|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2008 17:25:58 GMT -8
"A common argument, attributed among others to C.S. Lewis (who should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or else insane or a liar: "Mad, Bad, or God"... or, with artless alliteration, "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord". The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal. But even if that evidence were good, the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. Plenty of people are. In any case, as I said, there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chap. 3
OK, here's a good example of the kind of sleight of hand I really dislike in the God Delusion.
1. First off, it appears based on his use of the word 'attributed' rather than just citing it, as if Dawkin's hasn't actually read Lewis' version of the Trilemma, which to me is inexcusable for someone writing a book like this.
2. Secondly, his use of the phrase artless illiteration is just another one of his countless attempts to score points through mockery, muddying the waters of objectivity for sure.
This is appalling. He wants the reader to take this statement on his own authority when he knows (or should know) how many books have been written on this subject debating it vigorously from a myriad angles. Not even a footnote!
3. As to his "fourth possibility" he makes it sound like there is no Christian response to the idea that Jesus was simply mistaken.
Dawkins goes on on the next page to finally ask some good questions in regard to the Trilemma- namely that we need to determine if the Bible is reliable before we analyze the statements of Jesus, but here again he insults his readers by assuming they haven't done this. Admittedly, many haven't, but many have and have still come away persuaded that the Gospels contain reliable records of Jesus' words.
4. Another quote that relies on Dawkin's own authority and assumes that there's really no substantial debate:
"Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world."
Having read a ton in this field, this is just overconfident bluster.
And then he says this, as if it is self-evident proof of his above comment:
"All [the gospels] were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life."
I'd like to respond to this specifically as time permits.
5. The last part is the worst, though he says he's going to touch on it further in Chapter 5:
"All [gospels again] were copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations' by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas"
When he knows full well that, though this was commonly argued 150 years ago, recent and numerous discoveries of ancient texts have shown us that throughout the centuries the Bible was transmitted essentially intact. On small issues only did various slight errors creep in, most of which can now be corrected anyway with access to older originals than were available to translators in the middle ages.
Not one major tenet of Christian belief is affected by any scribal errors anyway.
This is a non-issue but he tries to get as much sensational reaction out of it as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 5, 2008 9:57:11 GMT -8
OK, here's a good example of the kind of sleight of hand I really dislike in the God Delusion. 1. First off, it appears based on his use of the word 'attributed' rather than just citing it, as if Dawkin's hasn't actually read Lewis' version of the Trilemma I wouldn't know. You're assuming this right? It's a pitty the God dilusion is already so far away in my memory. I can't really remember the debate on this. However, one thing I've already noticed is that you are responding to different things than I would have. Whether or not Dawkins has read a book of CS lewis is totally irrelevant for me. Maybe one day in the future I'll reread the book and comment on the parts I find interesting. 2. Secondly, his use of the phrase artless illiteration is just another one of his countless attempts to score points through mockery, muddying the waters of objectivity for sure. I don't understand the meaning of that point. This is appalling. He wants the reader to take this statement on his own authority when he knows (or should know) how many books have been written on this subject debating it vigorously from a myriad angles. Not even a footnote! Hm, this isn't my A game. The question for me would be: Is he right or is he wrong? I mean, regardless how many books have discussed the evidence that doesn't increase the number of evidences. I hope you understand what I mean. How much evidence is there for Jesus claiming a divine status? If Dawkins statement is appalling as you say, there must be a lot of good evidence. Dawkins goes on on the next page to finally ask some good questions in regard to the Trilemma- namely that we need to determine if the Bible is reliable before we analyze the statements of Jesus, but here again he insults his readers by assuming they haven't done this. Admittedly, many haven't, but many have and have still come away persuaded that the Gospels contain reliable records of Jesus' words. From my personal experience I can say that I hardly know anbody who really took the time and effort to check the reliability of the Bible. Most Atheists I know didn't and most Christians didn't either. That's basically why I'm discussing with you and not with a German (that would be much easier in terms of communication). I simply don't know any. BTW I hope we can focus on the Biblereliability thread soon. I know it's my turn to respond but I want to say that maybe we can really concentrade on that one. Christopher (I think) said it well somewhere else: Christianity stands and falls with the reliability of the Bible (my paraphrase). 4. Another quote that relies on Dawkin's own authority and assumes that there's really no substantial debate: "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world."Having read a ton in this field, this is just overconfident bluster. I wonder, could it be true though? I understand why you don't like this kind of statement. Anybody could assert a thing like that. A couple of quotes would be appreciated to give the claim weight. I'm with you. However, you can't do justice to all of the issues Dawkins touches in just one book. I think you are absolutely right, Dawkins claim doesn't settle the case. But at least it informs a Christian reader without much background knowledge that the reliability of the Bible is actually being questioned. Many people didn't even know that. Many grow up in an environment taking the reliability of the Bible for granted. So Dawkins claim has it's place. And then he says this, as if it is self-evident proof of his above comment: "All [the gospels] were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life."I'd like to respond to this specifically as time permits. Yes, I'm curious to what you have to say here too. I've noticed that you are putting the date of the gospels much closer to the life of Jesus than I've learned in church. I didn't comment on that so far because we didn't get there yet. But I'm curious whether there is a consensus about that among historians or whether you are merely following one scholar here. 5. The last part is the worst, though he says he's going to touch on it further in Chapter 5: "All [gospels again] were copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations' by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas"When he knows full well that, though this was commonly argued 150 years ago, recent and numerous discoveries of ancient texts have shown us that throughout the centuries the Bible was transmitted essentially intact. On small issues only did various slight errors creep in, most of which can now be corrected anyway with access to older originals than were available to translators in the middle ages. Not one major tenet of Christian belief is affected by any scribal errors anyway. More interesting would be: did the writers of the gospels have a religious agenda! We'll discuss it in the "Bible reliability" thread |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 5, 2008 16:04:02 GMT -8
You don't own it?
What he's wrong about is his assessment that there is little debate.
I'd be fine with it if he was stating that the Bible is questioned. What he tends to say instead is that "scholars" have almost uniformally decided against it.
I'll try to respond to the other comments on relative threads!
BTW, I'm trying to make note of both trivial things of note in the God Delusion as well as more substantial. Just trying to be thorough, though some of the points, like the first one above, may not have a lot of consequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 11, 2008 8:25:15 GMT -8
Of course I own it. But right now I have 43 books about Islam on my desk. I have to make my way through them before I can start to read the God Delusion over again. What's he's wrong about is his assessment that there is little debate. But a debate doesn't increase the evidence. As far as I understood you he said there was little historical evidence for Jesus claiming a divine status. People can discuss the evidence as much as they like it doesn't multiply the evidence. If we have, let's say, one historical document, then that's what there is and no matter how much we discuss it, it remains merely one. I'd be fine with it if he was stating that the Bible is questioned. What he tends to say instead is that "scholars" have almost uniformally decided against it. Have you got a solid overview about which scholars stand where in this issue? Just curious. BTW, I'm trying to make note of both trivial things of note in the God Delusion as well as more substantial. Just trying to be thorough, though some of the points, like the first one above, may not have a lot of consequence. As we have seen in chapter two (I think) is that you and I focus on different things and that you left out topics I would have highlighted. I'm sure once I'll get the chance to reread the book I'll post issues you haven't touched. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2009 19:27:19 GMT -8
Well, there are numerous documents claiming that Jesus presented himself as the exact representation of God dated within the lifetime of his followers and none that deny such a claim. There is a also a good argument to be made that one of the primary reasons for Jesus' execution was the fact that He acted in God's stead by forgiving sins, and claiming to have existed before Abraham himself.
As a side note, why do you think Jesus was crucified?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2009 21:22:13 GMT -8
I meant to get back to this quote from Dawkins: Here's a response to this claim, and then I'll add a thought or two at the bottom. From Stephen J Bedard's website*: One of the things that I get frustrated with is the claim that the Apostle Paul never spoke of the historical Jesus. If this is true, it leaves wide open the claim that the early Christians saw Jesus not as a literal person but as a symbol for our own spiritual journey.
Now it is true that Paul does spend most of his time speaking of Jesus in His glorified state and His role in Heaven. Paul’s Jesus is one who is not just locked in history but is ever present through the power of the Spirit. But that does not mean that Paul denied a historical Jesus. A couple of years ago, I wrote an article on this topic for the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry. In the article I focused on 1 Corinthians and discovered a number of types of evidence for Paul’s knowledge of the historical Jesus. You can read the article here. Aside from what we find in 1 Corinthians, there are other examples in the rest of Paul’s letters. Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8 describe Jesus as a descendant of David, Philippians 2:8, Romans 4:25, 5:6, 8, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 4:14 indicate that Jesus was crucified, 1 Timothy 6:13 indicates that Jesus testified before Pontius Pilate and there are other examples (See Unmasking the Pagan Christ pp. 121-24).
The question is: why does Paul write comparatively little about the historical Jesus, if as the evidence demonstrates, he did know the story? When we read Galatians 2, we can see that there is some tension between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles, especially Peter and James. That does not mean that they were bitter enemies or that they rejected each others ministries. But Paul’s style was much different than Peter and James. Paul was an innovator who was willing to do whatever it took to get the Gospel to as many people as possible. Peter and James were trying to hold the brand new Christian church together, and Paul’s enthusiasm did not always make that job easy. So there was mutual respect and agreement but there was also some tension because of their different roles. One of the things that Peter and James had was their personal knowledge of Jesus during His earthly life. James was His half-brother and Peter was one of His closest disciples. Paul could not compete with that (although we can assume that in Galatians 2 that Peter and James shared some of their stories with Paul), so Paul focused on what he knew: the risen Christ who paid for our sins on the cross. Paul quoted Jesus only on specific issues but he believed that he was representing the spirit of Jesus in all that he did and taught. I'd like to add that Paul was writing close on the heels of the life of Jesus (beginning just 20 years after his death)-- within the lifetime (and ministry) of Jesus' closest followers. If we accept that at the very least Jesus was a historical person (which the overwhelming majority of credible scholars do), then Paul had access to those who knew Jesus personally. In fact, in Paul's first and one of his most well-attested books, Galatians, he tells us that is exactly what he did do after his conversion- went and got acquainted with Peter and James- people who had known the historical Jesus. This account is hardly to be doubted when you read Galatians 1 and 2, not the least because he's actually trying to assert some independence from Peter and James. However, Paul makes a very interesting statement about his second visit to those who knew the historical Jesus: Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Paul had some concern that his "private revelation" from Jesus be checked against the testimony of those who knew the historical Jesus. The affirmation of Peter and the other disciples who had been companions of Jesus was important to him, because Paul knew that Jesus was a real historical figure, not just a "spiritual concept". *Link: 1peter315.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/paul-and-the-historical-jesus/ |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 13, 2009 7:42:41 GMT -8
Well, there are numerous documents claiming that Jesus presented himself as the exact representation of God dated within the lifetime of his followers and none that deny such a claim. I guess the main problem is how one defines historic evidence. If you take all the literature into account that has been produced from the lifetime of Jesus until today, then even Dawkins would agree with you that there is a lot of historic “evidence”. But if you only take those documents produced by the eye witnesses, the historical evidence is matter of factly minimal. Just like Dawkins said. And only this kind of evidence can really be considered historical evidence. As a side note, why do you think Jesus was crucified? I don’t know whether he was crucified. According to the Quran he wasn’t (sura 4:157). The Bible says he was crucified after being accused by the Pharisees of asserting blasphemically that he’s the messiah. However, even if this charge was a historical fact, it doesn’t mean that Jesus really claimed it. As I said in the other thread, Jesus might have been too successful and threatening to the jewish authorities so that they needed a reason to get rid of him. For the time being, I see a realistic chance that he has been accused and executed for a “crime” he didn’t commit. Wouldn’t be the first nor the last time in history something like that happens. Dawkins: From Stephen J Bedard's website*: "The question is: why does Paul write comparatively little about the historical Jesus (...)?" Isn’t Bedard only affirming the Dawkins quote? I'd like to add that Paul was writing close on the heels of the life of Jesus (beginning just 20 years after his death)-- within the lifetime (and ministry) of Jesus' closest followers. If we accept that at the very least Jesus was a historical person (which the overwhelming majority of credible scholars do), then Paul had access to those who knew Jesus personally. In fact, in Paul's first and one of his most well-attested books, Galatians, he tells us that is exactly what he did do after his conversion- went and got acquainted with Peter and James- people who had known the historical Jesus. However, Paul makes a very interesting statement about his second visit to those who knew the historical Jesus: Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Paul had some concern that his "private revelation" from Jesus be checked against the testimony of those who knew the historical Jesus. The affirmation of Peter and the other disciples who had been companions of Jesus was important to him, because Paul knew that Jesus was a real historical figure, not just a "spiritual concept". This last conclusion is invalid I would say. Let’s imagine for a second that Jesus really didn’t exist and was made up by Peter & co. Then people would still believe that Peter was a special authority for knowing Jesus and having been his pet. Hence it would still be in Paul’s interest to check that the story told by the others wasn’t contradicting his own message and spoil everything. Whether Jesus was a real figure or not. I just finished reading Galatians 1 and 2. I have to say that I’m surprised to see Paul calling Peter a hypocrite (Galatians 2:13). I’m much less surprised about the intrigues revealed in Galatians 2:4. As for Paul seeking the affirmation of those who knew the historical Jesus, I find Galatians 2:6 very telling: “As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message.” Here I find that those who SEEMED to be important weren’t really important (God knows that just because the look important, they don’t have to be important). What WAS important for Paul was to check that those who supposedly knew Jesus, weren’t spoiling his efforts by teaching something different. He didn’t want his “race to be in vain” (Galatians 2:2). I think Galatians reveals a lot about ongoing rivalry and questions of competence. It is substantiating the suspicion that there were other interests involved, status and competence for instance, not just the spreading of the word… |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 13, 2009 21:26:55 GMT -8
It's precisely the human "intrigues" that they were experiencing that tell against there being a mass conspiracy/ collusion among conspirators.
But let's not blow the tensions between Paul and Peter out of proportion. Though Paul is careful to point out that we should not be impressed by external appearances or worldly ideas of who is important, he is careful to claim to his readers that James, Peter, and John (reputed to be pillars) gave him the "right hand of fellowship" and "agreed with his ministry" (Galatians 2:9). This is because everyone in the Christian world would have recognized that Jesus' own disciples had a particular connection to the historical Jesus that others couldn't match.
Paul's willingness to criticize Peter also shows, however, that their relationship was strong enough to survive the conflict.
Later, Peter commends Paul's efforts in 2 Peter 3:15-16:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The book of Acts, written by Paul's close companion Luke, speaks favorably of Peter and explains how in the grand scheme of things, despite some initial tensions, the two worked along similar lines, especially against the influence of those who resisted the taking of the gospel to the Gentiles.
*Note, however, that there is no small debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. I for one, hold to Petrine authorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 13, 2009 21:29:47 GMT -8
And the Quran was written 600 years later with decided theological reasons to reject an actual crucifixion.
All our first century sources, (Roman, Jewish, and Christian-- both hostile witnesses and proponents) claim that he was executed/ crucified.
If you survey all the major historical jesus scholars I'm sure you'll find that 90% of them hold that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah.
But claiming to be the Messiah isn't really that unique. I mean, hey, lots of people in the 1st Century claimed that.
And it wouldn't have been enough to get Jesus killed by the Jewish authorities.
Roman were killing Jewish military revolutionaries who said they were Messiahs, but they were in a quandry about Jesus because he wasn't advocating a violent overthrow of the Romans.
The Jewish religious elite had a reason to see Jesus killed, but not because he simply claimed to be the Messiah. It's because they thought He was a blasphemer claiming to be the Messiah. Among the blasphemies that infuriated them were: forgiving sins in God's stead and claiming that He would destroy the temple and built it again. These coupled with Jesus affirming that He was indeed the Messiah got him killed.
If Jesus, "blasphemer" though he was, had denied Messiahship, it is most reasonable that the Jewish Sanhedrin would have disregarded him as one among many mystics.
"BLASPHEMY" + "MESSIANIC CLAIM" is really the only sensible way to make sense of why the Sandhedrin and the Romans had him executed.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 14, 2009 5:24:54 GMT -8
It's precisely the human "intrigues" that they were experiencing that tell against there being a mass conspiracy/ collusion among conspirators. Maybe, but not necessarily. Your conclusion is – again – a bit hasty. I have to think of three right wing extremist parties here in Germany. They hate each other, that’s why they aren’t organized in one single party. Still, all three of them feed the old myths of race superiority etc. They know very well that destroying those myths in order to harm the opponent would be cutting off the branch on which they are sitting themselves. Now, one could argue that they feed those myths because they truly believe in them. However, much of their political career is built on those myths, so even if they know better, they have enough reasons to keep the myths alive. There are many more examples I could think of, especially in politics. I hope this example already made clear why your conclusion was invalid at this point. But let's not blow the tensions between Paul and Peter out of proportion. Though Paul is careful to point out that we should not be impressed by external appearances or worldly ideas of who is important, he is careful to claim to his readers that James, Peter, and John (reputed to be pillars) gave him the "right hand of fellowship" and "agreed with his ministry" (Galatians 2:9). This is because everyone in the Christian world would have recognized that Jesus' own disciples had a particular connection to the historical Jesus that others couldn't match. Precisely. It would have been very counterproductive for Paul if the disciples had opposed him. That of course doesn’t mean that there was friendship or any kind of positive relation. In Galatians we see a fair deal of politics and political behaviour. Paul points out that he reprimanded Peter and that Peter acknowledged his flaw. This let’s Paul appear as a bigger authority than Peter “the first Pope”. A clever move of Paul I would say. The part about the supposedly important leaders tells us: they seemed to be important, but they weren’t really important. They added nothing to his message. Paul emphasizes that HE is the important leader. He also presents us the deal between him and Peter: “You get the Jews, I get the Gentiles, we won’t get in each others way.” What I see is the typical pattern of a political expedient alliance. Paul's willingness to criticize Peter also shows, however, that their relationship was strong enough to survive the conflict. This is yet another blurry conclusion – and probably the most optimistic reading possible of this passage. What does “strong enough” mean? It only means that they didn’t hate each other enough to be willing to spoil the own interests just to see the other one drown. They were sitting on the same branch. How many times have we seen politicians lauding their political opponents? Look at Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Do you remember her endorsement right after having lost the primaries? Come on! The passage you provided neither gives evidence that Jesus really existed (which I don’t doubt), nor that there couldn’t have been a conspiracy, nor that Peter and Paul had a strong relation in terms of friendship or honest mutual respect. On the contrary, it shows latent patterns of political bravado and reveals that there were tensions (of whatever intensity) between the most important post messianic leaders. It also warns us to be careful with what those leaders wrote, for they were obviously moving tactically. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 16, 2009 18:58:37 GMT -8
I'm not claiming to have made a conclusive case for you at this point, I'm explaining point by point my ultimate conclusion (which is what I'm always doing here- bit by bit). It would be impossible time-wise for me to respond to every anticipated rejoinder. So, after each point I make, you can respond, as you did above, so that I can then also respond to whatever issues you think are barriers.
In regard to your above observation, of course it is valid if one is just thinking about "people in general" and especially when one is thinking about "hate groups". But we've got to take the personalities, beliefs, and character of Peter and Paul into account when we're trying to understand their relationship to each other.
For Paul's view on how Christians should relate to others (just a tiny sampling):
1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Peter's view, likewise:
1 Peter 1:22
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.
1 Peter 3:8
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
We're certainly not talking about people who secretly hate each other but are forced to agree against a common enemy. We're not even talking about people who have a theology of hate period.
They may have had disagreements, but they believed in working through them. They may have had misunderstandings, but they gave each other the benefit of the doubt.
If one reads the entire corpus of their existent correspondance, it is impossible to come away with the impression that Peter and Paul could be compared to right wing racist extremists (I know you weren't making such a comparison directly, but I think the argument you're using only works for individuals or groups like that). In my opinion, their character strongly points away from them being fabricators of deliberate lies as well.
I'm glad you're actually reading the epistles. There are two things I think stand out strongly when reading through them: the "realistic" world in which they live and the sincerity of the authors.
All of which leaves me with the conclusion that they were much more likely sincerely wrong or sincerely right*.
There are too many problems with the idea that they were sincerely wrong, though.
I'm going to post what I have so far lest I lose it, and take a break. I'll be back to write some more.
I wonder, does anyone else have any input?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 16, 2009 20:01:32 GMT -8
Mo, it is simply not true that only eye-witness documents can serve as valid historical evidence. History comes to us frequently, perhaps most often, in the form of second-hand documentation. That's because it's often not recorded by the people who live it but by historians (who are famous for not ever really living, but just writing about other people living  ) In the New Testament we have both documents written by eye-witnesses and first generation second-hand historical documentation, both of which are valid historical evidence and source material. The 'politics' of Galatians should be understood in this light: Peter and James were holding on to a fledgling faith in a very precarious setting- Jerusalem. They had already experienced a tremendous amount of persecution from the Jewish authorities (jailings and executions). In order to even stay in Jerusalem, they were trying in every way that didn't compromise their faith to fit in with Jewish norms. Along comes Paul, this radically saved, former persecutor. He's much more Hellenized that the disciples (and also much more in touch with the Jewish elite). He's been given a mandate to spread the gospel to the Gentiles and Jewish diaspora. And part of that venture is going to entail defining for those Gentiles which parts of the Jewish covenant applied to them and in what way in the New Covenant. Would Gentiles have to be circumcised? No. Etc... The liberties he's going to proclaim to the Gentiles are going to be different than the customs and living standards that many of the Jewish Christians have decided to live by. If this is done without forethought, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem are going to take the heat for these radical new developments. No wonder there was some tension. But they worked out a compromise that helped keep some unity between Jews and Gentiles yet didn't in itself compromise the Gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 16, 2009 20:21:29 GMT -8
How is Galatians 1:1, which mentions Jesus rising from the dead, for starters, not "evidence that Jesus really existed"? Or Galatians 1:19, which mentions the brother of Jesus, taking for granted that Jesus was a historical figure with a brother currently alive.
It is evidence against a conspiracy theory, not proof that one didn't occur. It's evidence more contra than pro.
Of course they were moving tactically and of course we must be careful with it, as is the case with anything important.
|
|
)