christian@topaz.UUCP (02/27/87)
Hi, Vasu, you really get the thoughts rolling! :-) In article <9530@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> ln63wmp@sdcc7.UUCP (Vasu Murty) writes: >all our knowledge of the Resurrection comes entirely >from the gospel accounts; if they are contradictory, how do we know they >are to be believed? The example that comes to mind is this: several people witness the same accident. Someone puts all of their accounts together only to find they differ. Does that mean they were all wrong, or that anyone was wrong? Say one person saw 3 people in the car, another saw 5. Could it be *when* they looked that made the difference? One person says the bumper was completely crushed, another said it had dents. Could it be how they define their terms, or what they thought was important, that made the difference? One person saw the car on fire, another didn't. Could it be that the one saw `smoke' and "saw" fire, and the other saw `steam' and totally ignored it? This is how I look at the Scriptures - adding the Divinely inspired aspect thru faith. I see several authors, each with a different viewpoint, and different vantage point. For instance, Mark's was probably the first Gospel written; the others used him probably as a sort of template. Luke was a doctor, giving him a different perspective than say Matthew who appears to have a lot of Jewish rabitical (spelling?) background. And John's Gospel was probably not even written by the Apostle John, but most likely by as many as 3 different people who were probably his students or part of his ministry. [It was common practice in those days to write something considered important by the author in the name of an important person to give it credence and importance to the reader.] These authors had different and similar points important to each of them, that are reflected in their writings. This, combined with the different `vantage points', would easily lead to similarities and discrepencies in details. My faith in the Divine inspiration of the writers tells me the message behind the words - the fact that God loves me, Jesus died for me and rose from the dead, and that He will return - is what is important. Whether it was `3 or 5 people in the car' doesn't mean either witness was wrong or that the truth they believe they are speaking is actually false. Maybe to God, just the fact that `people were in the car' was all that mattered to Him. Not the example you were probably expecting :-) . >... I'm willing to >consider the possibility that the gospel accounts are theological portraits >if everyone else is equally willing to consider the possibility that the >story of the Resurrection might be a fabrication. To deny that Jesus rose from the dead, is to deny the basis of Christian faith. Faith means there is something I can't prove. It is something I choose to believe because of my hope for the future. A hope that can only exist if Jesus truly rose from the dead. If He didn't, Christianity is a farce. If He did, that hope I mentioned is something special, and worth accepting Jesus as my Saviour. It all depends on what you hope for. And since it is something you hope for, that means it is something in the future, something you don't have yet, something you can only believe will exist - this belief is called faith. >... How could he >be of Davidic descent "according to the flesh", if Joseph was not his >physical father? Joseph accepted Jesus as his son. By Jewish and Roman tradition and law, here referring to the Roman rite of adoption, that held all the weight in the world. >... Another problem occurs in the actual wording of Isaiah 7:14. >Hebrew scholars maintain Here is probably a point of who you choose to believe is right. >... (Many of the so-called "prophecies" that refer to >Jesus in the Old Testament have been examined at length by Jewish > scholars, ... Many Old Testament prophesies were probably written after the actual occurence. This belief is held by many Bible scholars. This was a writing style employed by some authors to lead a sense of importance and truth to a point they later made. Have you looked at the prophesies that Jesus' life and death (read the Psalm describing in detail how Jesus would die) fulfilled? >... It really doesn't help matters to assert that "Jesus is God", >especially in light of the fact that he called himself the "son of man" >(as Ezekiel did!). The root behind the word man is `prefect'. Jesus is the Son of Perfection. That is probably why we are called mankind - `kind of perfect' :-) . >... And in the gospel of Mark, when he was addressed as "good >teacher", he replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good >but One, that is, God." This in no way denies His Oneness with God in the Trinity - more faith, here. For that matter, the Book of Revelations says no one is to be worshipped but God alone; yet Jesus let Himself be knelt before and praised (worshipped) by some of those He healed. A sign of His Divine nature --- His being God. >... Even in the gospel of John, where Jesus claims >"oneness" with God (John 10:31), he also claims it is something that can >be achieved by others (John 17:21..."as You and I are one, let them also be >one in us."). This is where the idea of being adopted children of God comes in. And remember the importance and powers implied behind adoption as it was understood at the time or these writings. >... He also admitted, "I do nothing of myself, my Father is >greater than I." (John 14:1-2), and was called a servant of God (Acts 3:13). I see Jesus giving us the examples of obedience and a servant's heart. God won't ask us to do what He wouldn't do Himself. >He also identified himself with the prophets beforehand ("no prophet is >honored in his home town") and in Luke, he compared his ministry to that of >Jonah, as one of calling people to repentance. Neither denies His being God. They describe the work He did. > As a final note, in Matthew 28:17 we're told that some of Jesus' >disciples, even seeing him face to face after the Resurrection, still >doubted. >... Vasu Murty My version of the scripture (New American Bible - the Roman Catholic one) shows Matthew 28:17 as: "At the sight of him, those who had entertained doubts fell down in homage." This tells me they had come to believe in Jesus as the risen Christ. Here again He is worshipped - another sign of His being God. Thanks for the questions - they make me dig back in my mind to different speakers and articles. They also lead me to ask why I believe in Jesus as God and Saviour. Seems the bottom line for me is the hope of the unseen future; a hope held by faith in Jesus as the risen Christ and Savior, and in His love for me and you. God Bless, Mike Andrews (PTL) [In general I discourage this style of point by point response. Vasu's message was an excellent example of how to deal with the issues raised by other people without spending all your space quoting them. I've let this one pass, since it is does introduce substantial new material. But the point by point style tends to lead to argument for argument's sake, so I have a tendency to reject such postings. Of course I mean no criticsm of the content of this posting. --clh]
christian@topaz.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <9686@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Mike Andrews attempts to address some questions raised by Vasu Murty. Vasu points out extensive contradictions in the differing versions of the Resurrection, and asks why we should believe them since they differ. Mike seems to accept Vasu's observations, but tries to explain it away as unintentional differences in perspective of the authors. But that's not good enough. I might equally well point out that almost all folk stories exist in similarly varying versions, yet we don't have faith that they are all true. Plain and simple, Mike doesn't have any valid reason, he has only unjustified faith. Faith which is so worthless that he might just as well believe in the Ramayana or any other religious story. It's also amusing that Mike ignores Vasu's point that the differing versions don't even agree on the site of the assumption, despite the fact that Christian fundamentalists loudly and frequently claim site-accuracy of the Bible as evidence for its overall accuracy. Which brings up the question of accuracy. Mike seems to think that these differences don't disprove the Bible's "truth". In the sense of the Bible being literally true, they do with absolute certainty. So we have to ask what vaguer sense of truth Mike has in mind? Just how abstract do we need to get? Is the resurrection a metaphor? Not to Mike. For him, "To deny that Jesus rose from the dead, is to deny the basis of Christian faith." The heck with truth, it's the puny little faith of Christians that matter. Fooey. It's the same kind of faith that demands (for only about half of the Christians in the US) that Genesis is literally true. On that basis, I'd say that the resurrection could be disposed of as a tenet of faith as easily as Creationism, resulting in Christians almost indistinguishable from today's. Mike also mentions that John's Gospel was probably written by other people and ascribed to John. There's a word for that: forgery. But that sort of word wouldn't gibe with Mike's faith, now would it? Finally, the moderator writes: > [In general I discourage this style of point by point response. > Vasu's message was an excellent example of how to deal with the issues > raised by other people without spending all your space quoting them. > I've let this one pass, since it is does introduce substantial new > material. But the point by point style tends to lead to argument > for argument's sake, so I have a tendency to reject such postings. > Of course I mean no criticsm of the content of this posting. --clh] It looks as if you're making exceptions for Christians. But frankly, I have to disagree with discouragement of point-by-point argument, because it makes critical analysis of counterarguments much clumsier. If the infrequency of m.r.c postings at my site is typical, I'd say that there's so little going on in this group that you might be rejecting too much. -- "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." George Bernard Shaw Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh [No, I'm not making an exception for Christians. I am not rejecting large numbers of articles. I find that a reminder when I start seeing the >'s build up is usually sufficient. The only recent rejection due to excessive >'s was when there was a second article submitted at the same time that made the same point in a more organized fashion. One recognized purpose of moderators is to reduce duplication. What I'm really trying to do is get people to put a bit of thought into organizing what they have to say. In the old net.religion.christian and the current talk.religion.misc, we see arguments that proceed roughly at the same level as verbal discussion. A bull session is fun now and then, but the original intent of this group was to see if we could have something at a slighly higher level. Of course I don't intend to compete with an academic journal. But I am trying to provide an alternative to the talk groups. It is clear that it takes effort to organize what you have to say, rather than just annotating another posting. However I think the benefits of this effort are apparent to everyone. Of course if the readership disagrees, or people are not willing to put the necessary time into their writing, then another approach may be needed. --clh]