Could one think/do these things and still be a "Christian"? That's what these two sharp minds, Gregg Frazer & Kristo Miettinen, (both of them orthodox Christian) are debating. You can read the debate here. And here is a taste from Frazer's latest comment [Note: LaM stands for one of the two "Jefferson Bibles"]:
I've just finished reading LaM and I could not find the passages in which Jesus' ability to forgive others' sins is mentioned! Which verses are included? Mark 2:5-10? Luke 5:20-24? Matthew 9:2-5? I also have an index of all the Scripture references in LaM and none of these passages is listed there, either. More on this below.
My claim about percentages of books is NOT specious because you claimed that TJ believed that there was "something special about the Bible" -- not that there was something special about the "Gospels." Spending lots of time with the small portion of the Bible you agree with or like is hardly a commitment to it. If one reads "eat, drink, and be merry" every night before bed or every morning, does that mean that person believes “the Bible” to be special?
Of course, the 39 books of the Old Testament are also about Christ. But, either way, do not accuse me of banalities if you cannot say what you mean. If you mean that TJ thought the small portion of the Bible that he personally agreed with and that survived his scissors was "special" to him, then say so and then I'll agree with you and you'll be happy and will not have to resort to name-calling.
[...]
Re the supposedly “clear Christianity of what is left” and the “blatant Christianity” in the LaM: Jefferson removed anything which was “blatant” and “clear” – you see Christianity in it because you choose to do so. There is precious little that is inherently “Christian” in what survived the scissors. Let’s look at your examples (I don’t know if I’ll take time to deal with all of them, as there are so many and I have work to do – but I’ll start at the beginning of your list and see how far I get).
GENERAL COMMENT: most of what TJ included could simply be taken as moralisms, clever turns of phrases, and exhortations to general spirituality (as per Deepak Chopra) without the crucial lynchpins which he removes from almost every passage. I.e. without the total context.
On most, I’m going to write as if I were a nonbeliever looking at the passages rationally and without the contextual parts which were removed throughout.
Lk. 22:67-70 [MINUS 69]
TJ includes their question and his verbal exchange with them in which, in the translation TJ uses, Jesus merely says that THEY say He is the Christ – He doesn’t. That can be taken as mere acknowledgment of why He’s on trial – that’s their charge against Him. The crucial verse is verse 69 in which he makes a specific claim about the Son of Man being seated at God’s right hand – but TJ cuts that out.
John 18:33-36
This can be taken simply as Jesus defending Himself by assuring Pilate that He is no threat to Pilate or Rome – which is what Pilate was concerned about. What Jesus says next can be taken as claim to a philosophical kingdom (like Plato’s Republic) – a kingdom of “truth.” To someone without the parts of the Gospels cut out, that’s what the kingdom “not of this world” would logically mean.
Lk. 19:9-10
Jesus does not present HIMSELF as the source of salvation – rather that Zaccheus is a Jew (son of Abraham) who has come to his moral senses. He implies that He is the Son of MAN – but never the Son of God (those parts are cut). Why wouldn’t TJ like the title Son of Man? – that’s all he thought Jesus was. The Son of Man seeks those Jews who are not living morally and tries to “save” them by getting them to do good – not through any special commitment to HIM.
John 12:20-24 [MINUS ½ OF VERSE 23]
Unlike what you say in your original post, Jesus does NOT claim to be the Son of Man Who is to be glorified in TJ’s version, because he cut out the part of verse 23 in which Jesus said that. What is left is a standard truism about the reproduction of wheat. There is no connection left between Jesus and the grain of wheat – so there is no connection to HIM bringing life to others.
Mark 12:1-9
YOU say that the parable makes Jesus’ role that of the Son of God – but that is NOT said in the parts of this passage surviving TJ’s scissors. He conveniently cuts out verses 10-11 which connect Him to Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah (Christ) – and which caused the Jewish leaders to seek to seize Him (another verse cut out).
Luke 7:37-43
Let me skip to one more – the one you keep repeating. You keep saying that Jesus forgave other people’s sins in TJ’s version and you gave this passage as an example. That is very curious because the verse in which Jesus does say “her sins, which are many, have been forgiven” is verse 47 – BUT TJ’S ACCOUNT ENDS AT VERSE 46! He cut out the part in which Jesus makes this claim!
I hope this is enough to demonstrate that YOU ARE READING CHRISTIAN CONTENT INTO WHAT’S LEFT IN THESE PASSAGES, but there is nothing INHERENTLY Christian without the parts TJ left out! Without those critical parts, a rational person would simply view Jesus in the way that TJ wants them to view Him – as a good man with interesting ideas and promoting morality. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that one could better see “clear Christianity” and “blatant Christianity” in the scraps on TJ’s floor than in the sections glued to the page!
So, to answer your question as to why TJ left in so much clear and blatant Christianity if he were not seeking for the truth, the answer is: HE DIDN’T. Pure and simple.
Finally, to argue that TJ is honestly trying to determine Jesus’ identity via “style and spirit” might have some merit IF TJ were an acknowledged expert in “style and spirit” in Greek – AND, if the one making the determinations of style and spirit didn’t have his own agenda coming into the project (which he admits that he had). If someone who were impartial and didn’t have a dog in the race were to attempt this (if such a person could exist), then it might have some validity. But Jefferson admittedly came to the project with convictions about Jesus – and he was determined to affirm those. Maybe just to make himself feel vindicated or more secure in his infidelity.
This is why “higher criticism” is such a disaster and always confirms what those undertaking it believed to begin with. “Surprise! Surprise! The Bible teaches what I’ve said all along!” It’s inevitably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most are not quite as insolent as Jefferson, though – they only proceed AS IF they had cut up the Bible – they don’t actually DO it.
39 comments:
***"My bottom line after studying Jefferson is that he considered himself a "Christian" and was a unitarian of the Socinian bent (meaning he thought Jesus 100% man, not God at all). Further he disbelieved in every tenet of orthodoxy. He also took his razor to the Bible and cut out that which he did not believe was legitimate revelation (which was quite a bit!)."***Let's also not forget that Jefferson was a RESTORATIONIST:
"The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages." (Thomas Jefferson, The writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, H.A. Washington, ed., pp210, 257).
"I trust with you that the genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye."
Brad:
If "restoring" something means to cut away that which makes it distinctive in order to produce a result that one prefers and would have done instead, then Jefferson was a restorationist.
He is a restorationist in the sense that someone who decided that the Mona Lisa would look more authentic with a big grin in place of her enigmatic smile -- and who then took acetone to the original and painted on his own preferred smile -- is a restorationist.
Or in the sense that someone "restoring" an old Porsche decided it would make more sense if it could seat 8 adults -- so he turns it into a minivan -- is a restorationist.
What Jefferson calls "primitive Christianity" is not Christianity at all. Jesus is NOT simply about moral teachings -- although that is all that He is about in Jefferson's mutilated version of the Gospels.
While He was on earth, Jesus was also about making certain claims about Himself -- which are the heart of Christianity (primitive or otherwise) and which Jefferson cut out in his version. The very term "Christianity" has as its root: "Christ" -- not Jesus or Nazarene or Son of Man (although He was all of these things).
Jefferson's version of "Christianity" emasculated the faith. He specifically denied all of the fundamentals of Christianity.
I can't help but ask: what makes Jefferson the appropriate expert to authoritatively "restore" Christianity to its true nature?
Dr. Frazer,
TJ would agree with you that he was not the expert authority to restore Christianity....that is why he wanted Dr. Priestly to originally develop the "Jefferson Bible", or as they called it "the Syllabus".
But my main point is this, what you write above is YOUR version of Christianity. It may be the traditional version of Christianity, but it is not the only version of Christianity. So you think the "Christianity" described in the New Testament is valid...fine. But Jefferson was a restorationist in that he did not believe much of the NT was authentic and that Christianity had been corrupted. So in his eyes, he was not changing the smile on the Mona Lisa, but revising it back to what was originally intended. TJ did not think Jesus ever claimed to be the actual/metaphysical son of God thus his "Jefferson Bible" reflects that belief.
I don't think Brad is claiming TJ was theologically correct. He is just saying that is what Jefferson believed.
Jared:
If Jefferson did not consider himself adequate to the task, WHY DID HE DO IT? If he thought Priestley to be the only appropriate expert, wouldn't it be better to leave the task undone than to butcher it? I would never presume to take on the task of restoring the Mona Lisa or the Parthenon, etc. If there's no appropriate expert, they're better off as is than to have me destroy them!
Of course, creating a false version of Christianity is far more damaging in the long run than destruction of a work of art. It carries eternal consequences for those unfortunate enough to be influenced by it.
Aside from the fact that there is actual reality and that it's not the place of people to decide for themselves what reality is, what I'm referring to is NOT just MY version of Christianity. Jon Rowe could reprint a chart for you of what was accepted as Christianity in 18th century American churches according to their own determination -- Christians contemporary with Jefferson. I am talking in terms of what Christians believed in Jefferson's day. [In addition to what the New Testament teaches and "tradition" adheres to]
Re your point: to "restore" the Mona Lisa, one does not remove essential parts of the original painting; and one seeks to adhere to the artist's original work. If you (because of your own preferences -- with no evidence from Da Vinci himself or his co-workers) decided that Da Vinci actually "intended" there to be a big smile, so you removed what's actually there -- would you be a restorationist, simply because YOU think you know better than those who were eyewitnesses to Da Vinci painting it? Or regardless of the fact that actual EXPERTS affirm what is original paint?
Wouldn't you call such a person a "revisionist" (if seeking the friendliest term) -- not a restorationist? More accurately, you'd call such a person a destructive iconoclast or delinquent.
You make my point when you say "TJ did not think ...." That is not the point of view of a restorationist. The issue for a restorationist is not what he thinks, but what the original artist thought.
Bottom line: the only evidence we have of what Jesus said and intended is recorded in the Bible. There is no reason to believe that some of what is there is illegitimate. There is no textual reason to eliminate what Jefferson eliminated. That only happens if one comes to the text with one's own biases or agendas. Those who wrote the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were eyewitnesses of what they recorded and they DIED for their attachment to its veracity.
I wasn't making any assumption about Brad's opinion of TJ's correctness. It doesn't really matter whether he thinks TJ was correct or not. I was responding to what he said: that Jefferson "was a restorationist." He did not say that Jefferson "believed himself to be" a restorationist.
Again, what makes Jefferson the appropriate expert to authoritatively "restore" Christianity to its true nature? For that matter, what makes Priestley such an expert?
The last time I checked, God hadn't appointed anyone for this task. In fact, in Revelation 22:18-19, God warned that such efforts would be punished eternally.
"Those who wrote the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were eyewitnesses of what they recorded and they DIED for their attachment to its veracity."
I suspect this is the foundation of your disagreement with TJ's position. Jefferson appears to have believed the Christianity/NT had been corrupted by Paul among others.
You are correct that Paul was his PRIMARY target for derision and OPEN criticism, however: he clearly had a problem with EVERY Gospel writer as well, since he cut portions of what each of them recorded.
Also, Paul was, likewise, an eyewitness to the facts of Christianity -- first as a persecutor of Christians and then as a result of two occasions in which the resurrected Jesus appeared to him. In fact, one should ask WHY Paul went from being a persecutor of Christians to someone willing to be martyred for the faith.
And again: what REASON is there to believe that the text and/or Christianity had been corrupted -- other than simply Jefferson's opinion/predilections? What makes him (or Priestley, for that matter) a more reliable source than Paul or the Gospel writers?
Answer: nothing except his own rationalist approach!
Dr. Frazer,
My understanding is that Jefferson realized that nobody was completely qualified to revise the Bible, but if Priestly was not going to do it Jefferson was just as good as anyone else.
I understand your theological position, but I am familiar enough with unitarian Christian theology to know that their theologians can make very good arguments that the NT had been corrupted and was not infalliable...arguments that more and more liberal Mainline Protestant theologicans are also accepting (John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg). Now they may be wrong (we all might be), but that is their position.
Jefferson cut not based upon expertise, but based upon BELIEF...just like you would not cut based upon belief because for all anybody knows much of it is fabricated.
(sorry about any spelling errors but I'm rushed and didn't check...I also wish I had more time to answer everything in your response...maybe tomorrow.)
BTW- one part of the NT also says that the Bible is worthy of "reproof"...doesn't that mean correction???? See...it is all based upon perspective.
"Answer: nothing except his own rationalist approach!"
Agreed. But as Jesus did not leave a written record himself, I don't see a compeling justification for accepting, without rational examination, the word of witnesses.
It may be that some will examine the good book and conclude that it is a proper reflection of Jesus' intent, but others will not. I can't fault anyone for holding an opinion on this.
However, in each instance, the individual's decision relies "nothing except his own rationalist approach", either that or ...
"If two people are thinking exactly alike on everything, one of them probably isn't thinking at all." ;-)
-- Intro from Ed Brayton's Declaring Independence Radia.
2nd Timothy (3:16) - “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
One last point for tonight: Jefferson thought the Mona Lisa has been damaged by somebody spray painting over her smile. Thus all he was doing was removing the excess paint to reveal the true painting. And apparently he thought this was not a very intellectually demanding task as he says at one point that identifying the authentic parts of Jesus' message was eaily accomplished, like removing diamond from a dughill.
My 2nd Timothy verse doesn't fit because I was looking up alternative versions of the Bible online and apparently that verse means reproof or correction of human behavior, not the Bible itself. Sorry, King James language threw me off.
Jared: "My 2nd Timothy verse doesn't fit because I was looking up alternative versions of the Bible online and apparently that verse means reproof or correction of human behavior, not the Bible itself."
Isn't TJ's point that the BIble has been altered as the result of inappropriate human behavior and requires reproof for correction?
Yes, but that is not what I originally meant. I thought that "reproof and correction" in 2nd Timothy meant that it is appropriate to alter the Bible based upon analysis. However, your interpretation can also indirectly fit.
Ok, I hadn't understood your original position to be reproof and correction of the intended meaning of Jesus' words, as opposed to corrections of improper interpretations, and/or insertions of foreign ideological positions.
Am I understanding you correctly now?
"If two people are thinking exactly alike on everything, one of them probably isn't thinking at all."
-- Intro from Ed Brayton's Declaring Independence Radia.
Well, that certainly explains the unanimity of vitriol in Mr. Brayton's comments sections.
Jared,
Kudos to you for discovering your own error re II Timothy 3:16 and for being intellectually honest enough to admit it. Good job.
If Jefferson believed himself not qualified, but as qualified as anyone else, then he's not a restorationist! I challenge you to find one restorationist -- those working on the Sistine Chapel or the Parthenon or wherever who would say that it's better to have an unqualified person do restoration than to leave the works alone.
But let's get past this restorationist issue -- if you choose to consider Jefferson a restorationist after what's been argued, then there is no way I'll ever convince you.
To the main point:
IF the biblical record is "corrupted" and IF Jesus left no written record and IF the testimony of the eyewitnesses (who died for the veracity of their account) is not reliable -- or at least MORE reliable than musings by any Joe Schmoe 1700 or 2000 years later -- THEN WHY BOTHER WITH THOSE TEXTS AT ALL? WHY GIVE THEM ANY CREDENCE?
If you think they're corrupted and it's up to each individual to decide whether and where they're corrupted, WHY NOT JUST WRITE YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE?
Here's the thought process: the only record we have of Jesus' words are the Gospel accounts (and a few passages in other NT books). Some of what is said in those accounts conflicts with my own personal image of Jesus and what I think he would have said or what I would've liked him to say. So, I'll accept as legitimate the parts that appeal to me personally and declare that the parts I personally disagree with or don't like are bogus. Sounds like a convincing argument to me.
On the other side are Matt. 5:18, in which Jesus says that God will keep His word intact; and the aforementioned II Tim. 3:16 in which the Holy Spirit says that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable ... (not just the parts TJ likes); and II Peter 1:20-21 in which the Holy Spirit says that Scripture was not "made by act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
Also on the other side are 1700-2000 years [depending on whether we're talking about Jefferson or Spong] of acceptance by the Church.
Also on the other side is the fact that, despite Jefferson's claims about corruption by Paul and others, there is no discrepancy between what Jesus taught and what the apostles taught.
Mr. Abbott:
If Jesus left no written record and you "don't see a compeling justification for accepting, without rational examination, the word of witnesses [who died for the veracity of their claims]," WHY BOTHER WITH THE GOSPELS AT ALL? If you're only going to accept the parts that you like, aren't you simply substituting your own Gospel for the one written by the eyewitness? Why not just say what you want and ignore the texts?
Answer: because Jefferson and Spong and others engaged in this activity want a FIG LEAF OF AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY for their OWN MUSINGS and for what they prefer to believe. If I can put MY ideas in the mouth of someone revered for centuries, then MY IDEAS will be accepted as correct and sublime.
If Jesus left no record and the ONLY accounts we have are unreliable, HOW DOES ONE GET ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER OF JESUS' INTENT?
Answer: you don't. What you get is what YOU would say if YOU were a great prophet or moral teacher -- completely unrelated to, and independent of, the actual historical Jesus. You write YOUR OWN Scripture, but call it HIS.
Their REAL problem is explained by Jesus Himself in John 17:14 ("I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.) and in John 3:19 ("the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.") Jefferson, of course, cuts out both of those passages -- as anyone would like to erase their own indictment.
As for "in each instance, the individual's decision relies 'nothing except his own rationalist approach', either that or ...": the proper end of your sentence is "taking the text at face value in context" or "taking the text at face value based on the incredible reliability and veracity of Scripture, as evidenced by fulfilled prophecy, etc." or "taking the text at face value based on faith." Take your pick. There are plenty of options other than deciding based on a rationalist approach.
Finally, Jesus DID leave a written record. He told his disciples, including three of the Gospel writers and the authors of other epistles, that He would send to them the Holy Spirit Who would "teach you in all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26) And "He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." (John 16:13) Oh, yes, Jefferson cut these verses, too (along with the entire chapters).
So, the accounts written by those to whom the Holy Spirit was given for this purpose ARE the written records left by Jesus.
And we can have confidence in their accuracy and veracity because Jesus Himself said that the Holy Spirit would "bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
Gregg,
Let me start with these clarifications, we can address other criticisms of yours if you want.
Where is the part where Jesus' ability to forgive the sins of others is taught? LaM 4:7-13 (Lk 7:37-43)
And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
What do we get from this? The woman is a sinner, but her sins are not against Jesus (at least not against Jesus as a man), rather they are a general sinfulness of the life she leads, more sinful than most (as Simon the Pharisee points out). She expresses overabundant gratitude (to say the least) to Jesus, but what for? For the magnitude of what he, Jesus, has forgiven her. Jesus is the one who forgave the most, the woman is the one with the most to forgive (namely her burden of sin), and the woman is the one responding to forgiveness by loving the most. Her loving response is directed to Jesus, so he is the one who forgave her.
As for looking at the passages through the eyes of a nonbeliever, this is, I think, a flawed approach. I have suggested before that what is needed is neither looking at the passages from non-believing stance, nor from a Christian stance, but rather from the stance of someone who has selected each passage for inclusion because he believes that the passage contains a diamond pulled from the dung-hill. So, for each passage (not each verse, but each coherent story or parable), read it with the idea that there is a uniquely meritorious diamond in there that caused that passage to survive the razor. What could it be?
You disagree with my reading of LaM 12:9-13 (Jn 12:20-24):
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
Your take on this is: "Unlike what you say in your original post, Jesus does NOT claim to be the Son of Man Who is to be glorified in TJ’s version, because he cut out the part of verse 23 in which Jesus said that. What is left is a standard truism about the reproduction of wheat. There is no connection left between Jesus and the grain of wheat – so there is no connection to HIM bringing life to others."
First, give me credit, if you will: in my original post I labeled this claim as cryptic. I didn't say it was clear, I warned rather that it is the opposite. Still, where is the diamond in this passage? Why did it survive the razor? Some folks want to see Jesus, and disciples inform him of their request for to meet. What Jesus says next is in response to a direct question, and has the flavor of giving a reason as to why he doesn't have time to meet with the visitors - the "hour is come" for him to be doing something else instead. That something else is expressed cryptically, in a parable about dying to bring forth fruit.
Moving on, consider LaM 12:26-36 (Mk 12:1-9):
Hear another parable: A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others: beating some, and killing some. Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be our's. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Your take on this is: "YOU say that the parable makes Jesus’ role that of the Son of God – but that is NOT said in the parts of this passage surviving TJ’s scissors. He conveniently cuts out verses 10-11 which connect Him to Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah (Christ) – and which caused the Jewish leaders to seek to seize Him (another verse cut out)."
My response? Look at that last sentence. The chief priests and Pharisees understood that this was about them. If the chief priests and Pharisees are in the role of the husbandmen, and the prophets of God are in the role of the servants (some of whom were killed, others beaten) then who is left in the role of the son, the heir, the wellbeloved? Who were the chief prists and Pharisees conspiring to kill next? To understand the parable, read it not from the perspective of an unbeliever, but from the perspective of those chief priests and Pharisees who understood the parable. Note that there is a distinction here between understanding the parable and agreeing with it. TJ can, on your interpretation, still disagree with the parable from the stance of an unbeliever, but first he must unlock the parable before he can disagree with it. The parable spells out the correct perspective from which to unlock it - it tells you right in the text what perspective to take in order to get the meaning correctly.
If you think I'm looking for too much subtlety, my reply is that TJ was specifically editing for selective sublimity. On a brute rationalist reading these passages are all mystical and should never have survived the razor. You keep harping on the explicit claims that were cut out, but I have always maintained that TJ was, as a matter of methodology, in the business of cutting out explicit claims, because he believed that Jesus' style was sublime. So the razor only leaves subtle messages behind, but what is left must then be read by searching for its subtlety. What I find, when I look for the subtle message, is confirmation of the explicit message that was edited away.
Gregg,
Regarding, "HOW DOES ONE GET ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER OF JESUS' INTENT?"
By the application of reason?
The stories of the NT resonate with most (including an atheist like myself) because the moral example of Jesus resonates in us. There is no need to accept the testament as uncorrupted to derive great inspiration from the diamonds that remain.
Kristo:
First, note that I didn't cherry pick from your examples. I started at the beginning of your list and dealt with each one as far as I had time to go.
Now, re Luke 7:
Since, in TJ's version, the part in which Jesus claims to forgive her is cut out, the sensible meaning is that she sees Jesus as some kind of special religious man (which TJ would admit -- i.e. a great teacher) and, being forgiven BY GOD, she has a desire to express her gratitude to GOD by serving the rabbi -- as people regularly do for religious leaders. Do people do nice things for their pastors/rabbis because they believe their pastor or rabbi is God or because they believe that they are servants of God and they want to express gratitude to God through treating His servants well?
Without verses 10-11, there is no notion that Jesus forgave her -- only that she HAS BEEN forgiven. Since people normally think only God can forgive someone else's sins, no one reading TJ's version would draw the conclusion that Jesus forgave her. YOU draw that conclusion because you are privy to the excised verses and, therefore, know the extraordinary truth.
John 12:
The part in which Jesus says His hour has come is not in TJ's version, either, so how is one supposed to know that that is why he cannot meet with them? In TJ's version, it's not cryptic, it simply makes no sense. See, YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT REFERENCE (again) TO THE PARTS REMOVED! Why is that? Because it doesn't make any sense without them -- cryptically or otherwise.
Mark 12:
They (the pharisees) understood that he was speaking of them BECAUSE THEY HEARD THE WHOLE THING, INCLUDING HIS QUOTATION OF THE MESSIANIC PASSAGE! THEY had all of the evidence by which to draw the proper conclusion -- but TJ does not give all of the evidence to his readers! You say to look at the last verse -- but it comes after the two critical verses which were excised!
Your sentence SHOULD read: "'To understand the parable, read it ... from the perspective of those chief priests and Pharisees who understood the parable' because Jesus made it crystal clear to them in the verses cut out by Jefferson."
SOME explicit claims -- those which comport with Jefferson's agenda -- are, in fact, left in. For example, he allows Jesus to be addressed with the very explicit "Master" on numerous occasions (e.g. Matt. 22:16 & Mark 12:32). Why are THOSE explicit claims allowed if he's "cutting out explicit claims?" Answer: because he is personally comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a teacher. So, again, the measure of "sublimity" and "subtlety" is Jefferson's own agenda and vision of Jesus -- nothing contextual or textual.
As for "What I find, when I look for the subtle message, is confirmation of the explicit message that was edited away" -- you are ONLY able to do that BECAUSE you have knowledge of the parts cut away! Someone simply reading TJ's version would not be able to do that -- as evidenced by your inability to explain them without reference to the missing parts.
Since you wonder what I think, Kristo, I'll tell you frankly that I don't think you're looking for too much subtlety -- I think you're grasping at straws to support your theory. I think you are desperately trying to defend a creative, but incorrect theory.
Once again, I think we're spinning our wheels, but I've continued the argument in order to persuade others who might be following along with an open mind.
Well, I find Kristo's thesis fascinating, although it's such a radical one that I'm sure I'll be forgiven if I require a lot more roadtesting.
Gregg, I hope Kristo appreciates the amount of time you're putting into crosschecking his thesis. You're by no means shooting from the hip.
_________________
I was going to write something about a Jefferson quote saying he was a materialist and disagreed with Jesus' spiritualism [as if he and Jesus' opinions were equal] but in double-checking, I found something more interesting, from a book called The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, where a Charles B. Sanford goes far deeper into Jefferson and materialism, and how John Adams might have talked the obstinate Jefferson at least halfway out of it.
Perhaps it'll be of value to Kristo, Gregg, and others following this very excellent discussion.
Mr. Abbott:
"By the application of reason" to WHAT? Must there not be an object of reason? Without an object, activity of the mind is imagination. Or are some born with an innate concept of someone named "Jesus" -- disconnected from any actual person? Reason must be applied to some knowledge of the existence and person of Jesus -- and the record of that is Scripture, which you declare unreliable and corrupted.
So, my questions about the treatment of that record and the implications of rejecting it remain.
And, even in your own explanation, you show that Jesus' intent is irrelevant -- what matters is what "resonates in us." That's what I'm saying -- what matters to you (and Jefferson and Spong) is what resonates to you or in you -- not Jesus' intent. I have no problem with that. The problem comes when you or Jefferson or Spong try to claim that what resonates in you is what Jesus taught! WHY CAN'T YOU LEAVE HIM OUT OF IT and just talk about what seems/feels right to you?
And how do you know that the "moral example of Jesus" is reliable? Isn't it recorded in the same Gospels as what you reject? How do you know that the parts you "resonate" with are not some of the corrupted parts?
Oh, yeah, by your reason. Is it infallible?
But wait: "resonate" is not a term of reason, but of emotion. I think that by a Freudian slip you may have let the cat out of the bag. Jefferson and others of his ilk like to think they're applying cold hard reason to arrive at their preferences, but it's really a matter of what feels good. I'm not alone in this; Jesus said as much in John 3:19-20.
By the way, there is other internal confirmation or cross testimony of what truly is Scripture -- for any following along who may be interested.
In II Peter 3:15-16, Peter affirms that Paul's writings are Scripture. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul affirms that Luke's Gospel is Scripture.
Gregg, funny you should mention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter
Although 2Peter made it into the canon, apparently there were reservations about its authenticity since Origen and Eusebius in the 4th and 5th centuries.
The point being that Jefferson, as a self-styled "restorationist," wasn't quite a new bird, or even a rare one, especially for Jefferson's time, when many scriptural fragments were first being widely circulated in their original Greek.
That said, I think your key and concise challenge to Kristo's thesis
As for "What I find, when I look for the subtle message, is confirmation of the explicit message that was edited away" -- you are ONLY able to do that BECAUSE you have knowledge of the parts cut away! Someone simply reading TJ's version would not be able to do that -- as evidenced by your inability to explain them without reference to the missing parts...
requires a response. When Jefferson's bible is read without knowledge of the missing parts, do we still get a sense of Jesus as more than just a man?
Gregg,
I don't see it as you do - nor, in my opinion, would a rationalist see it that way either.
Think about ordinary human beings. An ordinary human sinner (forgiven), and an ordinary human pastor (rabbi). Do ordinary human sinners treat their pastors in this manner? And if they tried, would ordinary pastors allow it, indeed engage another pastor (Pharisee) in discussion about it while it is going on?
Unless Jesus is God, the passage is rather misogynistic, don't you think? And Jesus (and TJ with him) would have to be quite the male chauvinist to not be repelled by it, don't you think?
The passage is explicit about whom the forgiven is to love, namely him who has forgiven her. And the passage is explicit about whom the woman loves, namely Jesus. So he is the forgiver. I'm not drawing any conclusion from the excised passages. The content is there in the remaining text.
As for John 12, the part about his hour having come is right there: "The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified" is given as a direct answer to a direct question about Jesus. Jesus is the topic of the question, so Jesus is the topic of the answer. As for it making no sense, how can that be explained on your hypothesis? If TJ was running a rationalist razor through scripture, then wouldn't he cut out whatever made no sense?
Notice the importance of the mileage I get from TJ editing to include passages in, rather than merely chopping our the few words that offended him. Because TJ only included diamonds pulled from the dung-hill, we mustn't accept that a passage simply makes no sense. Any passage that makes no sense wouldn't pass the "diamond test", so every passage makes sense to TJ - we just have to find it for ourselves.
As for the Pharisees, you say "They (the pharisees) understood that he was speaking of them BECAUSE THEY HEARD THE WHOLE THING, INCLUDING HIS QUOTATION OF THE MESSIANIC PASSAGE!" I understand that you believe this, and so do I. But TJ shouldn't believe this, right? TJ would be reading the passage in the form he edited it down to, because that is the form that TJ thought was correct. And it is that form that I analyzed. So your correction of my sentence is incorrect, from TJ's point of view.
Gregg,
Regarding, "The problem comes when you or Jefferson or Spong try to claim that what resonates in you is what Jesus taught! WHY CAN'T YOU LEAVE HIM OUT OF IT and just talk about what seems/feels right to you?"
I never said that because something resonants with me it must be the word of Jesus. What I said was that there is much in the NT attributed to Jesus that does resonate with me.
In any event, this is getting far to ideologically divisive to be constructive. So I'm done.
OK, I'm leaving this discussion after this post because it's eating up too much of my time and I've got a lot of work to do this summer -- especially since we're (in my opinion) spinning our wheels.
In my opinion, a rationalist would not see it your way, Kristo, but mine. So, I guess we're even.
Re ordinary human beings -- hero worship is a quite common thing and people do more extreme things than the woman did here. That is especially true if the person is dirt poor and has very limited resources. She probably didn't have the resources to tattoo "Jesus" on her lower back or pay for her pastor and his wife to take a cruise or move with her family to a compound or drink poisoned Kool-Aid or send him her monthly Social Security check or any number of extreme things people do when they are convinced that someone is a teacher from God or a hero.
Either way, ordinary human beings don't consider men to be God, either. I'd say that more people engage in extreme hero worship than think someone they know is God. And I think a rational person would agree with that assessment.
Re misogynistic -- Jesus IS God in the COMPLETE passage, so He's not misogynistic nor a male chauvinist and there's no need to explain why He's not repelled -- He explains why in the COMPLETE passage. As to Jefferson, given what we know about him, do you NOT believe he was a male chauvinist? WAIT! STRIKE THAT! I DON'T WANT TO OPEN A NEW RABBIT TRAIL.
Whether Jesus or TJ is misogynistic or a male chauvinist is irrelevant.
Your point about the passage being explicit about whom the woman loves and, therefore, who forgave her is the best argument you've made in this entire discussion. But, again, your conclusion draws upon information TJ does not give us. With what he tells us, the logical (dare I say rational) conclusion to draw is that Jesus forgave the woman for offenses she had committed AGAINST HIM.
1)There is no reason to believe that He forgave sins she committed against others.
2)The parable is clear that the person doing the forgiving is the one offended, so, directly applying the parable logically: she offended Him.
3)It would be irrational and illogical to draw the conclusion that Jesus forgave her sins against others -- because only God can do that and, according to TJ's version, Jesus never claimed to be God (certainly not in the present passage the way TJ has emasculated it).
To conclude differently is to either conclude irrationally or to base the conclusion on information to which you and I are privy, but TJ's readers are not.
By the way, since, as you say, it's "explicit" -- shouldn't he have cut out whom the forgiven is to love and whom the woman loves? In other words, if he's cutting out the explicit, why was any portion of this passage included? How does that fit within your paradigm?
You keep saying that "The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified" is "right there" in TJ's version -- BUT IT'S NOT! Which copy of LaM are you accessing? Are you looking at the text or merely seeing if a verse is listed in the index? Because HALF of the verse is there, so it would appear in the index.
I am looking at PHOTOCOPIES of each page of JEFFERSON'S ACTUAL TEXT. [in this case, page 245 of the work edited by Dickinson W. Adams and published by Princeton University Press in 1983] This is not a reprint, it's a photocopy -- you can see the cuts and the piecing together.
The text reads:
"23 And Jesus answered them, saying,
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."
That's the whole thing. The instructive part of verse 23 met with the scissors, including "the hour has come" and the part about the Son of man and glorification. [one can even see the cut mark in the middle of verse 23]
How can my hypothesis explain the fact that it makes no sense? Very simply, Jefferson was a rationalist who, like everyone else, was fallible and had an agenda. To say he was a rationalist is not to say that he never erred in his rationality or always used it honestly. He used his rationality to determine Who Jesus was and then determined to make his version of the Gospels affirm/support his opinion.
1)It needn't make sense to ME (much of what TJ said and/or did didn't make sense to me) or to you -- as you say, it apparently made sufficient sense to him, however.
2)Jefferson's desire to emasculate the text and protect his agenda apparently overruled his reason.
3)You are assuming what you're trying to prove, which is that Jefferson was making an honest, truth-seeking effort. My explanation is consistent with my conviction -- that he has an agenda and is making the project come out the way he wants it.
As for my finishing your sentence -- I was not attempting to finish it from TJ's point of view, but from the point of view of reality. But even TJ knew what the missing part said -- did he not?
Now, unless there's some earthshaking, compelling reason to re-enter the fray, I take my leave from this discussion. I have projects to do this summer -- including, primarily, getting my dissertation ready for publication. So, I must bid you farewell. I was willing to devote this week to this discussion, but I've got too much to do to keep spinning wheels for several hours a day.
I wish you all well -- have fun. I shall do my best to keep from reading this for a while -- lest I feel compelled to come back into the cave.
Mr. Abbott,
If I offended you or misunderstood your point, I apologize. That was not my intent.
Mr. Abbott's post was here when I posted mine and I felt the need to apologize -- now I really am done.
Gregg,
No offense taken, nor any intended. I think our perspectives are too far apart to come to a quick understanding here.
There is much about your comments that I find stimulating.
In particular, your last post had greatly clarified your point in my mind. I won't be honest if I said I agreed with all of it, but that isn't to say I disagree on those isolated points either (there are many things I realize I can never know the truth of).
I look forward to your continued participation.
You keep saying that "The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified" is "right there" in TJ's version -- BUT IT'S NOT!Ooooops.
Dr. Frazer, thx so much for stopping by. Although I'm not a fan of the "rationalist" part of "theistic rationalist" [I like the "theistic" part very much, although I'd argue that "theism" is still unmistakably the God of Abraham], the full term applies well enough to Thomas Jefferson until Kristo or somebody else can prove otherwise.
But I do hope you'll take a peek at the Sanford book I linked to above. There were some cool arguments. Jefferson's vision of the afterlife wasn't quite the rationalist's.
Hi Tom!
I actually got a copy of Sanderson's book from the library last week - by waiting until May I can keep it until September (books are always due at the end of the current terms, so timing determines length of possession).
I'll try to write up something from the ground up instead of replying to Gregg, especially since Gregg is bowing out. Besides, starting from square one will help more folks perceive the inner workings of the argument.
Well, I think Gregg identified the key question---does a plain reading of Jefferson's bible present a Jesus who is more than a man? Prove that and you've got something.
For those reading, the link to "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson" is a book preview, and I was able to read a lot of it. For free, like.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BMzIavSRNdEC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=jefferson+jesus+materialist&source=bl&ots=bku98M2d5N&sig=fz46ei6lImXgsIwH-73v-oYP2RA&hl=en&ei=Zd0NSsGYLpKctgPu5LCGAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
"hose who wrote the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were eyewitnesses of what they recorded and they DIED for their attachment to its veracity."
So do modern suicide bombers. This is a pat answer that holds little weight with unbelievers. How do I know? I was one 10 years ago. Sounds like Christian talking points to me and comes off as non authentic.
What is the point in stating this? I think we look at the Bible wrong at times. I also think it has been corrupted in some senses. Does that make me a non-believer because I question things? I wish more Christians did. Then maybe up to 80% would not lose their faith in college.
Maybe TJ was on to something concept wise. As far as the specifics I do not know enough about the subject to comment. But the guts to question things inspires me.
I said I was leaving -- and I am -- but I can't leave this latest comment unanswered.
The first part of my statement was referring primarily to the writers of the New Testament -- it is evidence (not perfect, but evidence nonetheless) that their accounts are more reliable than anything else we have. In the absence of ANY evidence to indicate that they're UNreliable, that should hold weight with any open minded person (although I'll stipulate that unbelievers generally are not open-minded when it comes to the Gospel). And, again, an intellectually honest person would put the burden of proof on those who would claim that these eyewitness accounts are not correct -- or are "corrupted." What evidence is there for that assumption -- other than their own biased opinion?
To answer your question, King, that's the point of "stating this."
But I don't mind applying it, as you apparently thought I was, broadly to those who claimed to see the resurrected Jesus and then were martyred:
Modern suicide bombers are NOT EYEWITNESSES of anything in which they believe. They don't claim to have SEEN Mohammed in the cold light of day; they've never seen the 70 virgins they expect to encounter in the after-life. They die for their FAITH, but not for something they KNOW is false. They are deluded, but they do not KNOW that they're dying for a lie. People may die for a misdirected faith -- but, with very few exceptions, not when they KNOW it's a lie.
If those who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus were lying, then they died for something they KNEW to be false -- including Paul, who began as a persecutor of Christians until his encounter with the resurrected Jesus.
As for "it has been corrupted": Jesus said that God would keep His Word intact (Matt. 5:18) and II Timothy 3:16 says that "ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" -- not just the snippets we find appealing.
Thinking it's been corrupted may not make you an unbeliever in the faith, but it does make you an unbeliever in SOME of God's Word.
Although I'm a BIG believer in questioning things (just ask any of my students), questioning "things" is not inherently noble or reflective of wisdom. It depends on what "things" one questions.
When one questions obvious reality, for example, one ends up in a rubber room. When one questions whether fire burns, one ends up in the hospital. If one questioned the law of gravity at the Grand Canyon, one would end up dead at the bottom.
To apply the principle here: I would counsel that it is unwise to question the sovereign God and His Word.
THIS IS ALL MY OPINION (except for the part from Scripture that I quoted).
In the spirit of it being inherently good to question things, I'll question your 80% statistic.
Two other questions:
1. What is scripture and why?
2. How do we know that the Apostles were not deluded like you think the Muslims are(I agree with you for the most part about the Muslims and their view of God)?
I have been in villages that have little or no Bible and no concept of the Western idea of God. What are they held accountable too? Is it the same for Jefferson?
I personally think the strongest evidence for the truth about Jesus is prophecy. If Psalm 22 is proven to be written before Matthew by secular historical methods then it would seem that God had a plan. I guess my point is that one could cross out certain parts of the Bible or not even know them and still be a Christian. At what point this ceases to be comes down to a discussion on the absolute essentials.
I started to write about this and stopped because I became convinced that many of the things that most groups consider essential are not based on being in the villages I mentioned. I have given a lot of thought to this and have not taken the task back up again.
This seems to come up a lot on this site. Maybe someone should post on it and get the discussion started. It would go a long way toward defining Christian as far as the founding is concerned in my opinion.
The 80% is from Barna
Gregg, I hope you'll continue to stop by our blog and participate when you can---your contributions are invaluable. Yes, I understand that having the Sword of Damocles put over one's farewell comment obliges one to stop back for a final rebuttal, but I hope you don't feel an obligation to stick with your goodbye. Stopping by once in a while is just fine and the welcome mat is out.
And although I don't embrace your POV in large measure, Gregg, I'll pick up for you here with King of Ireland, who's been making some righteous points from his own POV, and although skeptical, K of I remains a seeker, not a skeptic.
Frazer writes:
And, again, an intellectually honest person would put the burden of proof on those who would claim that these eyewitness accounts are not correct -- or are "corrupted." What evidence is there for that assumption -- other than their own biased opinion?That the scriptures are "corrupted" is indeed an affirmative claim, and made by many without proof, including "Da Vinci Code" John Adams. [Jonathan Rowe appropriately tagged Adams with that one, and it's quite accurate.]
A person can be skeptical of all the Bible's claims, but that doesn't relieve him or her of all burden of proof.
The "charitable" explanation of the Bible's apparent contradictions is mistranslation or misinterpretation. And when it comes to the frequently bloody Old Testament, unless you've read the rabbinical scholars, the Talmud and Mishnah, you don't know anything about the Torah, just thumbing through your King James Version or going by whatever you heard from some pulpit.
K of I:
I started to write about this and stopped because I became convinced that many of the things that most groups consider essential are not based on being in the villages I mentioned. I have given a lot of thought to this and have not taken the task back up again.K of I, the "natural law" theory says that what is universal and good and true for all mankind at any time in history is always universal and true, the "right" thing to do.
I very much want to hear what you discovered in the villages, where the Bible was unknown. Plato and Cicero acknowledged a "natural law," and they didn't do Bible.
As we know, culture and circumstance have precipitated aberrations in the natural law, whether in crazy indigenous cultures or murderous Nazi Germany.
And if villagers---a few, some, or many---were open to your message, we must ask why that might be, eh?
Tom Van Dyke,
I think the natural law is what Paul is talking about in Romans 1. The biggest thing I learned in Buddhist land was that to use the New Testament and teachings about Jesus dying for sins and the like was worthless until they had an understanding of the concept of God. If I had any book of the Bible to take to the Eastern and tribal religions it would be Genesis.
I think this is somewhat what Aquinas, Locke and the like were onto. I had never really thought of this until I began to read this blog. I have started going through all the dialogue on the post about natural law. It has helped some but this subject is new to me.
I did not have the benefits of a classical education because I went to publics school. I did like Philosophy though. I took it triple period my senior year but they kicked me out because I threatened a kid. Too bad because I want to go to law school now and have some catching up to do.
As far as my message, I think I went about it the wrong way at first because I was trained a certain way by Religious Right churches I attended. Once I settled down and began to see some of the beauty in other world views and talk with people instead of at them I had some real good conversations. But by far the thing that seemed to get through the most was centered around the question:
Who is God?
I think this was Jefferson's question and while I may not agree with all his conclusions I do appreciate his seeking heart.
Quid sit Deus.
Asa a thinker named Leo Strauss famously posited, WHAT is God, or what would God be [if He exists]?
You're starting at the beginning, K of I, which is the proper place to start. Over. Seeking...
[If it makes any sense to you, man, I went through Catholic grade school, high school and collidge without ever hearing of Thomas Aquinas and barely of Plato or Aristotle. I had to start from scratch meself all on my own, and just a few years ago. "Classical" education? I assure if you want to tap the wisdom of the ages, you're gonna have to educate yrself. We don't do that no more in this modern age.]
Heh. Let me note too that even though I have JD, MBA, and LL.M. graduate degrees, almost everything I learned about the Founding & religion was done post degrees. Sure I learned about Con. Law in law school and the "Law of Nations" in "advanced" law school (my LL.M. is in international law). But, that stuff just scratched the surface of what I have learned on my own, AFTER getting those degrees. Though, the grad school experience was "invaluable" in preparing my mind for later study (and for passing the bar and learning the common law legal, international, and general business stuff I currently teach at the community college level).
I think it's ironic though -- if I am qualified to teach ANY subject at a PhD, law school, or Ivy League level -- it's THIS material -- material I did NOT learn about in grad. school, but on my own, as a personal passion.
King of Ireland,
There you go -- asking me questions that, as a Christian, I cannot leave alone. :) I'll try to give a brief response and get to my work.
First of all, if you're asking for proofs that EVERYONE will accept and recognize as convincing, they do not exist. Neither can the questioners, as I suggested, prove their case. They have, I think, little or no evidence for their case. Ultimately, it comes down to faith. We cannot convince someone of spiritual truth strictly via reason (that was something that some of the theistic rationalists thought they could do, though).
The Bible says: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (I Corinthians 2:14)
Here are brief (though, no doubt inadequate) answers to your questions:
1) Scripture is the Bible -- the Old and New Testament -- in the original manuscripts. The most faithful translations (e.g. New American Standard), because they are literal translations, are the most reliable transmissions of the Scripture to us.
The Old Testament is Scripture for, I think, obvious reasons (including literally hundreds of fulfilled prophecies).
The New Testament is Scripture because Jesus told His disciples that He would provide the Holy Spirit Who would remind them of all that He taught them (John 14:26) and they were eyewitnesses of all that He did -- so early church councils determined what was written by those disciples and the apostles (who had all encountered the resurrected Christ) and collected it together as the Bible (inspired by the Holy Spirit -- II Peter 1:21).
As I mentioned before, there are internal confirmations of what is Scripture, as well. Paul recognizes Luke's Gospel as "Scripture" (I Timothy 5:18) and Peter recognizes Paul's writings as "Scripture" (II Peter 3:15-16). Jesus, of course, recognized the Old Testament as Scripture -- as did the apostles.
2) We know the apostles were not deluded because they were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded and wrote their accounts in very matter-of-fact form -- with plenty of background material which could be checked out. They did not write mystically or mythologically (unlike Homer or Herodotus or Eastern mystics). They wrote down-to-earth accounts of what they themselves witnessed.
Also, you must remember that they did NOT EXPECT Jesus to rise from the dead. They hadn't understood that part of His teaching. They were in hiding; they denied knowing Him; they had gone back to their previous jobs -- until the Resurrection. Why would they falsify (and die for) something they didn't expect or believe in? The Resurrection changed their lives because it wasn't just a vision or a dream -- they walked and talked with the risen Christ for 40 days. They touched Him and ate with Him.
Muslims have no analogous experience.
While I'd love to probe natural law with you [I took a course entitled "Natural Law" in my Ph.D. work], I can resist that temptation and get to what I need to do. I felt obligated to come to the defense of the faith and the Bible, though.
Enjoy natural law, gentlemen (and ladies).
Post a Comment