts 4:24
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:5
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
What I meant is that the disciples did not understand who Jesus was during his time on earth, which is the period covered in Mark’s book. Note that none of the verses you quoted came from Mark.
From a Bible study guide by the American Bible Society:
Many readers of Mark have recognized for a long time the negative manner in which Mark portrays the disciples (including the authors of Matthew and Luke who “corrected” Mark’s treatment in various ways). The disciples in Mark come across as dimwitted, misguided, and selfish, rather than as Jesus’ privileged associates and great apostles of the church.
As an example, in Matthew 17 when Jesus foretells his death and resurrection, it says the disciples were distressed, which is an understandable reaction to such news. In Luke 9, he foretells his death and resurrection, and no mention is made of the disciples’ reaction. In Mark he foretells his death and resurrection, and it says the disciples did not understand and were afraid to ask him about it.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 85,
I believe you have the nmodel approximately correct when you state:
“My understanding is that the resurrection demonstrates Jesus’ power over sin and death,”
and you have the traditonal essence.
Further, typically as I noted in post 63, the typical justification for this is that in Jesus’ resurrection, he grants the possibility of everlasting life to Christians. Even though I provided the reference, NJLawyer did not raise it as a theological point. I find that highly suggestive.
Now your suggestion that it also represents his triumph over sin is an interestng turn on what I have seen as the typical model. But I ask, was it not Jesus sacrifice which conquered sin, not his reusrecction? As I noted, Jesus is described as dieing for our sins, not being resurrected for our sins.
So an interesting twist. Not traditional. Can you perhaps develop it further?
P.S. and I find it interesting that certtain Christians feel it necessary to be “bribed” with the promise of eternal life. Should we not just follow Jesus because of who is and what he taught?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria post 86,
so we have first hand evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is the version we have today?
Ah so what copy of Mark do you refer to to maintain this?
If we are to accept the earlier references, and this is an approach which can potentially have merit, can you provide a link to Irenaeus quote? I am not aware of the details here. Also can you provide the Hippolytus reference?
Thanks in advance.
Report comment to moderator
Victoriaq post 86,
now John 7:53 – 8:11 is more p[roblematical. This is again clearly not in the earleist versions of the text which we have available to us today.
The verses on the adulteress in fact appear to have been some migrating verses which kept showing up in different places but for which there appear to be no evidence for their original source.
As such these are indeed highly suspect verses.
Report comment to moderator
What I find interesting to amusing is that we have sets of verses which are clearly not present in our earliest available copies of the texts and yet certain individuals appear to insist that these materials are indeed part of what is considered an inerrant text.
That the earlier copies do not have these passages means that either the earlier texts or the later texts are in error. There is no logical middle ground.
And as we have seen, these passages have thoelogical impact. Mark regarding the post resurrection sightings and John regaridng certain aspects of the Mosaic law and as the only existent passages where Jesus explicitly addresses capital punishment.
In short, these examples should allow us to bring into question the argument that the Bible is strictly inerrant and accurate as written.
That those arguing for the accuracy of the Bible, in this case Peter Leavitt and NJLawyer for example, have quoted passages not present in our oldest texts would seem in and of itself to show the fallacy of their arguments.
I suggest better scholarship than this is required if we are to take arguments regarding the inerrant accuracy of the Gospels seriously.
Report comment to moderator
I have checked all of my Bibles and Mark has 20 verses in Chapter 16, they are different versions, but I accept Pauline’s explanation as well as Victoria’s. That was not something I knew about Mark. I would only add that for me, it is irrelevant where Mark ends, because I have three other Gospels which are just as valid to me and they do have appearances after the Resurrection.
With respect to: “So out of curiousity does your Bible also have John 7:53 – 8:11 as well? The short answer is yes, whether you mean two verses or that whole block of verses. In point of fact, a Bible I inherited from my mother printed in 1809 has the same addition to Mark and these verses as well. (It also has the following poem on the inside cover: “steal not this book my honest friend, for fear the gallows may be your end.”)
I said I could not prove the Resurrection, but I consider the Gospels primary sources. There is something in the back of my head about rabbis noting that the belief was there, but I’d have to really search for that, and it certainly doesn’t prove the Resurrection. That does not mean it didn’t happen. My post at No. 72: “There’s always that Jesus said he would arise on the third day which shows that Satan, that death, had no hold on him.” So, I think I am in agreement with Pauline’s #85, third paragraph. As others pointed out, Jesus foretold his death and resurrection, but it makes sense that the disciples wouldn’t have completely understood that inasmuch as it had never happened before (and won’t again). I have always taken comfort in the fact that the disciples were a little slow on the uptake, and quite frankly, people who were trying to commit a fraud or a hoax wouldn’t have made the disciples out to be as thickheaded as those boys sometimes were. I often imagine Jesus shaking his head and rolling his eyes when dealing with them (or me for that matter). We have to remember that just as we have to absorb events around us, so did they. I suppose a super-calm disciple would have said on crucifixion day, “well let’s just wait and see, shall we?” but that would have been asking a lot. They knew they were dealing with a powerful entity, a special person, but it took the Resurrection for them to have that “aha” moment. I think that makes them very human. They certainly didn’t falter AFTERWARDS, and that has always been proof to me that a major, life-altering event happened to them, just as it did later to Paul. I know seeing Jesus for 40 days after the Resurrection would have convinced me. Being drawn up to heaven as Paul was would also do it.
Thank you Pauline and Victoria for your help. I didn’t understand Musing’s question, my brain just didn’t get it. I thought he was after an OT link, and all I had in mind were those verses sung the “Messiah” foretelling Christ’s coming, and it wasn’t coming together for me. Again, thank you!
Musing, these are still simple issues of faith. One either believes or one does not. We’ll only know who’s right when Christ returns.
And boy are you going to be surprised! Can’t wait for your “aha” moment.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline
Satan has done everything possible to insert doubt upon the minds of man. who are atheists, agnostics, cultists, and others who have come under the umbrella which we are seeing today. Those who consider themselves wise, brilliant scholars have tried for years to disprove the Word of God, book by book to no avail, it will continue until the LORD returns.
Because you don’t find everything in Mark that you see in Matthew, Luke and John does not disprove the book of Mark. Irenaeus quoted the passages of Scripture which you question.
I have read enough of your posts to see that you often times as now, begin to ‘try’ and cast doubt as to the authentic content of GOD’s Word, as though GOD was/is not capable of keeping it safely intact until the LORD returns. I’m not troubled by your posts, but find them silently missing the fruitfulness of GOD’s Holy Word.
Report comment to moderator
I might add this:
The Jehovah’s Witnesses/Watchtower took many passages from their New World Translation — further more, they are the very passages that are missing from the Bibles of those who have embraced the idea that the passages in Mark and John are questionable.
Even more interesting, they did it long before this became a popular way to strip the Bible of some of its passages.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 93,
excellent: this is level of thought which is necessary to handle these subjects. They do not resolve in sound bites.
So when you say:
“I said I could not prove the Resurrection,”
is key: there is no proof (a subject incidently discussed in a recent WMB discussion).
And you are correct:
“but I consider the Gospels primary sources.”.
Indeed the Gospels are the only material we have which discuss Jesus directly.
And as should be finally clear, we can not simply take the Gospels at face value. There are additional, but typicaly more subtle, Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 – 8:11 issues in the Gospels.
You have hit the key point here:
“these are still simple issues of faith. ”
and this I agree with. If you had said you believe in the resurrection I would have simply asked why you find this belief necessary.
It was when you stated that the resurrection is necessary for Christianity that I challenged you: it quite simply isn’t necessary for all Christians, even though it may be becessary for you.
There are lots of Christians and my point is and continues to be that just because Christians disgaree theologically does not mean that they do so out of bad faith. There are many different types of Christians but all Christians are trying to follow Jesus as best they know how.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 95,
I suggest that considering Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 – 8:11 as doubtful passages is just good scholarship. If the Gospels are important, then it would seem reasonable and responsible to use the most reliable Gospels of which we are aware.
Now if you can provide the Iranaes or Hippolytus references we can explore the impact these have on the discussion.
If we are to use this approach, however, I suggest this allows us to explore the early Hebraic Matthew for which we have early references and we should be willing to consider this book as also canonical.
If it is a valid process for Mark 16:9-20 it is valid for this early version of Matthew as well.
Your move victoria.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 95,
so you continue to consider me a jehovah’s witness?
That is indeed a laugh. The last time Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my house, they decided quickly that this was probably not going to be a fruitful discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Musing writes:
“You have hit the key point here:
“these are still simple issues of faith. ”
I told you this days ago.
Why did you have to give me a brain strain?
There are Christians who “disagree theologically” who do do so in bad faith, who do so to accommodate the world and not God. See Matthew 24: 23-24, et seq. We part company there. Jesus plans to part company with them, too. Don’t forget that weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth part. Here is Christ, there is Christ, believe them not. I don’t believe them.
Report comment to moderator
Musing you write: “so you continue to consider me a jehovah’s witness? That is indeed a laugh. The last time Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my house, they decided quickly that this was probably not going to be a fruitful discussion.”
It is just this sort of remark which you have become famous for. I wasn’t even posting to you. The laugh’s on you
They probably left out of boredom!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 99,
because you said I had to believe it to be a Christian.
You can say it for yourself.
To insist that I have to believe it is indeed the same level of hubris which Peter Leavitt showed.
It is quite simply incorrect to say that all Christians must believe in the resurrection.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
so I am still waiting for your references on Iranaeus and Hippolytus.
Report comment to moderator
Musing its about time you looked it up for yourself. I have posted about this before, if you skimmed the posts, then its time you did some good research, and I don’t mean GOOGLE!
Your little quote “Your move victoria.”
I have no interest in interacting with you. I’m not going to “explore” whatever ideas pop into your head as you try and discuss the Word of God, it’s a complete waste of my time. Rarely have I read where you were honestly interested in knowing the LORD Jesus Christ as Savior, but instead finding ways to wile away your time in fruitless discussions, to put it bluntly its BORING -
The Jehovah’s Witness remark you made was more than enough proof for me that you don’t comprehend what’s being posted, or its more important to make ‘off the wall’ accusations and keep others trying to un-tangle your remarks.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 103,
I did google it.
Based on the references I have found I was unable to find references where Irenaeus or Hippolytus referred to Mark 16:9-20.
In particular I have been reviewing most of the online material from Iranaeus and I have not located the references you appear to be referring to.
So again your references?
Report comment to moderator
#94 “Because you don’t find everything in Mark that you see in Matthew, Luke and John does not disprove the book of Mark.”
Victoria,
I entirely agree. That is why it does not bother me to consider the possibility that the original copy of Mark ends at v. 8. The resurrection does not hinge on Mark 16:9-20.
I don’t consider it casting doubt on Scripture to acknowledge that people who have studied the manuscript evidence – including many who hold a very high view of Scripture – consider it quite plausible that Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition. If it was in the original, then we should not take it out. But if it was not in the original, we should not act as though it were.
We are neither to add to God’s Word nor take away. Since there is a question of whether the verses were originally there or not, I think the translations that include them, but with an explanatory word that reliable early manuscripts do not include them, have taken a wise approach.
I do sometimes make mention, in my comments, of the doubts I struggle with. I do not try to cause other people to doubt, but I acknowledge the difficulties that I find with some areas of faith and with living it out. Would you prefer that someone with doubts not admit it?
There are other people with doubts out there, likely some of them visit this blog. I remember how difficult it was for me in a church where no one else seemed to have any doubts, wondering what was wrong with me. I found it encouraging to finally learn, in other churches, that others sometimes have doubts too and yet continue in the faith, as I have. People who know me have commented that they see my choice to press on as a Christian despite my doubts a sign of faith.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline
YOU WRITE:… “I do sometimes make mention, in my comments, of the doubts I struggle with. I do not try to cause other people to doubt, but I acknowledge the difficulties that I find with some areas of faith and with living it out. Would you prefer that someone with doubts not admit it?”
Pauline with love in my heart this I will tell you; if you have doubts, research your doubts, try them in the Word of God, don’t take other peoples word for ‘trying to discredit’ the Word of GOD by sly cunning ways, which Satan is only too happy to help along.
Irenaeus and Polycarp had these same passages in their ancient writings. Try and get copies of the early writings of those who studied under John.
I have researched until I’m worn out, but its been worth all the hundreds upon hundreds of hours I have spent in GOD’s Word, all the research material, all the checking and re-checking of facts.
Pauline, I know you are a person who likes to study and search, but before you throw your questions out remember that there are those who couldn’t care less about the LORD Jesus Christ and will gravitate to any and all your disbelief anything you might post which could very well be false and lead someone astray. I just don’t think you would want to do that. If you were in my home and we were having a Bible study your question would be fine, but this is the internet.
Report comment to moderator
Pualine post 105,
I suggest an example of both faith and wisdom.
As usual, you understand very deeply.
It was in the perplexed discussion that I suggested that perhaps one of the greatest gifts God can give us is perplexity. If we are not perplexed it suggests that we do not undertand the depth of the issues.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
so I have reviewed Hippolytus’ Books I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X and do not find references to Mark 16:9-20.
I admit to not finding copies of Hippolytus’ Books II, and III.
I have also looked at Iranaeus Books I, II, II, IV, and V and do not find the references.
I have specifically read in detail chapters X and Xi of book III which seemed most promising on the material, but was unable to locate your reference.
Excellent reading, however, thank you for bringing these back on to my radar.
I confess, however, that I am unable to locate the references you appear to be referring to. Are you sure you are remembering the correct sources?
Report comment to moderator
Aha, so I have tracked down the Irenaeus quote:
Book III Chapter X verse 5:
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;
which matches Mark 16:19 [NIV]:
“19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. ”
So you have some evidence that the next to closing verse may have been in Mark and further you have provided evidence that Mark may have included some post resurrection sightings.
But with this sketchy data you reconstruct Mark 16:9-20 out of whole cloth?
Further, however, if we let this in, I am sure that out of condsistency you will let in the material to reconstruct the earliest Hebraic version of Matthew.
Shall we go there next?
Report comment to moderator
This controversial longer ending of Mark is where we find the promise that believers in Christ can handle snakes and drink poison with no ill effects. (verse 18).
Victoria? Can you do this, drink poison or take a cobra bite and not be poisoned? It’s in the inerrant Word of God, from the mouth of Jesus Himself, so it must be true, right?
Report comment to moderator
Or is verse 18 just another case where I am “misunderstanding” by foolishly thinking the words mean what they mean?
Report comment to moderator
Musing et al,
Jesus predicted his death and resurrection repeatedly throughout his ministry. Paul and the other disciples witnessed the resurrected Christ and staked their very lives on that fact. All of the disciples except John died for their faith in Jesus and the resurrection. They never would have gone to death for something that they had lied about – nobody ever has.
The resurrected Christ is necessary to prove Christ’s divinity and power over sin and death. Without the resurrection, we have limited proof of his divinity and no proof of his power over death or sin.
The apostle Paul wrote at length about the resurrection in I Corinthians 15, Romans 4-6 and many other places. It was central to his theology and his preaching of the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15:17, Paul writes “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”
Paul is saying that if Christ did not raise from the dead, Christ must not have triumphed over sin. If Christ didn’t triumph over sin, Christ cannot give us forgiveness from sin and life as God’s children both now and for eternity.
The resurrection is central to Christian theology and I don’t see how you can be a follower of Christ in God’s eyes if you don’t believe in it. Of course, it doesn’t matter what I (or anyone else)think about your beliefs. Ultimately, God’s truth, His judgment and His salvation are all that matters.
Report comment to moderator
BETHD post 112,
I agree that Jesus discussed his death.
I suggest that his words predicting his resurrection is perhaps more controversial.
So can you give me the verses in the Gospels in whhich Jesus predicts his resurrection?
Now I will accept that Paul discussed this in detail – which is exactly the point. As I look over the material, the focus on the resurrection is a focus from in the Epistles attributed to Paul and in fact the Epistles atributed to Peter. It is not discussed in detail in say the Epistles attributed to James and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
And it is not obvious to me that it was a topic which Jesus discussed as a normal topic.
So your references please?
If the resurrection is central to Christian theology then you can perhaps explain what role it plays? I suggest it is interesting that Pauline is the only poster who has made any observation on this point so far.
And it is observable that through history not all Christians have believed in the resurrrection, so I suggest your blanket statement here is making the same error as NJLawyer and Peter Leavitt have been making earlier in the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
NOw victoria has raised a very good observation:
We can indeed look to the earliest christian writings to see what these early writers (mostly from the latter second century) said was in the various books of the New Testament and use their material as corroborating evidence for the contents of the books in the New Testament.
BUT if we are to do this consistently, then we must also consistnelty accept the implications of this approach:
1) we are using what are in pretty much everyone’s opinion not canonical authorities to reeconstruct what are considered by some as canonical materials
- we are allowing interpretation on the part of hte reader or scholar on what was in fact incorporated into the original autographs: we will nbever known for sure
2) this approach cna then in fact be extended to arguing regarding which specifc books should be considered
- if the content is argued to have been modified over time until we have our earliest written copies, then we are admitting change and we are accepting, if we are consistent, that Matthew has argyuably been significantly rewritten from the first autographs
And the position we find ourtselves in is that the reader will be selcting what they choose to read. The reader will be listening to what the books say to them personally. In short, reading the New Testament materials will become a ourney of thought, discovery, and belief for the individual, not a prescribed course of study for which “someone” knows the correct answer and that the reader must agree with this answer.
Under Christian theology, this someone died on a cross in the first century and last I checked he was not posting in this blog.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
so I am willing to use your rules as posed in post 85,
but if we are to do this, then we need to do it consistently.
If you can introduce second hand evidence justifying your acceptance of Mark 16:9, then I can use similar sources to say reconstruct an earlier Matthews which arguably starts at Matthews 3 or so.
This is an excellent and interesting scholatic exercise, and I would be delighted tohear your thoughts and understandings here.
But do note, we have now explcitly admitted that the New Testament works have been malleable voer time and it will be our personal opinons on what the originals looked like.
Perhaps the next step might be your Hippolytus reference.
Report comment to moderator
So lets look at Mark further.
Based on my understanding of the materials we have the following versions of Mark:
1) the oldest written versions which have what is sometimes called the short ending at Mark 16:8
- there is a linguistic tecnical argument that the ending here may be incomplete
2) the intermediate length ending (less material on this when I look)
3) the long ending ending at Mark 16:20 as in the KJV for example
- there are some linguistic style arguments that the verses Mark 16:9-20 are not in the same style as the remainder of the material
and interstingly enough
4) what is sometimes called “secret Mark” which seems to include passages which have been edited out of the traditional Mark
- similar style arguments which are used to suggest that there is missing material after Mark 16:8 can be used to suggest that this “secret” Mark material resolves certain linguistic problems with our traditional Mark
- in short arguments against the short version of Mark also support “secret” Mark as perhaps being closer to the original version
What we can sees is that there are four versions of Mark existent to our knowledge. The earliest written versions are the short version.
If one is arguing that the texts have been maintained and we need to stick with these preserved texts, THEN THE LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT VERSION TO CONSIDER VALID IS THE SHORT VERSION.
If one is, however, willing to use critical methods and early records then one is also admitting that it is valid to use interpretation to establish what you believe to be the most appropriate version of the texts.
And if you make this assertion, I agree with you, noting that you and I need not agree on which interpretation is appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
In my comment at #88 I referenced chapters where Jesus foretold both his death and resurrection. The specific verses are Matthew 17:22-23; Mark 9:31; and Luke 9:22.
Others that I found this morning are Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Mark 10:33-34; and Luke 18:32-33. In addition, in Matthew 17:9 and Mark 9:9, Jesus tells the disciples not to tell what they have just seen (the Transfiguration) until he has been raised from the dead.
And in a more oblique reference, he gives “the sign of Jonah.” In Matthew 12:39-40 he says he will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, implying that, like Jonah, he will emerge alive after that time. (He also refers to the sign of Jonah in Luke 11:29 though he does not explain about the three days and nights in the earth.)
Another somewhat oblique reference is in John 10:17-18, where Jesus has been talking of the good shepherd laying down his life for his sheep. He says that he lays down his life – only to take it up again, then adds that he has authority to lay down his life and to take it up again.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 117,
what is amusing is you actually know what you are talking about, while others with the hard argumentation approach clearly do not.
I will check on these and get back to you. I suspect this will be interesting.
Thanks for providing the refences.
P.S. but do carefully note my first level approach to considering the relative reliability of the Gospel materials.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 117,
So before I actually begin looking at your verses, lets make it clear the context under which I view the Gospel materials. The Gospels are unique because we do have four different versions (although Irenaeus’ argument for four and only four seems a bit strained). The approach used in the Q effort, in Crossan’s effort, and in an effort savebygrace and I have pursued is to evaluate the commonality between the different versions. Those materials which are consistent across more of these Gospels are more probably part of the earliest tradition and those which are consistent across a smaller number of Gospels would be considered less probably part of the earliest tradition.
So for example, the Baptism by John is in all four Gospels and therefore seems well embedded in the early traditions. The narrative of the adulteress in John by contrast is only found in John and would seem less reliable, which is good, since it seems to be a latter addition.
These should actually be considered screening rules, not the final approach, but they will do for now.
As with all of my interpretations, your mileage may vary. All I can say is that I try to establish my analytical approach and then see what comes out, hence writing this before I have looked at your verses.
So:
Matthew 16:21
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
[Before transfiguration]
Matthew 17:22-23
22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” And the disciples were filled with grief.
[after transfiguration]
Mark 8:31
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
[Before transfiguration]
Mark 9:31
31because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”
[after transfiguration]
Luke 9:22
22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”
[Before transfiguration]
Luke 18:33
32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again.”
[After transfiguration – although possibly a different version of the chronology]
Matthew 17:9
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
I suggest the interpretation here is disputable.
Mark 9:9
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
I suggest the interpretation here is disputable
So we can make some statements:
1) All three wordings are nearly identical, it is reasonable to argue that these are all form the same tradition and that this tradition might be considered an early tradition
)
2) They all are timed in the narrative around the time of the transfiguration
3) It is probably important to note here that these appear to come from what is perhaps called the Synoptic tradition and they are not present in John
4) I will still hold my card for the lack of consistency in the post resurrection sightings (since I have already performed that study!
So I believe you have made a good case for your point.
These are related to but not identical to some issues raised by savedbygrace which have raised some questions about the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus.
And my thanks for your effort here, because you have provided added urgency to my effort here (and have greatly increased my homework!).
As usual, you do your study and analysis well.
Thanks for the references!
Grumble: now I need to go and read that text which I have been procrastinating on. You are indeed infuriating!
Report comment to moderator
re #101
“It is quite simply incorrect to say that all Christians must believe in the resurrection.”
Maybe so, but I would suggest that claiming to be a Christian while not believing Christ was raised from the dead would be rather pointless.
In fact St. Paul made this very point in 1 Corinthians 15:14 “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
To this I would add, Amen.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!