Monday, February 14, 2011

The Historicity of the New Testament

View ImageOver the past week or so, I've been part of a discussion on Vinny's blog about the historicity of the New Testament narratives--or specifically, about a book called Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, by the late A. N. Sherwin-White, an Oxford professor who specialized in ancient Rome at the time of the New Testament.

Vinny has taken issue with some Christian apologists because he feels that they are "abusing" the professor by misrepresenting his position. Well, I have been reading the book carefully, and I've seen no sign of abuse. And unless the author of Sherwin-White's 1993 obituary in The Times was also an abusive apologist, the apologists in question characterize his general position accurately. The obituary talked about "his conviction of the essential historicity of the narratives in the New Testament."

Vinny is correct that the apologists were careless in their choice of words. One of them put a word in quotations that Sherwin-White never used, another one changed a word to mean the opposite, and a third used generally imprecise language. I am familiar with the first two apologists, and they are usually very careful about what they say, so I don't know what happened there. But they captured the general message of Sherwin-White, and if anything, they failed to utilize the strongest parts of the book.

Most of our discussion pertained to the last eight pages of the book, where Sherwin-White criticizes "form-criticism of the extremer sort" and talks about the rate of development of "didactic myths" in historical documents in general, and what this means for the New Testament writings. That is what the apologists and Vinny have focused on. Vinny has argued, based on those last eight pages, that Sherwin-White's statements "do not admit more than the possibility that a historical core within the gospel material can be found."

We have discussed that at length, and I have argued that Vinny is taking Sherwin-White's words out of context, but at this point I would prefer to talk about the substantive parts of the book, which is a detailed analysis of the historicity of the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts from the perspective of someone who has immersed himself in the Roman Empire "until its understanding becomes second nature." He starts with the trial of Jesus, which took place in "the Roman orbit at Jerusalem," and then moves on to the book of Acts.

These are his conclusions: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

He says the following about the trial of Jesus: "The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture. Consider the close interdependence of Mark and Matthew, supplementing each other even in particular phrases, yet each with his particular contribution, then Luke with his more coherent and explicit account of the charges and less clear version of the activity of the Sanhedrin, finally John, who despite many improbabilities and obscurities yet gives a convincingly contemporary version of the political pressure on Pilate in the age of Tiberius."

Sherwin-White discusses the trial of Jesus in great detail in lecture two, frequently addressing claims by earlier scholars that certain parts are unhistorical. For example, theologian and church historian Hans Lietzmann argues that Jesus was only charged with insurrection and not with the offense of blasphemy according to Jewish law. In other words, the trial before the Sanhedrin was a fabrication motivated by a desire to pin the blame on the Jews. Sherwin-White explains Lietzmann's logic as follows:
He poses a dilemma: either the Sanhedrin sentenced Christ and carried out the sentence in the Jewish fashion, by stoning, or Pilate sentenced Christ and carried out the sentence in Roman fashion, by crucifixion. Since all the evidence agrees that the execution was in Roman fashion by Romans, then the trial and condemnation by the Sanhedrin is a fabrication. He then presents an alternative proof. The Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment, and had no need of a fiat from the procurator to carry out its execution.
However, Sherwin-White says that John 18:31 is correct that the Sanhedrin did not have the power of capital punishment. "When we find that the capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted to the principal assistants of the governors, and specifically withdrawn, in the instance of Cyrene, from the competence of local courts, it becomes very questionable indeed for the Sanhedrin." He spends about twelve pages developing this argument because of its centrality.

This is just one example of the kind of detailed analysis Sherwin-White does of the trial of Jesus and the book of Act. He then addresses the argument by Lietzmann that the trial before the Sanhedrin could not have taken place at night, by saying, "The Jews, because of the festival, were in a hurry. Hence there was every reason to hold the unusual night session if they were to catch the Procurator at the right moment."

And he says about the soldiers casting lots and dividing among themselves the clothing of Jesus: "Given the relevant prophecy from the Old Testament [Psalm 22:18], there is every reason to assume that this is one of the evolved myths dear to the form-critics. But, as has been familiar since Mommsen, legal texts confirm that it was the accepted right of the executioner's squad to share out the minor possessions of their victim."

He makes the following general statement about the synoptic Gospel accounts of the trial: "It is noteworthy that though Luke at first reading gives the most intelligible account of the trial as a whole, and Mark the least, yet by no means all the advantages lie with Luke. On certain technical points, such as the reference to the tribunal and the formulation of the sentence, Mark and Matthew are superior. But Luke is remarkable in that his additional materials--the full formulation of the charges before Pilate, the reference to Herod, and the proposed acquittal with admonition--are all technically correct."

He goes on to spend even more time on the book of Acts, affirming the accuracy of the legal proceedings and other details. For example, he points out that the charge against Paul in Acts 24:5 ("stirring up a plague and disturbances for the Jews throughout the world") is "precisely the one to bring against a Jew during the Principate of Claudius or the early years of Nero. The accusers of Paul were putting themselves on the side of the government."

Going back to the last eight pages of the book, where Sherwin-White "discusses the whole topic of historicity [of secular and ecclesiastical documents] briefly and very generally," he says that "a hard core or basic layer of historical truth can be recovered even from the most deplorable of our tertiary sources." (However, in no way does he imply that the New Testament books are "deplorable" sources. He says about historical documents in general that "we are seldom in the happy position of dealing at only one remove from a contemporary source.") This subject of a hard historical core came up repeatedly during our discussion, and one participant asked whether Sherwin-White gave any indication of what he considered the historical core of the New Testament narratives. Would the empty tomb qualify?

Sherwin-White says nothing about the empty tomb, but he confirms the historicity of a great many details, and I have not come across any that he has deemed unhistorical. He confirms minor details like the casting of lots for the clothes of Jesus as well as the political pressure the Jewish leaders put on Pontius Pilate by saying that he would not be a friend of Caesar if he released Jesus. Of course he also affirms the historicity of the Jews not having capital power in the first century. He says that all the details about the trial in the four Gospels are accurate, even though they contain "mild discrepancies." He does not call them contradictions, even though he uses that word to describe the four accounts of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

And although he says little about the parts of the Gospels that take place in Galilee, he explains the lack of external confirmation as follows: "That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins. For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming."

So I can with confidence say that the apologists did not overstate Sherwin-White's position. As I've said before, they failed to fully utilize this fascinating work by focusing exclusively on the concluding pages, and leaving skeptics to try to read into the qualifying statements something that is diametrically opposed to what Sherwin-White argues in detail in the more substantive parts of the book.

78 comments:

DagoodS said...

I am curious (since you have the book.) If Sherwin-White maintains the Sanhedrin did not have the ability to enforce capital punishment, does he address the stoning of Stephen? Or the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus (according to Josephus)? Or the Talmud prescriptions regarding how to stone and/or hang a convicted person? (Although those may be too late.)

Does he address Josephus?

Thanks.

Anette Acker said...

I'm glad you asked that question because I was going to address it in the post but didn't want it to be too long.

Yes, he does address both of those incidents in response to arguments by a skeptic named Juster, who relied on those two incidents to prove that the Sanhedrin had capital jurisdiction. This is what Sherwin-White says about Josephus:

"The story of the execution of James in Josephus, as the text stands, explicitly disproves the thesis of Juster. It is represented as an action of the extremist element in the Sanhedrin, and as being ultra vires, undertaken in the interval between the decease of the procurator Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus. The moderate faction report the conduct of the High Priest to Albinus, and shortly after he is deposed."

And about the story of Stephen, he says:

"The efficacy of the Roman provincial control is apt to be over-estimated by those not closely in touch with the sources. This consideration leads on to the case of Stephen, which Juster is compelled to use, rather reluctantly, because he likes to make fun of the supposed accuracy of Acts. The story is of a trial before the Sanhedrin and an execution. There is no formal sentence, and the wording has been widely interpreted as a lynching: 'They rushed upon him in a general impulse, drove him out of the city and stoned him.'"

Vinny said...

“[O]ne may learn what are the questions requiring answers, and one may show how the various historical and legal and social problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian. That, and only that, is the intention of these lectures." You may wish to attribute stronger or broader conclusions to Sherwin-White, but in doing so you are contradicting what he said about what he was doing.

Anette Acker said...

Vinny,

What do you mean by me wishing to attribute stronger or broader conclusions to Sherwin-White? I am simply summarizing and quoting what he said.

By no means am I assuming that he was a Christian, and I think that statement in the preface was his way of setting the record straight that this is not a work of apologetics. He is in fact just stating how these problems now look to a Roman historian.

But he does that by refuting the arguments of skeptics like Juster and liberal theologians like Lietzmann. Also, he is filling in previous gaps in our knowledge about the historicity of the Gospels and Acts.

If you read the book, and not just the preface and the last eight pages, you will know exactly what conclusions he has drawn about specific events. It seems kind of silly to argue about one sentence in the preface when his position is clearly spelled out in detail in the book.

Also, the book may shed some light on why he felt the need to say what he did in the preface if he is not a Christian, because he is certainly defending the historicity of these events against those who have denied it. (If you disagree with that, you have to address the specific points I've made in my original post and my response to DagoodS.) It would be easy to assume that he had an agenda of Christian apologetics. But my point all along has been that he is looking at this issue in an objective way from the Roman perspective.

Vinny said...

To the best of my recollection, in the first section of the book, Sherwin-White reached the conclusion that the details of the trial stories in the Gospel and Acts were consistent with Roman law, which is consistent with the goal he sets for himself in the preface. However, I have never seen any Christian apologist who cited him on that point.

Anette Acker said...

Yes, I know that the apologists focused exclusively on the last eight pages and understand why you object to the way they handled this. (But I don't think they misrepresented his general position.)

I find the rest of the book a much more compelling defense of the historicity of the New Testament than his vague criticism of "form-criticism of the extremer sort," where you're left to try to understand what exactly qualifies as extreme.

Darkknight56 said...

A few days ago you mentioned that Bart Ehrman, a man originally on fire for the Lord, ran into a contradiction and as a result he gave up on God and Christianity.

I read the intro to his book, Misquoting Jesus, and it wasn't just one contradiction; it was a number of contradictions as well as other problems that made him question everything.

You also asked me if I thought Christians couldn't critically analyze and/or critique the bible. I suspect that most Christians like yourself, prior to any analysis, remind themselves that the bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. There are no errors and there are no contradictions and with those ideas firmly in place they then begin their "analysis". It's no wonder that in the end they don't find any problems and they confirm the beliefs that they had prior to any analysis.

If you think I'm wrong please say so but before you ask people, like Steven J., to provide you with alternate (naturalist) explanations you should be honest and warn them that because of your belief in the inerrancy of the bible you will not really consider or accept any naturalistic explanation that conflicts with what you believe about God and the bible.

Anette Acker said...

Darkknight56,

A few days ago you mentioned that Bart Ehrman, a man originally on fire for the Lord, ran into a contradiction and as a result he gave up on God and Christianity.

I think "on fire for the Lord" may have been his words, not mine. I don't know what he was like before he deconverted, but I recall him saying that he tried to resolve a discrepancy in Mark, and when his professor suggested that Mark may have made a mistake, Ehrman's faith started to unravel. Based on that story and other statements, it's clear that he was an extreme fundamentalist, and he epitomizes the danger in that kind of a mindset. If you have to maintain cognitive dissonance to keep believing then that makes for a very fragile faith.

You also asked me if I thought Christians couldn't critically analyze and/or critique the bible.

Actually, all I said was that my son was reading the Bible critically, asking a lot of good question, and you told me that you didn't think Christians could read the Bible critically.

I suspect that most Christians like yourself, prior to any analysis, remind themselves that the bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. There are no errors and there are no contradictions and with those ideas firmly in place they then begin their "analysis". It's no wonder that in the end they don't find any problems and they confirm the beliefs that they had prior to any analysis.

I don't think you are representing my position correctly. I am constantly allowing my beliefs to be challenged, so all a non-theist needs to do is refute my arguments and my interpretation of the Bible. If I did not have conversations with atheists, then you might have a point, but then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Somehow I don't think I would get away with resolving the apparent contradictions in an intellectually dishonest way in discussions with atheists. You've read AC long enough to know what happens when Christians say things that they have not thought through carefully.

There's no need to argue about whether those who claim the Bible is filled with contradictions and mistakes are right or if the inerrantists are right. That question can best be settled on a case-by-case basis. And Ehrman is demonstrably wrong in saying that Jesus was a human Messiah in the synoptic Gospels. So if that was one of the "contradictions" that led to his deconversion, then he was unfortunately mistaken.

And I think you're misremembering what I said about Steven J. Nobody had responded to my post on Ehrman, so I invited Steven J. to do so, since he knows a fair amount about the Bible. I would genuinely like to understand Ehrman's rationale for what he said in the interview with Stephen Colbert.

I appreciate your defense of Ehrman's position in the previous post (you did a good job), but unfortunately it doesn't come close to getting him off the hook. (And I'll respond to it when I get a chance tomorrow.) I've come to the conclusion that his position is flat-out indefensible.

As for a naturalistic explanations for the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, and the Easter faith of the early church, I would accept one if it actually fits. But none of them do. The last one I have discussed is the hallucination theory, and nobody has as of yet replied to my specific argument against it. The ball is in your court.

If someone came up with a good naturalistic explanation for the data and Christians couldn't refute it, I would have to admit that the evidence for the resurrection is not as strong as I had thought. But that has not yet happened.

Darkknight56 said...

Anette Acker said...

I don't think you are representing my position correctly. I am constantly allowing my beliefs to be challenged, so all a non-theist needs to do is refute my arguments and my interpretation of the Bible.

I'm sorry if I am misrepresenting your position; I try not to do that with anyone. I do sometimes try to summarize my understanding of another's position so they can tell me where I'm wrong and I can make the necessary corrections in my understanding.

What would you consider a good refutation? I gave the example in evolution of a rabbit skeleton being found in precambrian rock strata? What would be your "precambrian rabbit" for the events in the bible, especially those regarding the resurrection?

I did offer the suggestion of mythology creeping into both the oral and subsequent copies of the written documentation as it is being copied from generation to generation. I haven't seen any refutation of that idea yet.

Ehrman's position is that errors, intentional or not, have crept into the NT documents and while they may have originally been written between 55 AD and 90 AD we don't have the originals. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies such that the earliest documents available are from the 3rd or 4th centuries. Apparently, he can point to several copies of the same document, say the gospel of John, and demonstrate these differences.

According to him, the bible you currently own wasn't assembled into its current form until about the 5th century AD.

How would you show that the book of Acts that you are reading now is 100% faithful copy of the document Paul wrote?

Actually, all I said was that my son was reading the Bible critically, asking a lot of good question, and you told me that you didn't think Christians could read the Bible critically.

In the post regarding the skeptical response to the resurrection you asked about a challenge I posted on AC about proving the existence of God without referring to the bible. You asked if the faithful (my term) could read the bible critically and without using circular reasoning. My belief is that Hindus read the Vedas critically and find it to be true. Muslims read and study the Koran critically and find it to be true. Would it really be surprising to find that Christians also read the bible critically and find it to be true?

More to the point of the challenge, though, is that Christians on AC have repeatedly said that nature proves that their God created it and that it is apparent to even the most remote, isolated, and primitive native who has never had any contact with Christians of any kind. They often cite Romans 1 as proof of this so I'm just asking them to demonstrate this. So far no one has. If anyone did respond they said it couldn't be done without referencing the bible which, to me, is contrary to both what they previously said and contrary to Romans 1.

Anette Acker said...

I'm sorry if I am misrepresenting your position; I try not to do that with anyone. I do sometimes try to summarize my understanding of another's position so they can tell me where I'm wrong and I can make the necessary corrections in my understanding.

I appreciate that. I don't think you were misrepresenting my position intentionally, but rather stating how it looks from your perspective.

I do read the Bible critically and I read the arguments by other people (including Christians) critically. And since I can't step outside my own mind and critique my own arguments and thoughts, I let them be challenged by atheists.

If what you're sensing is that I'll never change my mind about Christianity, then you're right about that. I am very certain that it's true and become increasingly certain the more I learn and let my faith be challenged. But I can still be wrong about a great many other things and will change my mind when proven wrong.

What would you consider a good refutation? I gave the example in evolution of a rabbit skeleton being found in precambrian rock strata? What would be your "precambrian rabbit" for the events in the bible, especially those regarding the resurrection?

I plan to do a couple of blog posts on different aspects of this question.

I did offer the suggestion of mythology creeping into both the oral and subsequent copies of the written documentation as it is being copied from generation to generation. I haven't seen any refutation of that idea yet.

The only facts that are directly relevant as evidence for the resurrection are the three I've already mentioned. However, the above blog post is about the historicity of the NT narratives in general.

As for errors creeping into the copies, please see answer below.

Ehrman's position is that errors, intentional or not, have crept into the NT documents and while they may have originally been written between 55 AD and 90 AD we don't have the originals. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies such that the earliest documents available are from the 3rd or 4th centuries.

Atheist blogger Luke Muehlhauser did a post on Misquoting Jesus where he called Ehrman "misleading." You can read it here.

He says in part:

"What is Ehrman’s fault is how astonishingly misleading his book is. He writes that “there are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament” (p 90), and that the manuscripts “differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are” (p 10). Ehrman gives the impression that there are so many variants in our manuscripts that we could never know what the New Testament authors originally wrote.


"Ehrman vs. Ehrman
But of course Ehrman knows (p 87) that the vast number of textual variants we have is a blessing not a curse, because his books for a scholarly audience spend every page using those variants to reconstruct the original text. In comparison, we can do no such thing with the works of Plato: our earliest manuscript comes 1200 years after Plato lived! We have no hope of reconstructing Plato’s original text, but when it comes to the New Testament we have thousands of copies, and dozens of manuscripts from within just two centuries of the originals."

Darkknight56 said...

Anette Acker said...

Atheist blogger Luke Muehlhauser did a post on Misquoting Jesus where he called Ehrman "misleading." You can read it here.

As I said before, I'm not really defending Ehrman. Prior to you mentioning him (on AC, I think) I hadn't even heard of him. After you mentioned him I looked up his bio on Wikipedia and I did buy the Kindle version of his book, Misquoting Jesus, but I've only made it so far to the middle of chapter 3. This is also my first introduction to textural criticism so I may have to read others in the field in order to better understand it.

On Amazon.com of the 449 reviews of his book, as of this writing, 338 people (over 75%) have given it a 4 or 5 star rating.

The only facts that are directly relevant as evidence for the resurrection are the three I've already mentioned. However, the above blog post is about the historicity of the NT narratives in general.

In any discussion regarding any event both sides are allowed to enter their facts into discussion. You have the right to enter the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, and the Easter faith of the early church but the opposition has the right to enter their evidence, also. You also have the right to assume those 3 are facts but we have the right to question their sources and whether or not they are really facts. My point here is that one side can't limit what facts can and can't be presented mainly because they will, of course, limit it to facts that are favorable just to their side. we have the right to question those facts.

If you want to claim that those 3 things are fact, that's fine, but you have the burden to prove that they are really facts and not religious lore or mythology. It is not up to us to disprove your facts. By example, if I make the claim that evolution is true, it is up to me to prove the claim, not you to disprove it.

Even if you exclude Bart Ehrman, there are other textural critics, such as Paul Maas, who question the NT and present many of the same problems and questions as Ehrman. I refer you to the Wikipedia article on Textural Criticism.

Darkknight56 said...

Mythology is the perfect answer; it explains everything.

Like all miracles in all religions with miracles it explains how the story exists only in the religious text but not in secular historical texts.

It explains how the events could "happen".

No true believer is going to question the miracles of their god because these "miracles" provide the proof that their gods are real.

Mythology explains the empty tomb, the stories of postmortem appearances and the conversions to Christianity. Mythology is the explanation for miraculous events in other religions and their religious conversions so there is no reason to believe that it doesn't explains the events and subsequent religious conversions for Christianity.

Darkknight56 said...

What would be interesting is if you could do a blog post about the supposed numerous contradictions that people claim are in the New Testament and how you, or other scholars, would resolve them. Are they really contradictions? Does having contradictions undermine the integrity of the New Testament? Should we believe that they aren't really contradictions and just assume that God, being supremely intelligent, alone knows how to resolve them and all we can do is wait until we are in heaven to truly understand them? Doesn't the fact that the New Testament has contradictions show that it is not divinely inspired? Or should we behave like Ray and change the meaning of one verse or the other until the "contradiction" goes away?

Anette Acker said...

On Amazon.com of the 449 reviews of his book, as of this writing, 338 people (over 75%) have given it a 4 or 5 star rating.

But you don't think that the fact that his book is popular means that what he's saying is true, do you? Two atheists on AC said they loved the book and when I quoted Luke Muehlhauser to them they didn't reply.

I asked Vinny if he agreed with what Luke M. says about Misquoting Jesus, and his response was in part:

"In any case, I would dispute the charge that Ehrman is misleading because I think he is extremely careful to fairly lay out the evidence and how he reached his conclusions. You may disagree with him about how big a problem the variants pose for the doctrine of inerrancy*, however, if you read his book, I think you will get a very clear and accurate picture of the scope of the problem. I think Ehrman does an excellent job of providing the evidence the reader needs to judge for himself whether his conclusions are justified or not.

"One of the unjustified criticisms I frequently see leveled against Ehrman runs along the lines of “Ehrman likes to talk about the huge number of variants, but what he doesn’t tell you is that the vast majority of the variants are trivial copying errors that are easily resolved.” This is just false. Ehrman always says that. He says it in his books and he says it in every lecture and interview that I have ever seen him give on the topic save one, and that was when he appeared on the Colbert Report. However, Stephen Colbert was firing zingers at him so rapidly, that I think Ehrman should be cut a little slack."

The problem is that atheists like you and the others I've talked to are mislead by what Ehrman says. And since the title is Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, it is understandable that people would be mislead even if Ehrman explains in the small print that this is no big deal. The title (and judging from how atheists have reacted to it, the book itself) makes it seem like it's a huge deal, and that we really don't know what the original autographs said.

*Copyist errors are not a problem for inerrancy, because the doctrine of inerrancy pertains to the original autographs.

Anette Acker said...

Mythology explains the empty tomb, the stories of postmortem appearances and the conversions to Christianity. Mythology is the explanation for miraculous events in other religions and their religious conversions so there is no reason to believe that it doesn't explains the events and subsequent religious conversions for Christianity.

I think you're starting to realize the predicament you find yourself in when you start thinking about the implication of these historical facts. You started out accepting the historicity of the empty tomb, and now you are not only rejecting that, but you also don't think that Paul and the other apostles believed that they saw Jesus (Paul writes about it in his letters--was it fraud?), nor do you believe in the Easter faith of the early Christians (Paul writes in one of his letters that the resurrection is the bedrock of Christianity, and that if it didn't happen, he and the other apostles would be false witnesses).

Anette Acker said...

What would be interesting is if you could do a blog post about the supposed numerous contradictions that people claim are in the New Testament and how you, or other scholars, would resolve them. Are they really contradictions? Does having contradictions undermine the integrity of the New Testament? Should we believe that they aren't really contradictions and just assume that God, being supremely intelligent, alone knows how to resolve them and all we can do is wait until we are in heaven to truly understand them? Doesn't the fact that the New Testament has contradictions show that it is not divinely inspired? Or should we behave like Ray and change the meaning of one verse or the other until the "contradiction" goes away?

Of course I can't address all those issues raised by the site you linked to, but I can make some general statements about alleged contradictions in the Bible.

I can think of many instances where skeptics have claimed that the Bible is inconsistent, and I have easily been able to resolve it. Usually it's just a matter of not only knowing what's in the Bible, but understanding the theology and how it all fits together.

People like Steve Wells of Dwindling in Unbelief are capable of finding lots of Bible verses but not capable of understanding them. For example, he has a list of what he calls all the different ways to be saved, and someone on AC listed those Bible verses, trying to show that the Bible is inconsistent. I responded to that as follows, incorporating most of the Bible verses:

"We are saved by faith, apart from the Law (Romans 3:28), but we do not nullify the Law by faith, we establish it (Romans 3:31). In other words, faith is not just believing something—it is the means by which we receive the divine life (eternal life), which changes our hearts so that we do (James 2:14) and say (Matthew 12:37) what God wants us to. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the “substance [reality, substantial nature, assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV) In other words, faith is a down payment of the “eternal life” that we will inherit. And love is the evidence that we have it (1 John 4:7-8).

"The awakening of that divine or eternal life in us is called being “born again” (John 3:3) or “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5). We are to become like “little children” (Matthew 18:3), by trusting fully in God to do his will through us (the opposite of self-sufficiency). We grow in faith by looking to Jesus (John 6:40), calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21), and symbolically eating the “living bread that came down out of heaven”—Jesus (John 6:51). (To eat and drink of Christ is to digest his word so it becomes part of us. This is also referred to as drinking the “water of life.”) And we have to persevere in faith to the end to be saved (Matthew 10:22)."

So when Steve Wells looks at all these verses, he sees proof that the Bible is inconsistent because he doesn't understand how they fit together. And unfortunately he has decided to mock what he doesn't understand.

Anette Acker said...

I think that when we don't understand a subject, the best attitude is humility. And what Steve Wells and others do reveals a character flaw. We have both seen people who mock evolution without understanding it. It's the same principle at work--willful ignorance fueled by bias.

I have not found any theological contradictions in the Bible. Everything fits together like the pieces of a puzzle from the beginning to Genesis to the end of Revelation.

And I used to think that the Bible contained minor factual contradictions, but that they were no big deal. Now I'm also starting to see that the factual discrepancies fit together in the same way--like the pieces of a puzzle--especially after reading several chapters of Sherwin-White's book.

That's not to say that I've resolved all the factual discrepancies--not by a long shot. (Nor does it mean that Sherwin-White thinks the NT is inerrant.) But generally, if I give it some thought and pay attention to the details in a particular text, I find that there is no true contradiction. For example, the book of John seems to indicate that Mary Magdalene comes to the empty tomb alone, but in 20:2 she uses the word "we" rather than "I" so apparently there were others present. If 20:1 said that she went alone to the tomb, then we would have a contradiction.

I definitely don't think we should twist the meaning of a verse to make the contradiction go away. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

And yes, I do trust God that my questions have good answers and that they will either be revealed to me in this life or the next. That is not blind faith--I have found that the gaps in my understanding of the Bible are constantly being filled in, and when I have in the past assumed that something was an error, I have been proven wrong.

Darkknight56 said...

I have not found any theological contradictions in the Bible.

What about #29:

A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.

You see why I'm (more than) skeptical when a religious person of any religion says that if only one did a critical analysis of their holy book then they'd find it to be true. It's because people of a given religion can not do a critical, objective, analysis of their own holy book. Any time they come up on an error or contradiction or any other problem, well, "It's just a mystery and we'll find out the true answer once we are on the other side with our god(s)."

I think if you are going to honestly investigate or study any book, not just the bible, then you have to be honest and call a contradiction a contradiction when you see it. For a critical study of the bible you have to be willing to treat it like any other book written by an author you are trying to get to know. If you treat the bible differently than any other book, from a critical study point of view, then that is a bias on your part. You are giving preferential treatment to the bible and letting it escape criticism that other books would rightly receive.

I think you are a very intelligent person and you do a great deal of research on what you discuss. I say this not to flatter you but to say that I think you realize 2 things.

One is that if the bible is truly the inspired Word of God then there should be no contradictions of any kind in the text. A perfect being would not have any contradictions.

The other is that some of the statements are true contradictions but rather accept them as the contradictions that they are you'd rather reclassify them as "mysteries".

On the other hand, if someone came to you and said "Hey, I found 194 contradictions in Ehrman's latest book, you'd have no problem seeing them as contradictions and would gleefully post them on your website. One thing you wouldn't be saying is that they are all mysteries and we'll know the truth once we come face to face with God. So you know what contradictions are but you are not willing to apply the same standard to your bible as you are to any other book.

Darkknight56 said...

Anette Acker said...

But you don't think that the fact that his book is popular means that what he's saying is true, do you? Two atheists on AC said they loved the book and when I quoted Luke Muehlhauser to them they didn't reply.

Atheists don't all think alike nor do they always agree on things. Luke may not have liked Ehrman's book but, according to Amazon.com others did.

They also may not have wanted to get into a discussion about Luke Muehlhauser.

Tell me, honestly here, if a book proving the historicity and validity of the resurrection received a similar rating, wouldn't you at least be tempted to use that rating in favor of it. You would be telling me, "Look, all these people gave this pro-resurrection book a high rating. That must speak favorably about what it is saying."

The title (and judging from how atheists have reacted to it, the book itself) makes it seem like it's a huge deal, and that we really don't know what the original autographs said.

I haven't completed the book yet, just started chapter 4 today, but he points out 2 things. One is that mistakes and misspellings did creep into the texts and this is something he feels is not a big deal. In many of these cases it isn't hard to figure out what is the correct wording. What he is more concerned about is text that was added later such as the last 12 verses in Mark as well as the adulterous woman in John. According to him, if the original texts were inspired by God then what is the need/purpose for adding additional text? The claims he is making about these text is not unique to him but has been around for centuries before Ehrman was born.

Copyist errors are not a problem for inerrancy, because the doctrine of inerrancy pertains to the original autographs.

Which you don't have, either.

By the way, in a different post, regarding a debate between William Craig Lane and Ehrman, Luke did say his favorite book by Ehrman was Jesus, Interrupted, a book regarding contradictions within the NT. So, he doesn't have a problem with Ehrman, just one of his books.

I think you're starting to realize the predicament you find yourself in when you start thinking about the implication of these historical facts. You started out accepting the historicity of the empty tomb, and now you are not only rejecting that, but you also don't think that Paul and the other apostles believed that they saw Jesus

I accepted the idea of empty tomb but I don't think I ever said I accepted the idea that Paul saw a bright light and talked to Jesus. At most I said I thought he had an attack of conscience.

Regarding the tomb, to paraphrase Freud, an empty tomb is an empty tomb. I know that Christians like to brag about how empty it was but when asked where it is so we can go see it, they become strangely quiet - almost as if they didn't even know where it was. Imagine that. We know where the Gettysburg address took place but as for the greatest miracle in all of Christiandom, if not the world, we don't know where it is. According to one website the tomb of Jesus is in India. So to sit and brag about a tomb that you can't even find isn't that much of an accomplishment.

We have both seen people who mock evolution without understanding it. It's the same principle at work--willful ignorance fueled by bias.

Many of those on AC who have mocked evolution admitted they have never even opened a book about it and this is something of a matter of pride for them. Many of the people you mentioned, on the other hand, have read and studied the bible, repeatedly and for years

I find it scary that you know more atheist bloggers than I do. :-)

Anette Acker said...

"I have not found any theological contradictions in the Bible."

What about #29:

A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.


That is not a contradiction. Satan is someone who always opposes God (whether by promoting a full lie, a half-truth, or by divulging the truth at the wrong time), and he does that in many creative ways. For example, the first 300 years his strategy was to destroy the church by having Christians tortured and killed, and when that failed he decided, "Heck, if you can't beat em, join em!" and then started his campaign of corrupting the church from within which has continued to this day.

And since Satan is not limited to a one-size-fits-all strategy, the context explains why this apparent contradiction exists.

The context of Mark 1 tells us one reason why Jesus did not want the demon revealing His identity. Mark 1:40-45 talks about Jesus healing a leper and then sternly warning him not to tell anyone. However, the man did not listen--he spread the news around "to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere."

Another reason is that the religious leaders were pursuing Him to charge Him with blasphemy, as we've discussed before.

However, the letters of John were, of course, written after the ascension of Jesus, before which He said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15). There was no longer any way that the ministry could be hindered if the news spread too quickly.

And John is warning against heresy by saying that the deity of Jesus is central to Christianity. There were many major heresies that threatened the early church, and John was telling his readers how they could recognize those who were from God, and which teachings were "doctrines of demons," as Paul calls them in 1 Tim. 4:1.

I think if you are going to honestly investigate or study any book, not just the bible, then you have to be honest and call a contradiction a contradiction when you see it. For a critical study of the bible you have to be willing to treat it like any other book written by an author you are trying to get to know. If you treat the bible differently than any other book, from a critical study point of view, then that is a bias on your part. You are giving preferential treatment to the bible and letting it escape criticism that other books would rightly receive.

Okay, I'll admit that I am biased in favor of Christianity, but Ehrman is biased against it (he is an opposition scholar). So how do we settle the question of which biased person is correct about whether Jesus was a divine or human Messiah in the synoptics?

I presented my arguments for why Ehrman is wrong, fully conscious of my own bias and lack of omniscience, and I waited for someone who supports Ehrman to reply . . . and waited . . . and waited for three weeks.

So please explain to me why I'm the one who treats the Bible differently than other books because of my bias and not Ehrman.

Anette Acker said...

The other is that some of the statements are true contradictions but rather accept them as the contradictions that they are you'd rather reclassify them as "mysteries".

When have I identified a true contradiction as a "mystery"? I don't recall ever identifying a true contradiction, nor do I think I've ever dismissed a question as a "mystery." Judging from the fact that my learning curve is always very steep, I obviously fall far short of knowing everything (shocking, I know!) but that does not mean that the Bible is contradictory or that I have to sit around and wait till I die to get answers to specific questions.

On the other hand, if someone came to you and said "Hey, I found 194 contradictions in Ehrman's latest book, you'd have no problem seeing them as contradictions and would gleefully post them on your website.

First, I would certainly hope that Ehrman has no contradictions in his books since they were written by one person, and probably proofread by numerous people, including professional editors, prior to publication.

The Bible, on the other hand, was written by over forty authors, and nobody edited out the apparent contradictions.

Second, I do not gleefully repeat what other Christians say. I first check to see if it's true. I wrote my post about Ehrman because I know that the Bible contradicts what he said. But as I said before, I was open to being corrected if I had missed something.

Anette Acker said...

It looks like your other comment didn't post, but it showed up in my email, so I'll copy it from there and reply.

"But you don't think that the fact that his book is popular means that what he's saying is true, do you? Two atheists on AC said they loved the book and when I quoted Luke Muehlhauser to them they didn't reply."

Atheists don't all think alike nor do they always agree on things. Luke may not have liked Ehrman's book but, according to Amazon.com others did.

They also may not have wanted to get into a discussion about Luke Muehlhauser.


The point is not that Luke didn't like the book, but that he was making the allegation that Ehrman was being "astonishingly misleading." And his reason was the fact that most copyist errors are insignificant, and even where they change the meaning of a word, scholars can figure out what it originally said by comparing the many copies of the New Testament out there.

The atheists to which I replied would not have seen this as an invitation to discuss Luke, but to address his arguments. And the fact that they didn't reply indicates that they had no response. Vinny replied and I included his response.

BTW, your argument that because this book is popular therefore Ehrman is right is the fallacy argumentum ad populum.

Tell me, honestly here, if a book proving the historicity and validity of the resurrection received a similar rating, wouldn't you at least be tempted to use that rating in favor of it. You would be telling me, "Look, all these people gave this pro-resurrection book a high rating. That must speak favorably about what it is saying."

No, I would not do that. I might buy a book based on its ratings, but I wouldn't tell you that since people gave it such a high rating, therefore the resurrection happened. For one thing, people self-select to read certain books. People who read Ehrman's books are not likely to be favorably predisposed to Christianity, but those who read pro-resurrection books are.

What he is more concerned about is text that was added later such as the last 12 verses in Mark as well as the adulterous woman in John. According to him, if the original texts were inspired by God then what is the need/purpose for adding additional text? The claims he is making about these text is not unique to him but has been around for centuries before Ehrman was born.

I'm glad he admits that he is not saying anything new by pointing out that the story of the adulterous woman might not have been original. But as for it being inspired, it fits perfectly with the teachings of the Bible (e.g., John 3:17, John 12:47) as well as the dynamic between Jesus and the religious leaders. Jesus often outsmarted them in exactly that way by saying something that silenced them rather than going on the defensive.

Anette Acker said...

By the way, in a different post, regarding a debate between William Craig Lane and Ehrman, Luke did say his favorite book by Ehrman was Jesus, Interrupted, a book regarding contradictions within the NT. So, he doesn't have a problem with Ehrman, just one of his books.

I never said (or implied) that Luke has a problem with Ehrman in general. And although I respect Luke, I do not agree with him in general. Sometimes I agree with him, but I disagree with him about contradictions in the Bible. He has said on his blog that he deconverted in part because he thinks Jesus and Paul taught a different Gospel. That is incorrect. They taught exactly the same thing--that we are saved by faith but that good works are evidence of faith. (James said that as well.) They just had different teaching styles and emphasized different things. Jesus taught more like a novelist, by using illustrations, while Paul's teachings were more abstract and theological. Paul warns against legalism in his letter to the Galatians, and the letter of James warns against antinomianism. Both present a serious threat to faith; therefore, each letter adds something significant to the canon.

I accepted the idea of empty tomb but I don't think I ever said I accepted the idea that Paul saw a bright light and talked to Jesus. At most I said I thought he had an attack of conscience.

The question is not whether you think he saw Jesus but whether you think he thought he saw Jesus. And you'd be hard pressed to deny that given what he endured for his conviction (much time in prison, poverty, persecution, and martyrdom) when he could have been a successful respected Pharisee. Almost all scholars (including opposition scholars) concede this. And that takes us right back to the fact that you have not replied to my response to the hallucination theory. (Also, there is no evidence that Paul had any "pangs of conscience" prior to his conversion about his persecution of the Christians. Quite the contrary.)

Many of those on AC who have mocked evolution admitted they have never even opened a book about it and this is something of a matter of pride for them. Many of the people you mentioned, on the other hand, have read and studied the bible, repeatedly and for years

Carl does exactly what the atheists who compile lists of Bible "contradictions" do--take quotes out of context to try to undermine the opposition without having to understand it. The key attitude is willful ignorance. Steve Wells puts no more effort into understanding the Bible than Carl puts into understanding evolution. But they both put a great deal of effort into quote-mining.

I find it scary that you know more atheist bloggers than I do. :-)

Well, as The Art of War says: Know your enemy. :)

Vinny said...

Anette,

Do you think that Joseph Smith thought he saw the Angel Moroni? Do you think that he made it up? Is it possible that he originally invented it and then later convinced himself that it had really happened?

Anette Acker said...

Vinny,

Do you think that Joseph Smith thought he saw the Angel Moroni?

That is a possible, but not necessary, explanation. Another possible naturalistic explanation is that he made it up. Obviously this gave him power and put him in a position of being able to exploit people if he wanted to. He had lots of wives and was accused of sexual impropriety.

The difference with the resurrection evidence is the combination of the difficulty of explaining the motives and the fact that numerous people claimed to have seen Jesus at different times and in different settings. It would have to have been a mass hallucination taking place over a period of time.

Whereas it's very easy to come up with possible motives for why Smith claimed to have seen the angel, it's very hard to explain why James converted and why Paul, a zealous persecutor of the church, was willing to give up prestige and comfort for imprisonment, persecution, poverty, and martyrdom.

Did they all hallucinate? If so, how do you explain the absence of the factors psychologists Zusne and Jones say have to be present (from the previous post)? Unless Paul had a preexisting mental illness at the time of his vision of Jesus, he certainly would have been rational enough to check his experience with others, like his travel companions. Acts says that the travel companions heard the sound but saw nothing.

Another important factor is the religio-historical setting of the putative miracle, and the resurrection fits as the centerpiece of the doctrine of redemption that is typified throughout the OT and explained in the NT.

Smith's vision of an angel giving heterodox doctrine, on the other hand, fails. Likewise, the alleged words of Mary at Fatima, "Jesus wants you to establish devotion in the world to my immaculate heart," have no foundation in the Scriptures. Nowhere is Mary said to be that important. We are to worship God alone.

And a final difference between the apostles and the others mentioned is that the former never sought to elevate themselves in any way. Paul said that he was the "least of the apostles" because he persecuted the church of Christ. And Peter called Paul their "beloved brother," said that he had been given wisdom, and discerned, even then, that Paul's writings would be part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). But according to Peter, Paul's wisdom had been "given him." Everything was a gift from God, who alone was to be revered.

Vinny said...

Around the time I graduated from high school some thirty-five years ago, I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I had grown up as the youngest of nine children of somewhat liberal Catholic parents, but by the time I got to high school, I was convinced that all religions were pretty much the same. After about a year as a Bible-believing Christian, I decided that it did not provide the answers that I had hoped that it would. In the years since I have drifted between a very liberal Christian faith and agnosticism.

I have had more than three decades to reflect on my experience and I still am not sure exactly why I converted to evangelical Christianity. I can remember some of the things about it that appealed to me, but I’m just not sure exactly what it was about those particular things at that particular time in my life that made me turn from viewing religion as pretty much irrelevant to making it the most important thing in my life. I can lay out some of the possibilities, but I cannot begin to be certain.

By the same token, I am not entirely certain why I left the fold. I remember some of the things that caused me to become disillusioned and I remember the specific events that led to my rejection of evangelical Christianity, but I don’t think that I will ever fully understand the psychological processes that were at work. Religious believe is a very complex psychological and sociological phenomenon.

The point is that even with everything I know about myself, I cannot do much more than to lay out some of the possible motives that I may have had for the choices I made. How could I possibly have any certainty why Paul or Joseph Smith did the things that they did? How could I ever be sure what exactly it was that they experienced?

Vinny said...

Can you claim to know enough about Tom Cruise's psychological and sociological background and experiences to be able to tell me with any certainty why he became a Scientologist? If not, why would you think that you can say for sure what was going on in Paul’s head 2000 years ago?

One of the biggest problems I have with trying to explain Paul’s conversion is the lack of information. All I have is a handful of letters that he wrote in which he says very little about his conversion experience. He says that Jesus appeared to him and that he received a revelation, but he doesn’t describe those experiences in detail. In fact, I don’t think he even says whether his conversion was a result of those experiences or whether they occurred after he first believed. He doesn’t say exactly what it was that caused him to be opposed to Christianity in the first place. He also says very little about what actions he took against the church prior to his conversion.

With James, the information is much scantier. I don’t know anything that he had to say about his conversion. The gospel of Mark tells me that Jesus had a brother named James and the gospel of John tells me that some unnamed brothers of Jesus did not believe in him, but it tells me very little about the source of his brothers' skepticism. Paul says that the risen Christ appeared to James but he gives no more details about James’ experience than he does about his own. Moreover, no source tells me that James’ conversion was the result of the appearance.

Regarding Joseph Smith, I have somewhat better information because I have access to contemporary writings from people who knew Smith both inside and outside the Mormon Church. Even with that information, I cannot pretend to be certain about his motivations or whether he truly believed the things that he claimed. All I can do is identify some possibilities.

I just cannot put any credence in your claims to know what happened to Paul based on what you think he would have done had it not happened the way that it is described in Acts. I cannot see it as anything more than wishful thinking.

Anette Acker said...

I never expressed certainty about why Joseph Smith claimed to have seen an angel. I gave several possibilities.

Nor can I state with certainty why individuals leave Christianity, but I can give a list of possibilities, like disillusionment, unbelief or unanswered questions, the desire to debunk the religion that they feel hurt them, the desire to live one's life without the restraints imposed by Christianity, etc. Or it could be a complex combination of different reasons. But even though we recognize those normal human motivations, this doesn't mean that we know exactly what motivates a particular person--even ourselves.

The real question when it comes to Paul and the other apostles is what we are willing to make great sacrifices for and even die for. Whatever it is, we must feel very strongly about it. To be willing to die for something is unusual, and the apostles were willing die for something they claimed to have seen.

In Paul's letters alone, he tells us that he used to be a successful Pharisee who persecuted the church, that Jesus appeared to him which led to his conversion, that he spent much time in prison for his faith, that he experienced much other hardship, that the resurrection is central to Christianity and if it didn't happen he and the other apostles would have been false witnesses against God, that the cross is foolishness to the Gentiles (i.e., Paul looked foolish preaching it), and that the early tradition of the church (including the resurrection appearances of Jesus) was passed down to him "as of first importance."

That is enough information for you to start making a list of possible motivations or explanations kind of like the one I made about why people leave Christianity. I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the apostles any more than I can psychoanalyze a particular person who deconverted, but simply to take into account normal human motivations when you give your list of possible reasons for what Paul said in his letters.

Darkknight56 said...

Anette Acker said...

I'm glad he admits that he is not saying anything new by pointing out that the story of the adulterous woman might not have been original. But as for it being inspired, it fits perfectly with the teachings of the Bible

Ehrman's point, however, is that if God had any hand in writing His own book why wouldn't He have included it in the original document? Why did an all-knowing, all-perfect, God have to have it added later as an after-thought?

kilo papa said...

"To be willing to die for something is unusual.."

Really? Ever heard of the Heavens Gate cult? Islamic suicide bombers? The Jonestown suicides?

"the apostles were willing to die for something they claimed to have seen."

Pauls "seeing" of Jesus is described in Acts as a bright light with a voice. Is that what you would call astonishing, objective evidence? And if that's all it took for an educated man like Paul to become a fanatical follower of Jesus then what kind of "evidence" would be necessary for the simple, uneducated peasants that made up most of the population at that time? People who were quite willing to believe and accept the mystical and supernatural without question or serious inquiry.(See Richard Carriers online article "Kooks and Quacks in the First Century" for some examples of this).

And if Pauls resurrection appearance of Jesus is something resembling the Damascus road conversion described in Acts, then according to Paul that's the same type of "appearance" that the other apostles were having because he makes no distinction between his "appearance" of Jesus and the other apostles "appearance" of Jesus.

I know you're dead set on wanting to believe that all these people were seeing a corpse reanimated and carrying on conversations and having dinner and drinks but that idea of bodily resurrection is found nowhere in Pauls letters. You seem to just insist on reading the Gospels back into Paul.

You frequently mention skeptics pointing to hallucinations as the likely experience that the apostles were having. Do yourself a favor and type visionary experiences into your Google window. Or, mass visions. Read about the study where approximately 70% of seniors see visions of their recently deceased loved ones and even frequently hear them speak.

You don't seem to have spent much time really investigating the opinions and ideas of the skeptics that you speak of. Bart Ehrman has said many times that it wasn't the scribal errors and changes to the gospel manuscripts that ultimately altered his faith. His last book "Gods Problem" deals with the reason that he came to reject Christianity.

Anette Acker said...

Hello kilo papa,

"To be willing to die for something is unusual.."

Really? Ever heard of the Heavens Gate cult? Islamic suicide bombers? The Jonestown suicides?


Yes, it is unusual, which is why it generally makes the news. I didn't say it never happened. I already addressed the Islamic suicide bombers in a prior post, and I think we agree that was a case of brainwashing, like your other examples.

Pauls "seeing" of Jesus is described in Acts as a bright light with a voice. Is that what you would call astonishing, objective evidence? And if that's all it took for an educated man like Paul to become a fanatical follower of Jesus then what kind of "evidence" would be necessary for the simple, uneducated peasants that made up most of the population at that time?

Well, the next thing that happened was that Ananias went to meet him, saying that the Lord Jesus who appeared to Paul had sent him, and then he healed his blindness.

Would that not convince you?

People who were quite willing to believe and accept the mystical and supernatural without question or serious inquiry.(See Richard Carriers online article "Kooks and Quacks in the First Century" for some examples of this).

I have addressed this in an earlier thread and do not want to go into it for the third time, but people did not believe that the dead could be resurrected (the Jews believed it happened at the end of time). In Acts, Festus calls Paul crazy when he talks about the resurrection and even the mythology calls it impossible. The story of Osiris says, "Yet nothing that has died, not even a god, may dwell in the land of the living. Osiris went to Duat, the abode of the dead." N. T. Wright also addresses this issue in great detail in The Resurrection of the Son of God.

And if Pauls resurrection appearance of Jesus is something resembling the Damascus road conversion described in Acts, then according to Paul that's the same type of "appearance" that the other apostles were having because he makes no distinction between his "appearance" of Jesus and the other apostles "appearance" of Jesus.

The fact that he makes no distinction doesn't mean it wasn't different. His was a post-ascension appearance, whereas the other appearances were pre-ascension.

Read about the study where approximately 70% of seniors see visions of their recently deceased loved ones and even frequently hear them speak.

I'm aware of studies that show that a high percentage of seniors hallucinate visions of their loved ones. Can you give me an example of family members, neighbors, and health care providers sharing the same hallucination as the affected senior?

You don't seem to have spent much time really investigating the opinions and ideas of the skeptics that you speak of. Bart Ehrman has said many times that it wasn't the scribal errors and changes to the gospel manuscripts that ultimately altered his faith. His last book "Gods Problem" deals with the reason that he came to reject Christianity.

What I said was that Ehrman's faith began to unravel when his professor suggested that Mark might have made a minor mistake. That is how he portrays it at the beginning of Misquoting Jesus. I didn't say he went straight from being a fundamentalist to being an agnostic in one day.

But he does say things like "the floodgates opened" after the Mark incident and a few paragraphs later, "the Bible began to appear to me like a very human book." It certainly looks to me like his faith was being "altered."

I'm sure there were other reasons why he left Christianity, but I focused on the event that, according to Ehrman, opened the floodgates.

Anette Acker said...

Darkknight56:

Ehrman's point, however, is that if God had any hand in writing His own book why wouldn't He have included it in the original document? Why did an all-knowing, all-perfect, God have to have it added later as an after-thought?

It was part of an oral tradition, so even if John didn't originally write it, it might well still be a true story. As I said before, it fits perfectly in terms of the theology and the personality of Jesus.

The all-knowing, all-perfect God of the Bible has chosen to work through humans to accomplish His purposes. So although the Scriptures communicate exactly what God wants to communicate, He did not just poof them into existence--He worked through a variety of different people. But regardless or how the story of the adulterous women ended up in the book of John, it has all the signs of being inspired by God, and that is what matters.

DagoodS said...

Annette Acker,

Where can I find the list of “signs” a particular writing is theopneustos?

Anette Acker said...

DagoodS,

That's an excellent question. The short answer is that to the best of my knowledge there is no list of signs, but there is still a lot to be said on the subject. We are getting ready to take a day trip to Monterey (and we're going to church afterwards), but I will reply to you in greater detail tomorrow.

John Fraser said...

Anette,

Thanks for a great post. I think you have done an excellent job of giving more detail for the case that Sherwin-White makes in his book (although it looks like the conversation has wandered off-topic quite a bit). I think the reason apologists simply quote Sherwin-White's conclusions is because it would require too much space to get into the details of his argument. But as you say, when you read the whole book and understand his whole argument (which Vinny obviously has not done, at least in terms of understanding it), you can see how he refutes the skeptical position in detail and with copious amounts of evidence.

I would say trying to argue with Vinny is a complete waste of time - as you noted on his blog, he has made up his mind regardless of the evidence, and his interpretation of Sherwin-White's introductory comments is simply bizarre. I'm just glad that I can post here and not have my comments deleted just because Vinny can't refute them!

You have a good blog, and I hope you won't mind if I contribute comments from time to time.

Darkknight56 said...

Anette Acker said...

It was part of an oral tradition, so even if John didn't originally write it, it might well still be a true story. As I said before, it fits perfectly in terms of the theology and the personality of Jesus.

The question, though, is why did God have it added later to John's gospel rather than when John wrote it. Surely, it would have been a story John was already aware of when he wrote his gospel. One of the reasons we know it was added later is because it fits in awkwardly into it's present location.

Are you deleting my comments? I ask because there was a longer post prior to the one discussing John's gospel and from which you are quoting from. It was there when I posted the second post about John's gospel and it discussed what Ehrman was using for the support of his positions.

kilo papa said...

"Well, the next thing that happened was that Ananias went to meet him, saying that the Lord Jesus who appeared to Paul had sent him and that he healed his blindness. Would that not convince you?"

You didn't get that information from Paul. And Paul didn't write Acts and the historical reliability of Acts is just as questionable as the rest of the New Testament.
But I guess you believe Balaams donkey talked because the bible says so. At least you're giving me an idea of the type of Christian you are.
I don't blindly believe what some ancient theologically motivated text says. Nor should you.

"People did not believe that the dead could be resurrected(the Jews believed that it happened at the end of time)"

Well, it's pretty impressive that you know exactly what an ancient mind could and could not believe 2000 years ago.

But contrary to what you say, the evidence from you own holy book seems to contradict that.
1 Kings 17:17-24
2 Kings 4: 19-37
2 Kings 13:21
Matthew 17:9-13
Matthew 27:52-53
Mark 5:21-43
Mark 6:14
Luke 7:11-17
John 11:5-44
Acts 9:36-43
Acts 14:19-20

"In Acts, Festus calls Paul crazy when he talks about the resurrection"

Paul isn't speaking about Jesus' resurrection. He's just described his Damascus experience involving a blinding white light that spoke to him. Thats when Festus calls him crazy. Sounds crazy to me, too.

"The fact that he makes no distinction doesn't mean it wasn't different"

Really? So you don't think that Paul would have been concerned about looking foolish to his audience by trying to equate a light that spoke, with a resuscitated corpse that spent 40 days speaking,being touched and interacting with the other apostles? If Paul did believe them to be equal then he could have simply explained why and avoided any miscommunication or misconceptions with his audience.

"His was a post-ascension appearance, whereas the other appearances were pre-ascension."

You're not getting that by reading Paul words. Paul could have simply changed the word that he used for his "appearance" to indicate that he had something different in mind, but he does not do so. Instead, Paul uses the very same greek word for his appearance as he does for the others appearances.

"Can you give me an example of family members, neighbors,... sharing the same hallucination...?"

Nobody knows if the apostles saw exactly the "same" thing or had exactly the same experience. They were most likely similar but beyond that we cannot know for sure what any of these people were "seeing".
And hallucination is your word, not mine.

Lady of Fatima, Miracle of the Sun etc.,etc.
There are numerous books on this very subject. And let's not forget that we're talking about the ancient, mostly uneducated mind of 2000 years ago.

Anette Acker said...

DagoodS,

Where can I find the list of “signs” a particular writing is theopneustos?

The primary way that someone can recognize a writing as theopneustos--God-breathed--is by having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 spells this out. And as Paul continues in chapter 3, it becomes clear that not all Christians have this ability to understand "the things of the Spirit of God," but only the spiritually mature. Paul is addressing "infants in Christ."

Of course the authors of God-breathed literature would themselves have been spiritually mature, but you might wonder how accurate the selection of the canon would be. How do we know whether the Christians who compiled the canon were spiritually mature enough to recognize the inspired writings? The Bible itself addresses this.

For example, in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter characterizes Paul's letters as part of the Scriptures. And in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke as part of the Scriptures. "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'" The first quote is from the OT, but the second one is from Luke 10:7. You will not find it in the OT, and yet Paul refers to it as Scripture.

So this indicates that the apostles recognized Scripture well before the canon. Even if you don't accept the traditional authorship of those books, the most liberal dating is the first half of the second century.

And I'm sure you're familiar with the Muratorian fragment, which is generally dated to around 170 AD, since its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142 - 157), as recent. It lists most of the canonical books of the Bible, but since it is just a fragment, some are missing. For example, it says that the third Gospel is Luke and the fourth is John, but the names of the first two are missing. Again, this indicates that the inspired books were identified very early.

So that is one way to look at the question of how we know the Scriptures are theopneustos, but another way is to take a passage of Scripture and see how well it fits with the rest of the Scriptures. God-breathed means that it communicates what God wants to communicate and fits with the theme of the Bible, which is redemption through Christ. You could say that in the OT God lays a foundation for the redemption in the form of typology and prophecy, so let's look at how that works with the beginning of Genesis (and this is very brief and generally without Scripture references--if you want me to cite them, let me know).

Anette Acker said...

We know that Adam is a type of Christ, so Eve is a type of the church. She was "taken out of man" while he was in a "deep sleep." Likewise, the church was taken out of Christ when He was in a deep sleep. The church was born when Jesus died on the cross.

And in Genesis 3:6, Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise." This corresponds to 1 John 16, which summarizes all temptation into three categories: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. And in the Gospels, Jesus was tempted in these three ways: Satan told Him to turn a stone into bread (the lust of the flesh), offered Him all the kingdoms of the world (the lust of the eyes), and told Him to jump from the temple so that legions of angels would come to His rescue and He would of course impress everyone (the boastful pride of life). Although Eve fell into temptation, Jesus resisted temptation on behalf of the church.

In Genesis 3, after they sin, Adam and Eve cover themselves with fig leaves and hide from God. In the Gospels, Jesus curses a fig tree because it only has leaves and He tells a parable about a fig tree in a vineyard which bears no fruit and is about to be cut down. So this ties up the idea of fig leaves representing dead works.

And Adam and Eve hiding represents sin separating us from God, but He seeks them, and when Adam responds, God replaces the fig leaves with the skin of an animal.

In the same way, God seeks sinners, and when we respond to Him, He covers us with the righteousness of Christ, the sacrificial Lamb.

There is a lot more that could be said about Genesis, but I'll leave it at that. The point is that you can tell that it is God-breathed because it fits perfectly with the story of His redemption. Every detail connects in some way to other parts of the Scriptures. The story of Jesus cursing the fig tree makes no sense by itself (nobody bothers to explain it in the text), but in the context of the whole Bible it becomes meaningful.

Also, in Luke 24:44-45, Jesus talks about that which is written about Him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, and it says that He "opened their minds" to understand it. In other words, Christ enables us to identify the typology by the Holy Spirit and to see how elegantly the details fit together to reveal the mind of God.

Anette Acker said...

John Fraser,

You have a good blog, and I hope you won't mind if I contribute comments from time to time.

Of course you are more than welcome to comment on my blog!

I would say trying to argue with Vinny is a complete waste of time - as you noted on his blog, he has made up his mind regardless of the evidence, and his interpretation of Sherwin-White's introductory comments is simply bizarre.

I think that Vinny did change his mind somewhat during his discussion with you, in that he recognized that his issue is also with Sherwin-White. I don't think it's a waste of time to talk with Vinny because he is knowledgeable and a good debater, and he usually does not raise issues that I have already addressed on my blog. I say "usually" because he and I had a long discussion about the conversion of James in a prior thread, and he did bring that up again as if that discussion never took place. But generally Vinny does not do that.

And I'm hoping that he does see by now that he has misinterpreted Sherwin-White, and if not, that he makes the effort to honestly reread the book. I am troubled by the fact that Terri (the Christian who commented on Vinny's blog) swallowed what he said wholesale. I don't know if Vinny is himself open to Christianity, but I would like to think that he is not the kind of person who would want to turn Christians away from their faith based on misleading information that he puts on the Internet.

DagoodS said...

Anette Acker,

Thank you for your response. However, would you agree if I were to ask different people claiming to be “indwelt by the Holy Spirit” I would come up with different lists of writings constituting theopneustos? How would I determine who is correct?

[Mormons come to mind. Even the Muratorian list excludes 1 & 2 Peter, one of the Johannine epistles, Hebrews and James, while including the Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. Apparently even that person disagree as to what was theopneustos.]

(And on a side note, 1 Tim. 5:18 does indicate the first clause is Scripture, but does not necessarily indicate the second clause, from Luke, is. As I am sure you know, there were no quotes in Greek.)

Further, we can see other books, such as 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, which were also claimed (at one time) by people “indwelt by the Holy Spirit” to be in the canon, and that likewise “fit with the rest of Scriptures.” Yet they are not there now. How can we distinguish one pericope—the adulterous woman—as being theopneustos under your signs, when people claiming to be indwelt disagree, and equally disagree with other passages that arguably “fit”?

The problem I see with the “inspiration” claim is the top-down approach. It appears a person first comes to a certain conclusion—“these writings are inspired”—and then looks for justification for that conclusion. I am far more interesting in a bottom-up approach. First derive a method to determine theopneustos writing, and then see what conforms to that method.

Anette Acker said...

Are you deleting my comments? I ask because there was a longer post prior to the one discussing John's gospel and from which you are quoting from. It was there when I posted the second post about John's gospel and it discussed what Ehrman was using for the support of his positions.

No, of course I am not deleting your comments. Why would I do that? Sometimes Blogger does not post longer posts. That has happened to me as well. I have also had something show up briefly on a site and then disappear.

This is the second of your posts that showed up in my email but not on my blog. The first time I replied by copying what you said from my email, but shortly afterwards you reposted. The second time I did not do that because I was busy and I figured that you would eventually repost like you did before.

I am having a hard time finding the time to reply to all the comments I have been receiving recently. I know that I used to reply to everyone, but I don't know if I can do that anymore.

On the one hand, I would like to make sure that I respond to the people who seem to really think through the arguments from both sides, but on the other hand, I don't want to get stuck in a situation where I'm debating the same issues with different people who do not seem to have read what I have already said. I do enjoy the debates (in moderation) but can't justify the time to reply to every point that has been made recently.

So for now I am just going to continue the discussion with DagoodS but may not get to it until later today or tomorrow.

Anette Acker said...

Kilo papa, I am just going to reply to this:

"Well, the next thing that happened was that Ananias went to meet him, saying that the Lord Jesus who appeared to Paul had sent him and that he healed his blindness. Would that not convince you?"

You didn't get that information from Paul. And Paul didn't write Acts and the historical reliability of Acts is just as questionable as the rest of the New Testament.


First, I replied to your argument, which you based on the book of Acts. You described the conversion of Paul straight out of Acts and said you couldn't understand why a well-educated man like Paul would believe based on just that. So I replied by saying what happened next.

Second, my original post was about the historical reliability of Acts, and the fact that you are ignoring it in favor of atheist boilerplate about Acts tells me that you are not taking my arguments very seriously.

And if you're not taking my arguments seriously, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Anette Acker said...

Kilo papa,

I'm going to reply to the following, because you raise a valid point:

"People did not believe that the dead could be resurrected(the Jews believed that it happened at the end of time)"

Well, it's pretty impressive that you know exactly what an ancient mind could and could not believe 2000 years ago.

But contrary to what you say, the evidence from you own holy book seems to contradict that.
1 Kings 17:17-24
2 Kings 4: 19-37
2 Kings 13:21
Matthew 17:9-13
Matthew 27:52-53
Mark 5:21-43
Mark 6:14
Luke 7:11-17
John 11:5-44
Acts 9:36-43
Acts 14:19-20


Yes, you are right that the Bible talks about resurrections. And the main point that N. T. Wright makes is that to a Jew the resurrection was always physical. Orthodox Jew Pinchas Lapide makes the same point in The Resurrection of Jesus. The word "resurrection" meant a bodily resurrection.

However, Wright also says that there is no example in pagan mythology or literature of any kind of physical resurrection. I used the quote from the myth of Osiris, but Wright discusses this in much greater depth than I have.

And as for Acts 26:23-24, it states very clearly that Festus reacted by saying that Paul was out of his mind right after he mentioned the resurrection from the dead.

Anette Acker said...

Darkknight56,

I forgot to address my earlier comment to you, so I don't know if you saw it. But to answer your question, no I did not delete your comment. I have only once deleted a comment and it was spam from someone I did not know. But Blogger fails to post things once in a while.

In fact, a while back an atheist must have tried at least fifty times to post something on my blog without it going through. Yes, they did all appear in my email inbox, but I was really busy at the time so I figured that the longer it took for him to successfully post, the longer I could wait to reply. But after he had tried about thirty times of course it got to be too late to say, "By the way, I've seen your comment about thirty times and haven't said anything," so at that point it almost turned into a spectator sport to see how determined he was to post something and if he would ever succeed.

Finally he got a post through where he wondered if God had intervened to censor his other efforts. That was probably the most convincing job of apologetics ever done on my blog, and I was away from my computer for most of the time! ;)

Vinny said...

Anette,

I still don't think that I have misinterpreted Sherwin-White. I think you would prefer that he had not qualified his conclusions in the way that he did and that you believe that he would have been warranted in drawing explicitly stronger conclusions than he chose to draw. The fact of the matter is that he did qualify his statements and his conclusions.

None of the apologists I criticized advanced any of the arguments that you have made and none of them cited any of the portions of Sherwin-White's book that dealt with the historicity of the trial accounts. As a result, I don't think anything you have written refutes my criticism of Habermas, Strobel, or Craig. That it might be possible to use Sherwin-White's book to make an intellectually plausible apologetic argument does nothing to rehabilitate the arguments that they did make.

Darkknight56 said...

Anette Acker said...

No, of course I am not deleting your comments. Why would I do that? Sometimes Blogger does not post longer posts. That has happened to me as well. I have also had something show up briefly on a site and then disappear.

I don't know what was happening with my comments. Once I posted one I could see it on your blog so I posted the second, smaller, one. When I went back the next day I saw that the large one was missing. Actually, both of mine that are missing were large ones. Even though they were both under 4,096 characters it's possible they were still too close to the limit and thus Blogger was unable to process them.

I also realize you are very busy with home and family and that your blog has garnered a lot of attention so I appreciate any response should you have the time to provide it.

In your blog you discuss both true contradictions and apparent contradictions. I have to ask you what is the differences between the two.

The all-knowing, all-perfect God of the Bible has chosen to work through humans to accomplish His purposes. So although the Scriptures communicate exactly what God wants to communicate, He did not just poof them into existence--He worked through a variety of different people.

I assume so also, for the sake of discussion. The question is in what way did he work through people like Luke, John and Paul. Was He merely a vague voice in their heads saying write this or write that? What is meant by the bible being inspired by God? Other Christians on AC feel God dictated each and every word Himself. How are we to determine if God was just an influential voice in their heads or that He dictated everything?

But regardless or how the story of the adulterous women ended up in the book of John, it has all the signs of being inspired by God, and that is what matters.

Exactly what signs are those? Are you saying that a human, no matter how intelligent or clever, couldn't have come up with the same or similar response?

John Fraser said...

Vinny,

Too bad you can't delete my comments here, eh? Let's take at look at your latest gem.

You said, "None of the apologists I criticized advanced any of the arguments that you have made and none of them cited any of the portions of Sherwin-White's book that dealt with the historicity of the trial accounts."

That's another great argument from silence, Vinny, one of your staples as I have noted in the past. What you don't seem to take into consideration is the fact that these apologists would have read the earlier parts of the book and seen how the evidence supports the conclusions which Sherwin-White does draw (which you have been consistently oblivious to). So the fact that in the space of two or three paragraphs that they don't cite the earlier parts of the book is irrelevant. The only question is whether they use his conclusions properly, and despite your rather ridiculous attempts to show otherwise, they do. You have managed to find a couple of minor nitpicky details which don't affect the overall argument. You would be a good proofreader I'm sure. But as far as your overall argument goes, it fails.

You said, "As a result, I don't think anything you have written refutes my criticism of Habermas, Strobel, or Craig. That it might be possible to use Sherwin-White's book to make an intellectually plausible apologetic argument does nothing to rehabilitate the arguments that they did make."

No, Vinny, there's nothing wrong with the arguments they do make. I don't believe you have ever actually understood the arguments they do make, and in fact Sherwin-White DOES say that the development of myth in ancient histories is much slower than is required by the skeptical theories. You took one of his footnotes out of context to try to prove otherwise, which is I think when you started deleting my comments - after I exposed you for that and you had no rebuttal. The simple fact that you have no good response to any of that shows that you in fact have no argument. You just keep trying to read your own skeptical view into Sherwin-White, but end up with an interpretation of him which makes absolutely no sense out of what he actually wrote.

Anette Acker said...

DagoodS,

Thank you for your response. However, would you agree if I were to ask different people claiming to be “indwelt by the Holy Spirit” I would come up with different lists of writings constituting theopneustos? How would I determine who is correct?

[Mormons come to mind. Even the Muratorian list excludes 1 & 2 Peter, one of the Johannine epistles, Hebrews and James, while including the Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. Apparently even that person disagree as to what was theopneustos.]


I did not say, "Listen to me because I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit," (obviously you should focus on the arguments rather than claims people make about themselves) but rather that the canonical authors seemed to recognize each other's writings as theopneustos. I also pointed out what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2-3 about some things being "spiritually appraised," and that the Corinthian Christians were "infants in Christ." So spiritual maturity helps us to understand the Scriptures.

And then I went on to give you criteria by which we can tell that a writing is inspired. All the inspired writings are consistent with that which is foreshadowed in the OT and with the theology of the NT. The story of the adulterous woman fits in every way. First, the theology of Christ coming not to judge but to save sinners is central. Second, the interaction between Jesus and the religious leaders is portrayed in the same way that it is elsewhere. And third, the description of Jesus writing in the sand seems like it's based on an eyewitness account because we are never told why He does it or what He is writing. This is similar to the cursing of the fig tree, which is likewise never explained.

On the other hand, the theology that Joseph Smith was supposedly given by an angel was heterodox. It directly contradicts Galatians 1:8: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

Another criteria would be the dating of the particular writing and the closeness to the original eyewitnesses. According to the author of the Muratorian fragment, John was the same John who was a disciple of Jesus. (He refers to him as a "predecessor" of Paul.) And his writings are dated around the late first century. The Apocalypse of Peter, on the other hand, is dated somewhere in the second century (and was obviously not written by Peter).

Again, under this criteria, the writings of Joseph Smith fall far short.

As for your point about 1 and 2 Peter not being included in the Muratorian fragment, it is hard to know if they were excluded intentionally since the document is fragmented.

You are, of course, right that there was controversy over a few books up until the fourth century, but the core canonical books were never controversial.

James was one of the controversial books, but there is nothing in it that is inconsistent with the other canonical books. He clearly states that good works are evidence of faith (James 2:18), which is what Paul says in Galatians 5:16, 22-23. Likewise, Galatians 5:14 and James 2:8 both say that the law is fulfilled in the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. So these two books agree in their central teachings although they have a different emphasis. They each make a unique contribution to the canon but there is significant overlap between them.

Some of the apocryphal writings, on the other hand, contain elements that clearly have no foundation anywhere in the Scriptures.

Anette Acker said...

(And on a side note, 1 Tim. 5:18 does indicate the first clause is Scripture, but does not necessarily indicate the second clause, from Luke, is. As I am sure you know, there were no quotes in Greek.)

But, as far as I can tell, every translation puts the second clause in quotes as well. These translators are experts in NT Greek, so they probably have a pretty good sense for what is intended to be a quote. There does not seem to be any dispute among them that both clauses are quotes from the Scriptures. And although I am certainly no expert, it seems to me that Paul would not have connected the two clauses with "and" if he was just making commentary in the second clause.

Further, we can see other books, such as 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, which were also claimed (at one time) by people “indwelt by the Holy Spirit” to be in the canon, and that likewise “fit with the rest of Scriptures.” Yet they are not there now. How can we distinguish one pericope—the adulterous woman—as being theopneustos under your signs, when people claiming to be indwelt disagree, and equally disagree with other passages that arguably “fit”?

The Epistle of Barnabas is not consistent with the rest of the Scriptures in its insistence that God was never in a covenant with Israel and that the commandments in the Torah were based on misunderstandings.

As for 1 Clement, it might have been excluded because it was written too late and not by one of the original eyewitnesses or someone very close to an eyewitness. But the fact that it is not in the canon doesn't mean that Christians can't benefit from reading it and other writings of early Christians.

The problem I see with the “inspiration” claim is the top-down approach. It appears a person first comes to a certain conclusion—“these writings are inspired”—and then looks for justification for that conclusion. I am far more interesting in a bottom-up approach. First derive a method to determine theopneustos writing, and then see what conforms to that method.

That is what I have tried to do in this and the previous comment. I have given specific reasons why certain documents are theopneustos and others are not.

Personally, I don't assume that my particular tradition is correct just because that is what I have always been taught. (For one thing, it is not what I have always been taught.) I know Eastern Orthodox Christians for whom I have a lot of respect and I don't think they put their souls in jeopardy by taking an interest in the writings of early Christians. Nothing in 1 Clement seems heretical to me.

However, the gnostic writings are clearly heretical. They simply do not belong in the Scriptures. And since the epistle of Barnabas contradicts the OT Scriptures and seems somewhat anti-semitic, I can certainly see why that was excluded as well.

Darkknight56 said...

In Galatians 1:16-20 Paul states that after his conversion he did not meet with the disciples or go to Jerusalem for several years. He is very emphatic about this by stating "...before God, I am not lying!"

However, in Acts 9:19-30, the author states that he went to Jerusalem after his conversion and met with the apostles.

Is the author of Acts lying (I only say this because of Paul's assertion of not lying in Galatians) or is Paul lying in Galatians?

Matthew states that after the crucifixion and resurrection the apostles are told to meet Jesus in Galilee where He gives them the Great Commission. Luke, on the other hand, says that the apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem where they met Jesus and where He ascended to Heaven.

Did they get together in Galilee (northern Israel) or in Jerusalem (southern Israel)?

Anette Acker said...

Darkknight56:

I also realize you are very busy with home and family and that your blog has garnered a lot of attention so I appreciate any response should you have the time to provide it.

Thank you for being understanding.

In your blog you discuss both true contradictions and apparent contradictions. I have to ask you what is the differences between the two.

A true contradiction is one which no amount of context can reconcile. For example, if the Gospel of John has said that Mary Magdalene went by herself to the tomb, then that would contradict the other Gospel accounts. But it doesn't say that. It only mentions her and the other accounts mention her and others. This is only an apparent contradiction because it is possible that a sizable group of women went to the tomb and each author mentions Mary Magdalene, but some also mention some of the others. This interpretation is consistent with Mary's use of the word "we" in John, where she is the only one mentioned.

The question is in what way did he work through people like Luke, John and Paul. Was He merely a vague voice in their heads saying write this or write that? What is meant by the bible being inspired by God? Other Christians on AC feel God dictated each and every word Himself. How are we to determine if God was just an influential voice in their heads or that He dictated everything?

I think it means that it expresses everything that God wants to communicate but that the personalities and cultures of the individuals come through. When it comes to interpreting the theology of the Bible, each word is very significant, so I certainly don't think God was just an influential voice in their heads. Like Jesus was fully human and fully divine, I think the Bible is also fully human and fully divine. That is, a detail may communicate the culture of an individual but also convey a deep spiritual truth that is reinforced elsewhere in the Bible.

"But regardless or how the story of the adulterous women ended up in the book of John, it has all the signs of being inspired by God, and that is what matters."

Exactly what signs are those? Are you saying that a human, no matter how intelligent or clever, couldn't have come up with the same or similar response?


Let's say for the sake of argument that the story was made up and doesn't belong in the Bible: No harm is done because it is completely consistent with everything else in the Bible. However, if something heretical from the early centuries was included, then harm would be done because it would lead people into error.

DagoodS said...

Anette Acker,

I framed my question carefully: “Where do I find a list of signs a particular writing is theopneustos?” While you have listed criteria, what you haven’t done is stated where this criteria came from. Why this particular criteria as to others?

For example, you listed time. Why is time a criterion? Where do I look to determine that? Even within the writings you claim are theopneustos, I find no time limitation. Can your God only produce so much inspiration, and then his inspiration meter wears out? After a few decades, was he taped out? [This does not help any argument regarding the Pericope de Adultera, as this was added long after God ran out of inspiration-fuel.] Further, if time is so important on the writings, why is it acceptable it took until beyond the Fourth Century to establish the canon? Seems in one instance time is imperative, but when the same method impinges one’s position, time becomes irrelevant.

Or the criterion of being “indwelt by the Holy Spirit.” As I pointed out, many people who make that claim disagree with what is inspired—where do I find which ones to listen to.

While I understand you see a cohesive doctrine throughout the writings, there has been a great deal of discussion as to how cohesive. Even as late as Martin Luther, there were questions as to what books align.

For argument’s sake, I will give you 1 Timothy mentioning Luke, and 2 Peter mentioning the writings of Paul. Again, where do I find the criterion that internal cross-referencing means inspiration? (Not to mention the books not referenced.) Jude quotes Book of Enoch—wouldn’t that imply the Book of Enoch is inspired? Acts quotes Euripides, pseudopauline quotes Epimenides—does that make these writings inspired? (And I do understand the difference between referring to writings as Scripture, and others as not—this becomes a difficulty with 1 Clement that does NOT refer to any New Testament writings as “Scripture” but consistently refers to the Tanakh as such. Was he not spiritually mature enough?)

So I’ll ask again—WHERE do I find a list of signs a particular writing is theopneustos? At this point, all you have given is opinion. While interesting, it has historically been a poor method.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight56,

You said, “In Galatians 1:16-20 Paul states that after his conversion he did not meet with the disciples or go to Jerusalem for several years. He is very emphatic about this by stating "...before God, I am not lying!"

However, in Acts 9:19-30, the author states that he went to Jerusalem after his conversion and met with the apostles.

Is the author of Acts lying (I only say this because of Paul's assertion of not lying in Galatians) or is Paul lying in Galatians?


You act as though Acts and Galatians contradict each other, but they don’t. They both say that Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion and met with the apostles. Galatians specifies a length of time, Acts does not. So why do you think these contradict each other? They don’t. I can never understand why this objection comes up so often, because there’s absolutely nothing to it. It smacks of desperation to try to find contradictions where there aren’t any.

You said, “Matthew states that after the crucifixion and resurrection the apostles are told to meet Jesus in Galilee where He gives them the Great Commission. Luke, on the other hand, says that the apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem where they met Jesus and where He ascended to Heaven.

In Matthew the women are told by the angel to relay a message to the disciples to head to go to Galilee, a command which is also included in Mark (from the “young man” in the tomb). In Luke the command to stay in the city is given by Jesus himself, in 24:49. This parallels the command in Acts 1:4, which was given on the day of Ascension. In Acts we discover that this occurred forty days after the Resurrection (Acts 1:3), during which time Jesus appeared to them multiple times. At the end of his Gospel Luke has condensed the chronology – the ascension looks as though it could have happened on the same day as the Resurrection (or rather the next day), but Luke has simply done this as a story-telling device to conclude the first part of his two-part work. The command to go to Galilee was given by an angel on Sunday morning. The command to stay in Jerusalem until the giving of the Holy Spirit was given by Jesus forty days later. There is no problem here.

You said, “Did they get together in Galilee (northern Israel) or in Jerusalem (southern Israel)?

There’s no reason the answer couldn’t be both, and in fact John’s Gospel includes appearances in Jerusalem and in Galilee. Since Luke indicates that there was a 40-day time period involved, there would have been no problem in making the trip from Jerusalem to Galilee and then back again in that time.

It’s one thing if you don’t believe the stories are true, but it’s another thing to try to invent contradictions when there aren’t any, and when there are perfectly plausible scenarios to harmonize the accounts. More importantly, however, the variations in the accounts are best explained as multiple independent sources rather than collusion or reliance on a single source.

Anette Acker said...

DagoodS,

I framed my question carefully: “Where do I find a list of signs a particular writing is theopneustos?” While you have listed criteria, what you haven’t done is stated where this criteria came from. Why this particular criteria as to others?

And I answered that question directly in my first response to you:

"The short answer is that to the best of my knowledge there is no list of signs, but there is still a lot to be said on the subject."

Are you saying that unless I can furnish a "list" that you would deem authoritative, the conversation is over? What kind of a list did you have in mind, by the way?

Obviously, if the Bible is theopneustos, there is nothing more authoritative, so it has to authenticate itself. And it does. As we have discussed, 2 Peter authenticates the letters of Paul as Scripture and 1 Timothy authenticates Luke. And the other books of the Bible authenticate each other in many different ways. I earlier discussed the typology in Genesis, which is one way.

(And I do understand the difference between referring to writings as Scripture, and others as not—this becomes a difficulty with 1 Clement that does NOT refer to any New Testament writings as “Scripture” but consistently refers to the Tanakh as such. Was he not spiritually mature enough?)

Thank you for answering your own question--if they don't characterize something as Scripture, then that is not necessarily implied.

And you might also have identified one reason why 1 Clement is not part of the canon. I'm sorry if you consider this "opinion" (I consider it basic logic), but something cannot be inspired by God if it is inconsistent with the other inspired writings. If 1 Clement does not refer to any part of the NT as Scripture, but it refers to the Tanakh as such, then 1 Clement cannot be theopneustos unless God is divided against Himself.

For example, you listed time. Why is time a criterion?

Time is important when people are recording factual events. If the Gospel accounts had been written in the third century, they would not have been as likely to be accurate, and even if the oral history was carefully preserved, it would not be considered accurate. As you obviously know, skeptics have always wanted to prove that the books of the NT were written late, and even now when the consensus is that they were written in the first century, skeptics try to characterize the narratives as myth.

Can your God only produce so much inspiration, and then his inspiration meter wears out?

If a book is theopneustos, it is written by a prophet of God. The word "apostle" means "one who is sent forth as a messenger." Once God had communicated his message, the canon was closed. That does not mean that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in the lives of God's people.

While I understand you see a cohesive doctrine throughout the writings, there has been a great deal of discussion as to how cohesive. Even as late as Martin Luther, there were questions as to what books align.

Humans disagree, as evidenced by our discussion. This does not mean that there is no such thing as true and false.

Most of the canonical books have never been controversial. And one of the controversial books, Hebrews, was listed as one of the epistles of Paul in a collection dated the end of the 2nd or beginning of 3rd century (P46). There are images of the papyri online.

The fact that Luther didn't immediately see that James was consistent with the rest of the NT (he eventually recognized that James was not teaching works-based salvation), does not mean that it isn't.

So I’ll ask again—WHERE do I find a list of signs a particular writing is theopneustos?

You don't have to yell--I heard you the first two times. :)

Darkknight56 said...

Acts 9 states that after his conversion on the road, Paul went to Damascus and stayed with Judas. Ananias healed his eyes and a few days later he, Paul, met with with the disciples and stayed with them for several days. After preaching for several days Paul slipped out of Damascus and went to Jerusalem and tried to join the disciples.

Now compare that with Galatians 1:16 where he said he didn't consult with any human being. He then said he did not go to Jerusalem but went into Arabia. Later he returned to Damascus. It wasn't until 3 years later he went to Jerusalem to become acquainted with the apostles but only saw Cephas (Peter, I believe) and James. How does that sound identical to you? In Acts it was a few days here, a few days there but in Galatians he's talking about several years so your assertion that Acts does not mention time is not true.

In Matthew, the disciples are told to go to Galilee and meet Jesus, which they do. In Luke they meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus and instead of going to Galilee they return to Jerusalem. By the tempo of both of the stories, it is apparent that the disciples met Jesus within a few days of the resurrection. Did they meet Him in Galilee to the north or in Jerusalem to the south?

DagoodS said...

Anette Acker,

*grin* Didn’t mean to yell…

Alas, whenever I have this discussion surrounding theopneustos I enter a fairly typical conversation. First I am told certain writings are; others are not. Then I ask for a method to make such a determination, and am given such a method, often along the lines of what you have already indicated.

But then I ask why that particular method? (Such as I asked earlier) and it comes down to opinion. I don’t mean “opinion” to be derogatory [I wasn’t quite certain your offering “logic” as a contrary position—opinions are quite logical.]—there simply is no definitive place for a skeptic such as myself to review to see, “Ah…THAT is what is required to be theopneustos” and then look for myself to see if what the theist claims conforms to the method.

I didn’t have any particular “list” in mind. You indicated there was a list—I wondered if I could review such a list to see if it was objective or subjective.

Thanks for the interaction.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight56,

You said, “Now compare that with Galatians 1:16 where he said he didn't consult with any human being. He then said he did not go to Jerusalem but went into Arabia. Later he returned to Damascus. It wasn't until 3 years later he went to Jerusalem to become acquainted with the apostles but only saw Cephas (Peter, I believe) and James. How does that sound identical to you? In Acts it was a few days here, a few days there but in Galatians he's talking about several years so your assertion that Acts does not mention time is not true.

I didn’t say Acts does not mention time, I said it doesn’t specify a length of time. Nice misrepresentation of my statement, though. Just FYI, I try to make my statements as precise and accurate as possible, so changing the wording of them can quite easily change the meaning.

Paul says he went away to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. He doesn’t say how long that lasted. Acts says he was in Damascus, and then “when many days had elapsed” the Jews plotted to kill him. In Acts 10:25 it describes his escape (matching the description Paul gives himself in 2 Cor. 11:33). Then in 9:26 it says “when he came to Jerusalem” the disciples were afraid of him. It doesn’t say how much time elapsed between his escape from Damascus and his going to Jerusalem.

I also never said that Galatians and Acts sound identical. Acts doesn’t mention a trip to Arabia, so obviously it’s not identical. But the fact that it leaves out something that another source includes is not a contradiction except in the skeptic’s playbook where arguments from silence and other fallacies reign supreme.

You said, “In Matthew, the disciples are told to go to Galilee and meet Jesus, which they do. In Luke they meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus and instead of going to Galilee they return to Jerusalem. By the tempo of both of the stories, it is apparent that the disciples met Jesus within a few days of the resurrection. Did they meet Him in Galilee to the north or in Jerusalem to the south?

I already answered this question, and the answer is both. You can’t tell anything by the “tempo” of the stories, because they aren’t giving timelines or chronologies. In fact, as I already pointed out Luke deliberately condensed his chronology at the end of Luke to conclude his gospel with the ascension even though in Acts he reports this as having happened 40 days after the resurrection. In Luke the time frame is not given. Matthew gives no time frame either. You’re trying to fabricate a contradiction by reading in material that isn’t there or else by arguments from silence. Neither of these are legitimate arguments.

You have also misrepresented my statements and have failed to respond to the points which I actually made. Care to try again?

Darkknight56 said...

In Galatians Paul said that after his conversion he immediately went to Arabia. In Acts, it says that he stayed in Damascus after his conversion and preached in the synagogues. Why would Paul say he went immediately to Arabia if Acts says he stayed and preached in Damascus?

If you look at Matthew and Luke's gospels as independent accounts, as you advocate here, then Matthew is saying that the apostles first meeting with Jesus after His death took place in Galilee while Luke's gospel says that the apostles first meeting with Jesus after His death took place in Jerusalem. In both accounts you can see that it is their first meeting with Him because they didn't recognize Him until He revealed Himself to them. If Jerusalem was where they initially met, why didn't they recognize Him when they met in Galilee? And if Galilee was the initial first meeting, why didn't they recognize Him later in Jerusalem?

Vinny said...

Darkknight56,

In Galatians Paul says that when he did go to Jerusalem, he went to get acquainted with Peter and the only other apostle he met was James.

In Acts 9, Paul goes to Jerusalem and tries to join the disciples, "but they were all afraid of him" until Barnabas brought him to the apostles and vouched for him, after which Paul stayed with them, i.e., the apostles and/or the disciples.

It's hard to believe that visit described in Act 9 is the same one that Paul describes in Galatians 1.

Anette Acker said...

DagoodS,

*grin* Didn’t mean to yell…

It's those darn caps. :)

But then I ask why that particular method? (Such as I asked earlier) and it comes down to opinion. I don’t mean “opinion” to be derogatory [I wasn’t quite certain your offering “logic” as a contrary position—opinions are quite logical.]—there simply is no definitive place for a skeptic such as myself to review to see, “Ah…THAT is what is required to be theopneustos” and then look for myself to see if what the theist claims conforms to the method.

Actually, one thing I try to do is answer questions in such a way that skeptics can check for themselves whether the facts I state are true and whether my conclusion logically follows. There is no reason why they have to worry about whether they should trust my Bible interpretation, because they don't need to trust it. All they have to do is demonstrate how I am wrong.

However, I think part of the problem in this particular discussion is that you seem to have a hard time assuming for the sake of argument that theopneustos exists. But if you can do that, then 1 Cor. 2-3 makes sense and John 10:27 makes sense ("My sheep hear My voice"), and it also makes sense that the early Christians trusted the apostles as prophets of God (the Bible says they did miracles like the OT prophets), and by extension, those writings the apostles characterized as Scripture.

But I also pointed out to you ways in which the books of the Bible authenticate each other, and you yourself identified a significant difference between 1 Clement and the canonical books. I also talked about the Muratorian fragment, which mentions most of the canonical books. These are all assertions that you can check if necessary and evaluate logically. I also tried to show you the theological cohesiveness of the Bible, starting with Genesis (but that barely scratches the surface). You can also look up those verses and use your judgment to determine whether the interpretations fit easily or if I'm forcing them.

However, although a lot of skeptics know the Bible and are capable of challenging interpretations that overreach, I find it very hard, if not impossible, to make them understand the spiritual aspects of the Bible. (This is consistent with 1 Cor. 2-3.) You may say that's because it's nonsense, but to me it makes sense. That's the gulf between us and, according to the Bible, only the Holy Spirit can take a person across it.

And to respond to your blog post where you referenced our discussion (why is your blog called Thoughts from a Sandwich, by the way?), why is it so hard to imagine that since Jesus (the "Word" according to John) was fully human and fully divine, the Bible (the Word of God) is also fully human and fully divine?

I've also noticed that skeptics often point to the order in nature and say, "Why would an omnipotent Creator create in this way?" to which I reply, "Why does the fact that nature is rational and orderly mean that a rational and orderly Creator does not exist?"

I think many skeptics have this idea that an omnipotent God would have to do things very differently from what we see in nature, when in fact the Bible says that God's attributes are revealed in nature. So it would make sense then that any Creator of this universe, who obviously works through His creatures in the creative process, would also work through His creatures in communicating His Word. That seems to be the way He does things.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight56,

You said, "In Galatians Paul said that after his conversion he immediately went to Arabia.

Interesting. You must be using the NIV, because that's the only English translation I can see that says "immediately." The word "immediately" is not in the Greek or the six other English translations I looked at. The Greek simply reads, "alla apelthon eis Arabian kai palin hupestrepsa eis Damaskon" - "but I went into Arabia and once more returned to Damascus." I don't know why the NIV says immediately, but Paul did not say that.

You said, "In Acts, it says that he stayed in Damascus after his conversion and preached in the synagogues."

It says he stayed at first, but it doesn't say he stayed the whole time after that. That's you reading into it. This is a classic argument from silence. Because it doesn't say that he left, you infer that it says he stayed. It talks about him staying with the disciples for several days and preaching in the synagogues (9:19b-22). Then in v. 23 it says, "when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him." It does not say that he stayed in Damascus that whole time, and Paul's testimony indicates that he was in Damascus, went to Arabia for an unspecified length of time, and returned to Damascus. This is just the tired skeptical strategy of trying to make a contradiction out of silence. Can't you people find anything better to do with your time?

You said, "In both accounts you can see that it is their first meeting with Him because they didn't recognize Him until He revealed Himself to them."

Say what? Matthew says nothing of the kind. Luke says this about the Emmaus two, and then says the disciples thought it was a ghost at first (but doesn't say they didn't recognize him). So this is simply false. Thus your last two questions are erroneous.

John Fraser said...

Vinny,

Not that I expect any response from you, but just to point out more of your silliness, you said "It's hard to believe that visit described in Act 9 is the same one that Paul describes in Galatians 1."

And your evidence is because the disciples were at first afraid of Paul (given that he had previously been fond of throwing them in prison)? In Acts 9:27-28, Luke writes that "Barnabas, however, took charge of him, introduced him to the apostles, and explained how the Lord had appeared to him and spoken to him on his journey, and how he had preached fearlessly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Saul now started to go round with them in Jerusalem, preaching fearlessly in the name of the Lord."

If your only argument as to why it's "hard to believe" that these are describing the same visit are that Paul doesn't mention that the disciples were intially afraid of him, that's a pathetic argument. Besides being YET ANOTHER argument from silence (the skeptic's stock-in-trade), why would Paul write that to the Galatians anyhow? It all got ironed out and Paul was accepted by the apostles - in both Acts AND Paul's own testimony.

Thus Paul and Acts agree on all of the main details - his conversion took place around Damascus (implied by his statement in Galatians that he "returned" to Damascus after his trip to Arabia), and that he later went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles (in Galatians he specifies that he met with Peter and James). If any other two historical sources agreed in this way, nobody would think to question them. The invention of contradictions based on arguments from silence is such an ingrained skeptical habit that it's no wonder Anne Rice declared the field of skeptical NT studies to be a scandal.

Vinny said...

John,

In Galatians 1, Paul describes a visit he made to get acquainted with a single apostle in which he happened to meet a second one as well.

Acts 9, on the other hand, describes how Paul came to be accepted by the community of believers in Jerusalem. It seems to have involved contact with quite a few members to that community.

The two visits seem to differ in both purpose and number of contacts.

BTW, since you don't seem to know what an argument from silence is, it might be better if you didn't use the term.

DagoodS said...

John Fraser,

Darkknight56 responded to the resurrection appearances, but I wanted to flesh it out a bit. I would disagree with your statement regarding “tempo” and “chronologies” especially if we take John into account.

The two strongest possibilities are:

1) The accounts contradict with Matthew & Mark emphasizing a Galilee appearance, Luke emphasizing a Jerusalem appearance, John 20 giving an unknown locale and John 21 giving a Galilee appearance.

2) The accounts do not contradict with the disciples performing bizarre actions, contrary to Jesus’ instructions, and running all over from Judea to Galilee with little explanation.

Here are our key anchor points:

John 21:14 says the seaside Galilean appearance was the third time Jesus appeared to the disciples. John 20:19 has an appearance with ten disciples (all but Thomas and Judas) on Resurrection Sunday. John 20:26 has the second appearance with Thomas present.

Luke 24:33-36 recounts Jesus appearing to “the eleven” on Resurrection Sunday in Jerusalem. (see vs. 13) Matthew 28:16 has Jesus appearing to “the eleven” in Galilee. (Which would have to be the fourth appearance under the Johannine chronology.)

Thus under the best case scenario for inerrancy, the bizarre comedic events as follows (skipping the women for the moment):

1. Angels at Tomb say, “Jesus is going to Galilee. See Him there.”
2. So the Disciples do the exact opposite by staying in Jerusalem.

(2a. Contra. John 20:10 does have the disciples “returning to their homes” on Sunday morning, which would be in Galilee, and then has Jesus appear to them at an unknown location. However, if one wants to fit Luke into this occasion, it would seem they would have to put John’s unknown location back in Jerusalem. Meaning the Disciples went to Galilee Sunday Morning, but returned to Jerusalem Sunday evening.)

3. Jesus appears to the Disciples recounted in Luke 24 & John 20:19 (Although Luke says this is “the eleven” when there are only ten. Paul calls it “the Twelve” when there are only ten or eleven.)

4. Jesus says “Stay in Jerusalem.”

5. Disciples stay in Jerusalem for a week.

6. About 8 days later, Jesus appears to disciples again. John 20:26.


7. Now the disciples leave Jerusalem and go back to Galilee to do some fishing. Jesus appears again. John 21.

8. Disciples see Jesus on the mountain in Galilee. Matt. 28. Some doubted (!)

You have the disciples being told to go to Galilee…so they stay in Jerusalem. Told to stay in Jerusalem…so they go to Galilee.

You may sell this to another inerrantist, but any historian would not buy it.

DagoodS said...

Anette Acker,

We use designation for clarification. Separate items into living or non-living, etc. One such designation is to declare some writing theopneustos presumably to the exclusion of all other writing as being theopneustos. Much like designating some writing as “fiction” to the exclusion of all other writing being “non-fiction” to catch my drift.

So I look to two things:

1) What is theopneustos?
2) How do we determine what writing is designated as such, and what is not?

Both questions have traditionally been difficult to answer. I was not claiming there is or is not theopneustos writing in our discussion (actually I was presuming it arguendo.) I was skipping to the second step.

As to my current blog entry, I am not asking God to do or not do anything, I apologize for any miscommunication in that regard. Instead, I was looking at the methods utilized by those arguing for what God can/cannot do, and notice a discrepancy in that sometimes they employ a method of “God restricted by human limitation” and at other times claim what we see would likewise be a typical human limitation to NOT be, because it is done by God.

Darkknight56 said...

Interesting. You must be using the NIV, because that's the only English translation I can see that says "immediately." The word "immediately" is not in the Greek or the six other English translations I looked at.

The New King James version says:

16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

In your quotation you cut off a part at the start of your quote. The point Paul is making is that after his conversion he didn't talk to (confer with) anyone but went instead to Arabia. Acts, on the other hand, states that he stayed in Damascus, preached at the synagogues and talked to many people.

If at that time your church only had the Book of Acts you'd be left with the impression that Paul stayed in Damascus and preached and talked to many people and didn't go to Arabia.

However, if you were a member of one of the churches in Galatia, Paul would leave you with the impression that after his conversion he left Damascus without talking to anyone and went to Arabia.

So, which is it? Did he go to Arabia without first talking to people or did he stay in Damascus and talk to many people?

Darkknight56 said...

Keeping in mind that the bible you know wasn't put together in its present form until the 5th century or so it meant that some churches may only have had Matthew's gospel and not Luke's while others had only Luke's and not Matthews, especially in the first and second century.

This means that those who only had Matthew's gospel were under the impression that the apostles first met Christ after the resurrection in Galilee. Those who only had Luke's gospel, as well as the book of Acts, were under the impression that the apostles met up with him in Jerusalem.

So, who would be right? Where did the apostles first meet up with Christ after the resurrection. Was it in Galilee as per Matthew or was it in Jerusalem per Luke?

Darkknight56 said...

It talks about him staying with the disciples for several days and preaching in the synagogues (9:19b-22). Then in v. 23 it says, "when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him." It does not say that he stayed in Damascus that whole time, and Paul's testimony indicates that he was in Damascus, went to Arabia for an unspecified length of time, and returned to Damascus.

While I agree with your basic interpretation of Acts, Paul states that after his conversion he left Damascus for Arabia without talking to anyone, which is contrary to your summary of Acts. He also states that he didn't meet the apostles for several years (not days) later.

Did he go to Arabia after his conversion without conferring with anyone or did he stay in Damascus and talk to many people?

John Fraser said...

DaGoodS,

You should know that I’ve taught classes on this particular topic (the differences in the post-resurrection narratives). You're simply not using common sense.

You said, “2) The accounts do not contradict with the disciples performing bizarre actions, contrary to Jesus’ instructions, and running all over from Judea to Galilee with little explanation.


There’s nothing bizarre, and they don’t go “running all over from Judea to Galilee with little explanation.” This is sheer silliness.
You said, “1. Angels at Tomb say, “Jesus is going to Galilee. See Him there.”
2. So the Disciples do the exact opposite by staying in Jerusalem.


Yes, exactly. Remember, the message was given to the women, and according to Luke’s account, the disciples didn’t believe the women. Far from being comedic as you suggest, this sounds like real life. The disciples are confused, having doubts, not understanding what’s going on, and being full of fear after having seen their leader crucified in public. Luke includes these details.

Matthew seems to be painting a somewhat more flattering picture of the disciples – they get the command to go and just go. I think it’s possible that Matthew is skipping over some of the more embarrassing parts for the disciples.

3. Jesus appears to the Disciples recounted in Luke 24 & John 20:19 (Although Luke says this is “the eleven” when there are only ten. Paul calls it “the Twelve” when there are only ten or eleven.)

“The Twelve” was something like an official title for the original apostles. The twelfth place was filled by Matthias, who was most likely one of the others present for the appearance on the first night mentioned by Luke (Luke 24:33), since that was one of the credentials for candidates for “replacement apostle” (Acts 1:21-22). So Jesus did appear to all 12 apostles (the surviving 11 plus Matthias). Luke wrote “the Eleven” because there wasn’t a replacement yet for Judas. I’m happy to grant that there is a lingering question about whether Luke meant that all of the eleven were present on the first night. Luke has condensed the chronology and conflated at least two appearances into one to end his gospel, and his concern was obviously not to write a police report of who exactly was there. When John recounts the third appearance “to the disciples,” it looks like only 7 of them were present – just enough for a quorum, perhaps!

4. Jesus says “Stay in Jerusalem.”

5. Disciples stay in Jerusalem for a week.


I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I already covered the command to stay in the city in Luke, which in Acts we learn was actually given 40 days after the resurrection. Luke has condensed the chronology to end his gospel with the ascension. I’ve pointed this out at least twice.

6. About 8 days later, Jesus appears to disciples again. John 20:26.

Why is this a problem?

7. Now the disciples leave Jerusalem and go back to Galilee to do some fishing. Jesus appears again. John 21.

Okay, it doesn’t say they went to Galilee to go fishing, it says they were in Galilee and decided to go fishing. Or rather, Peter decided to go fishing and the others went with him. Why is this so absurd, especially if Jesus had told them to go to Galilee and they finally got the message?

8. Disciples see Jesus on the mountain in Galilee. Matt. 28. Some doubted (!)

Again, what’s the problem? That it says some of them doubted? That seems to me like again a very realistic portrayal.

You may sell this to another inerrantist, but any historian would not buy it.

You mean a historian who doesn’t believe in miracles I presume! I’m not really sure what you mean by “inerrantist.” I don’t use that term much myself because it imports too many modern concepts onto literature which was written in a completely different context.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight56,

You said, “ In your quotation you cut off a part at the start of your quote.

I didn’t cut anything off, what are you talking about?

You said, “The point Paul is making is that after his conversion he didn't talk to (confer with) anyone but went instead to Arabia. Acts, on the other hand, states that he stayed in Damascus, preached at the synagogues and talked to many people.

Yes, but Paul doesn’t say he went to Arabia immediately (NIV notwithstanding). So you’re reading into both Paul AND Acts to make this into a contradiction, but it is once again an argument from silence.


You said, “If at that time your church only had the Book of Acts you'd be left with the impression that Paul stayed in Damascus and preached and talked to many people and didn't go to Arabia.

So? Is there some rule that says that unless Acts includes all of the details that it therefore must be wrong?


You said, “However, if you were a member of one of the churches in Galatia, Paul would leave you with the impression that after his conversion he left Damascus without talking to anyone and went to Arabia.

I don’t think so – in Galatians Paul is clearly only talking about his relationship with the apostles and the fact that he didn’t go to consult with them right away. I think anyone reading the whole context with some common sense (rather than trying to find contradictions where there aren’t any) would see that.


You said, “So, which is it? Did he go to Arabia without first talking to people or did he stay in Damascus and talk to many people?

I think this one has been answered already a few times. Give it up.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight 56,

You said, "Keeping in mind that the bible you know wasn't put together in its present form until the 5th century or so it meant that some churches may only have had Matthew's gospel and not Luke's while others had only Luke's and not Matthews, especially in the first and second century."

Well, the Gospels were being grouped together in their current configuration much earlier, at least by the second century. However, it's true that many churches wouldn't have had them all.

You said, "So, who would be right? Where did the apostles first meet up with Christ after the resurrection. Was it in Galilee as per Matthew or was it in Jerusalem per Luke?"

Luke and John both give very explicit chronological indicators that the appearance in Jerusalem happened on the evening after the first Easter Sunday. See for example John 20:19, Luke 24:21 and 24:33. Matthew, on the other hand, gives no chronological indicators to say when the appearance in Galilee happened. So Matthew has simply omitted the appearances in Jerusalem to the disciples (he includes one to the women) and just jumps straight to Galilee and the Great Commission.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight56,

This attempted contradiction between Galatians and Acts is getting quite thin. I'm not going to respond after this one on this particular issue.

You said, "While I agree with your basic interpretation of Acts, Paul states that after his conversion he left Damascus for Arabia without talking to anyone, which is contrary to your summary of Acts. He also states that he didn't meet the apostles for several years (not days) later.

In Galatians Paul didn't say that he didn't talk to anyone in Damascus - that wouldn't even make sense. Do you think he was claiming that after his conversion he didn't utter a word to anyone at all about anything? No, he says, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me . . ."

Paul is establishing his independent authority as an apostle, and showing that he wasn't under the authority of any other human being including the other apostles. He was on the same level as they. So he's saying that he didn't check his message out with anyone in authority until later when he went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles. You are trying to make it sound like he said not a word to anyone in Damascus, but that does violence to not only the words Paul actually used ("consult" is not synonymous with "talk", and one can still preach without consulting with anyone first - I do it all the time!) but also to the context of the entire passage.

What you need to do is try to interpret the passage fairly, not simply keep trying to manufacture contradictions. You'll never get anywhere that way.

Darkknight56 said...

I can understand why you are reluctant to provide answers. I can see why you would rather resort to ridicule in order to get anyone to stop asking questions and inquire about things of the bible.

Christians are just taught to accept what ever they are told. Just believe is a sign of faith and of being a good christian. Besides, it is embarrassing to tell a non-christian you don't know.

Strangely enough, none of my questions was addressed specifically to you so I'm not sure why you felt the need to ridicule me or provide non-answers to my questions. Thanks for playing, though.

Anette Acker said...

DagoodS:

1) What is theopneustos?

I think that to say that Scripture is God-breathed means that by the Holy Spirit is communicates exactly what God wants it to communicate. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

That is the purpose of the Scriptures, and it doesn't necessarily means that every detail must be literally correct. The differences in the four Gospels establish their independence from each other, which is important in determining the historical accuracy of important facts that support the resurrection.

And the spiritual message is more important than some of the insignificant factual details anyway. For example, in Mark 11:13-14, the text says that Jesus was hungry and He saw a fig tree in the distance and went to see if He could find figs on it, but He found nothing but leaves because it was not the season for figs. So He cursed it.

If it turns out that this was not an irrational hunger-induced outburst like the text implies, does that mean that this is not theopneustos? No, because this illutrates an important point. Right after Jesus curses the fig tree He turns the tables in the temple, reacting to the absence of good fruit among His people (of course this criticism can also be directed at the church today), and then when Jesus and the disciples leave the temple they note that the tree had wilted. This illustrates the parable of the fig tree in Luke 13:6-9. So the point is what God is communicating, not necessarily the factual details. In this instance, it doesn't really matter if Jesus was actually hungry and if He expected to find figs on the tree when it was out of season. What is clear is that He cursed the tree while on His way to the temple and that has symbolic significance.

Anette Acker said...

2) How do we determine what writing is designated as such, and what is not?

This is a question that I have already addressed from several different angles: First, I mentioned the Muratorian fragment that lists just about all the books of the NT canon. Second, I said that a couple of books mention other NT books as Scripture, which indicates that they were known as such from the very beginning. And third, I discussed how the theological cohesiveness is one way in which the different books of the Bible authenticate each other.

Both questions have traditionally been difficult to answer.

Why do you say this when all but a handful of books of the NT have always been recognized as inspired? And my understanding is that the main reason that handful was controversial was because the authorship could not be determined.

I was not claiming there is or is not theopneustos writing in our discussion (actually I was presuming it arguendo.) I was skipping to the second step.

But if you are going to assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as theopneustos, then you might as well assume that 1 John 5:6 is right when it says, "It is the Spirit who testifies," and therefore those who have received the Spirit would recognize the inspired writings. Why separate theopneustos from everything else the Bible says about the Holy Spirit? The prophets in the Bible would certainly recognize the other inspired writings because the Spirit within them would testify to their authenticity.

As to my current blog entry, I am not asking God to do or not do anything, I apologize for any miscommunication in that regard. Instead, I was looking at the methods utilized by those arguing for what God can/cannot do, and notice a discrepancy in that sometimes they employ a method of “God restricted by human limitation” and at other times claim what we see would likewise be a typical human limitation to NOT be, because it is done by God.

The Bible always shows the tension between the supernatural and the natural, even in Jesus. His humanity meant the limitations of a human body even though He was “all the fullness of Deity in bodily form.” And after He raised the little girl from the dead, He told her parents to give her something to eat. There are many other examples of this tension in the OT and the NT. So in this context, it makes sense that God would inspire the human authors to write the narratives early enough for the factual details to be correct.

And the reason why I said what I did about skeptics having certain ideas of what an omnipotent God would do was not so much because of your blog post, but because they have often expressed those ideas. That is, they seem to see a dichotomy between God and nature or God and science. But the Bible reveals a God who often works through natural processes. Even though Jesus was supernaturally conceived, He developed like any other infant and was just as vulnerable.

John Fraser said...

Darkknight56,

You said, "I can understand why you are reluctant to provide answers. I can see why you would rather resort to ridicule in order to get anyone to stop asking questions and inquire about things of the bible."

Are you talking to me? I answered every single one of your comments that appeared to be addressed to me in considerable detail. And what do you call ridicule? I'm not trying to get anyone to stop asking questions - I always encourage people to ask more questions. I spend a lot of my time trying to get Christians to ask more questions, because I find that many of them don't ask enough, especially if they have grown up in the church. I wasn't raised as a Christians but came to faith after my first year of college, so I think it's more natural for me to ask lots of questions. That's how I got there in the first place.

You said, "Christians are just taught to accept what ever they are told. Just believe is a sign of faith and of being a good christian. Besides, it is embarrassing to tell a non-christian you don't know."

Unfortunately you're right in many cases. I have challenged many Christians to not do this, but to actually examine their faith and be willing to ask hard questions. That's how you increase in knowledge.

You said, "Strangely enough, none of my questions was addressed specifically to you so I'm not sure why you felt the need to ridicule me or provide non-answers to my questions. Thanks for playing, though.

You made several comments that appeared to be addressing the content of what I had said. If it was a comment that didn't have a specific addressee on it, I thought it would be okay for me to respond. Is that a problem, or would you rather I not? If my responses are too challenging for you, I think that's your problem, not mine. But again, where do you think I ridiculed you?

Rather than just saying that my responses are "non-answers," I think you ought to actually try to respond to the counterarguments. If you think there's something wrong with my answers, then you should try to show specifically what is wrong with them. That's what I try to do. Then when my interlocutor responds with a counterargument, I try to rebut that. If you can't respond, then you don't have to. But I'm puzzled by your complaints here.

Darkknight56 said...

You said I was desperate to find contradictions where there aren't any.

I can never understand why this objection comes up so often, because there’s absolutely nothing to it. It smacks of desperation to try to find contradictions where there aren’t any.

You accuse me of inventing contradictions.

It’s one thing if you don’t believe the stories are true, but it’s another thing to try to invent contradictions when there aren’t any, and when there are perfectly plausible scenarios to harmonize the accounts.

I have a playbook now?

Are personal attacks and conspiracy theories your way of intimidating people into not questioning Scriptures?

But the fact that it leaves out something that another source includes is not a contradiction except in the skeptic’s playbook where arguments from silence and other fallacies reign supreme.

but it is once again an argument from silence.

Galatians is a group of gentile churches to whom Paul is trying to establish his credentials. In Galatians 1:16 he states that the reason God showed His Son to Paul was so that Paul would preach Him among the gentiles. He states "my immediate response was not to consult any human being...but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus." The ellipsis is just where he reiterates the fact he did not consult with anyone. He ends this part by stating that "I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie." (Galatians 1:20)

Now, contrast that with Acts where, after his conversion, he stays in Damascus and preaches to the Jews.

You act as though Acts and Galatians contradict each other, but they don’t. They both say that Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion and met with the apostles.

Acts states that after his conversion he stayed in Damascus, preached to the Jews and many days later went to Jerusalem. Galatians states that he went to Arabia, came back to Damascus, and 3 years later went to Jerusalem. Days versus years later, different time scales altogether.

In Galatians Paul didn't say that he didn't talk to anyone in Damascus - that wouldn't even make sense. Do you think he was claiming that after his conversion he didn't utter a word to anyone at all about anything? No, he says, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me . . ."

You say that it wouldn't make sense that he didn't talk to anyone then you quote him saying he didn't talk with (consult) anyone.

("consult" is not synonymous with "talk", and one can still preach without consulting with anyone first - I do it all the time!)

Consult is synonymous with talk. If I consult with others in a non-technical way, similar to the people at that time, I would be talking with them.