Seminary
Monday, February 8th, 2010
I discovered PostSecret while still in the ministry and read it faithfully every week, sobbing every time. It’s one reason how I know I have grown: I can now look at the secrets I can relate to and feel for the writer, but I don’t fall to pieces anymore.
Yesterdays’ post was full of good ones. I posted thoughts on one of them last night, and here’s another one:
It’s easier to stay a Christian in a secular university than a Christian one. Why?
Contrasting my personal experience with Baptist college vs. larger secular one, here are my thoughts:
At UofA, there are student unions for Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, and probably more. I don’t know about the UofA Baptist Student Union (BSU), but my experience with college Baptist groups is that they are merely extensions of high school youth groups. So if you managed to skate through public high school without losing your faith, you’re probably going to make it through college, too. Christians can segregate themselves in college just like they do in church, and stay in their bubbles as much or as little as they want. (I don’t mean “segregate” in a derogatory way, but in the way that people of like-minded groups tend to stick together.) The only evil secular class that can really cause someone to question their faith (that I can think of off the top of my head) is philosophy. Philosophy is easy enough to avoid, and even if you don’t, there’s not really much dialogue. You can take your list of questions to your student pastor and he can give you the canned apologetic response, or any of McDowell’s or Mind Games materials to read on your own. You might have a faith crisis, but it’s actually easier to weather because you don’t usually have the theological crisis that you have at Christian institutions.
At WBC, people sat around and discussed theology. Why they believed in Calvinism vs. Arminianism and vice versa. Even in that, Three Point Calvinism or a Five Point/TULIP Calvinist? Every little issue that you’ve never even thought of before gets very in depth in a way it doesn’t tend to get in church. Then you learn about how the Bible came to be and is arranged, and suddenly you realize that there is a LOT your Sunday School teacher and your pastor never told you! There is a chunk of Mark in your Bible that isn’t found in every early manuscript, so does it actually belong? Is it actually the word of God or did somebody add it in there? They present it mostly like, look how careful the early writers were to preserve the writing intact, but if you actually pay attention in your classes, you start to notice how certain things crept in and out of the writing. Write it over and over for generations, and eventually, it does evolve. Even looking at the Bible from this new perspective caused me to question evolution in a new way. I had all the answers and knew everything that those evolutionary biologists didn’t know , thanks to Ken Ham (snort!). But Ken Ham never discusses the poetical form of Genesis 1, leaving us to wonder if it was ever supposed to be taken literally at all? (The poetry doesn’t translate into English, as I understand; it’s only when you read it in the Hebrew that it becomes a poem, whereas the rest of Genesis is not written in the same poetical form.)
Did anyone here go to a Christian university and preserve their faith? I know lots of people who did. What I don’t understand is why. How did they resolve these conflicts? We all had the same classes, so I know I’m not the only one who learned this stuff. And I don’t believe that it was because I was smarter or more thoughtful than other students, though that probably is the answer for some of them. So I am constantly curious as to why some people lose their faith, while the vast majority do not. Any thoughts?
Loading ...
February 8th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Christian college absolutely wrecked my faith. I understand what you’re saying: I also went to a “secular college” and during my time there I remained a Christian, even as a philosophy major. However, I think a lot of Christian college students retain their faith because 1) Christian colleges are encased in Christian bubbles that insulate students from the real world; 2) they would “keep the faith” regardless of where they went to school, which explains why they decided to go to a Christian college/university in the first place; 3) most people – particularly people so inclined to have a faith that motivates them to attend a Christian college – either don’t care about or don’t know how to apply critical thinking.
The issues you raised, while worth considering, wouldn’t have phased most of the students with whom I went to school. I don’t think this is a matter of being more intelligent. In my case at least, it was a matter of my being naturally skeptical and inquisitive.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:44 am
I went to a secular college and lost my faith there, but it took a while, and it took spending a month 1 summer pretty much alone, housesitting for my grandfather while he traveled.
BTW, many years after my deconversion, I was at a Xian Xmas eve service where they read the first chapter of Genesis. I hadn’t thought about it much for years, so I was hearing it with fresh ears, and even in English translation, the repetition of forms made me think “poetry, not prose.”
February 8th, 2010 at 5:18 am
When I was a youngster, an “Interim Pastor” at our church was a gentleman named Dr. Clarence Goen (still known as Cee Cee although he died some years ago).
He was a southern baptist minister (my families religious drug of choicce) and actually I liked him a lot.
He taught bible history at Weslian Theological Seminary in the Washington area, and gave college level classes at the church I was dragged to. I actually found them quite interesting, atheist though I was and am. Didn’t do much but confirm the reasons for my non-belief.
I remember him telling people that this course was considered the biggest “Test of Faith” for seminary students, and most, who had a sense of discernment when they came in generally changed their life-plans when they took his course.
My parents told me later that people like W. A. Criswell and his crowd were quite happy he was teaching methodists, and didn’t want him anywhere NEAR a southern baptist seminary.
BTW, are you fairly close to Matty Ross/True Grit country?
February 8th, 2010 at 5:46 am
I don’t live in that area of the state anymore, but I used to. I grew up on the banks of the Arkansas River in Dardanelle in Yell County.
And lemme just say, the movie’s depiction of the AR River in Dardanelle disappointed me greatly!
February 8th, 2010 at 6:29 am
All Christians understand that we are not God. We all know that we have to grow in our knowledge of the love and Word of God. I think it is a little strange that you are not aware that Christians just like everyone else grow as a person and in their knowledge. A disagreement or misunderstanding does not result in a crisis because our lives are grounded in faith which allows us to know the love of God that passes all physical human knowledge.
The only people I have noticed that leave the faith are those who don’t know the love of God who are looking for any reason to walk away. I peg these folks as simply being driven by the lust of the flesh.
The case is the same for you. You grew up in a bubble which made the grass on the other side of the river greener. However, you will come to realize that the world is driven by lust, not love. Christianity is the only belief system that actually calls for you to sacrifice lust and live a life of love. When you know the love of God, it will transform your life.
After much study on these issues, a rational person will see that all thought opposed to Christianity is based on mere speculation or misunderstanding of the text. I never found any ‘evidence’ that opposed the truth of Christianity at any level…
I was reading a book written by a liberal who claimed that Jesus body was taken, buried and later dug up by dogs and eaten. Oh my, what evidence did they have…none! lol I then read another guy who believed the disciples saw a twin of Jesus…. I was laughing so hard that I was in tears. Is this the best stuff they can come up with… When you read the objections rational, they just look desperate and a Christian who knows the love God knows that their rejection is merely rebellion against God and a life of love which He provides.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:31 am
@Laura…
“I grew up on the banks of the Arkansas River in Dardanelle in Yell County.”
Why, by God, girl, that’s a Colt’s Dragoon! You’re no bigger than a corn nubbin, what’re you doing with all this pistol?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:49 am
You wrote:
Did you indeed mean to write “Matthew,” or were you referring to Mark 16:9-20 (which most Bibles mark with a note or brackets re: its inauthenticity – i.e., one doesn’t have to go to seminary to learn this).
Just askin’, ’cause if you did mean the write Matthew, I’m curious about which “chunk” you’re referring to.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Whoops, corrected! My head’s in Matthew; thanks for the catch!
February 8th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Well, I didn’t catch the typo in my OWN post where I wrote “…the write Matthew…” instead of “…to write Matthew….”
February 8th, 2010 at 10:04 am
RE:
ZDENNY Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:29 am
All Christians understand ….We all know …you are not aware…faith which allows us to know the love …The only people I have noticed that leave the faith are those who don’t know the love of God ….The case is the same for you. You ….you will come to ….Christianity is the only belief….a rational person will see …liberal…they just look desperate ..
Condensed ZDenny soup.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:54 am
@ZDENNY
Do you have to shout your name?
“I never found any ‘evidence’ that opposed the truth of Christianity at any level…”
Again, since you repeat yourself, I will repeat myself. Please present your evidence that the core tenet of Christianity, the son of an almighty deity was killed then raised from the dead. Note, you first must show evidence of his divinity, then show evidence for his ressurection.
“I was reading a book written by a liberal who claimed that Jesus body was taken, buried and later dug up by dogs and eaten”
1. I don’t trust you. So give me the title, author and date of publication, so I can verify your statement.
2. IF the statement is exactly as you say (which I really doubt…In my dealing with fundamentalist christians, especially when they get to talking about creationism or other matters of faith, haven’t presented themselves to me as particularly trustworthy), the author probably has more evidence for that treatment of a crucified criminal than you do for someone being raised from the dead.
–however, I do remember a Time magazine article along these lines from a few years back, where they never mentioned burial, they just pointed out that most crucified criminals weren’t buried. They were left to rot (check out Spartacus). If the bodies were taken down, then all sorts of scavengers would be allowed to feed on the body. Which, if there was a Jesus, and he was crucified, then that would have been the most likely method of disposal of the body.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
When I was in went to public college – I assumed that my “faith” problems centered around a lack of good/intelligent theological information being distributed. However, when I graduated and started to talking to peopled who had gone to seminary and reading some books I realized this was not the only issue.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
That “liberal” who said Jesus’ body was probably eaten by dogs would most probably be John Dominic Crossan in one or all of these books of his: Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus or Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography or The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Laura, your reasons are very similar as to why I began disbelieving and distrusting many things in the bible. It is a document written and compiled by humankind over thousands of years. Cultural/societal biases creep in, and of course it was ever subject to interpretation by the religious leaders of the day – interpretations that have changed dramatically over time. The core tenets of the faith are usually consistent, but given all of the public shouting over beliefs revolving around subtleties that only appear in small portions of the book (attitudes towards alcohol use, premarital sex, homosexuality, the creation myth, etc), who is to say that in fact religious leaders are in fact interpreting the rest of it correctly?
@Rich H: thanks for that, you beat me to having to post a rebuttal of zdenny again…
February 8th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I went to a Christian college and came out a more mature and thoughtful believer than when I entered. I had started to question my theology, but only within the boundary of Christianity itself. I never even dreamed of questioning the existence of God or the fact that Jesus was divine and died for me. Still, those first inklings of “Maybe what I was taught as a child isn’t true” lead me to the state where I could finally break my assumptions and examine the idea of a deity on its own.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
The first cracks in my Christian belief occurred when I was at a Christian college, but it took some years afterwards before I actually left Christianity. It was my course on Christian apologetics that was the biggest blow. The proofs and evidence for the faith were just shockingly weak. This lead me to a fideist approach which proved ultimately unsustainable.
“So I am constantly curious as to why some people lose their faith, while the vast majority do not. Any thoughts?”
I think the biggest difference is the honest willingness of people to hold their Christianity to the same level of scrutiny that they hold other religious or non-religious views to. Many simply cannot do this.
When you get right down to it, every argument for Christianity is special pleading. My holy book is true, yours isn’t – our miracles, answered prayers, and spiritual experiences are true, yours are faked or demonically counterfeited, etc…
February 8th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I think it has to do with each individual’s capacity for faith or maybe the importance they give to faith alongside other ‘virtues’. For those of us with more natural skepticism, Christian college probably makes us more likely to de-convert, since (as you said) the text is examined so closely. Many of my college friends are either emergent or heretical Christians; very few of them made it through with their faith exactly the same as when they came in (and the ones who did were of the no-think breed of evangelicalism.)
For me, it was the Bible that ‘undid’ my faith. We were five-point Calvinists (and I’ve honestly never heard of these mythical three-pointers– which points did they leave out?) which requires you to believe that God creates some people knowing and intending that they will go to hell. Even though we have free will, God “elects” some people and not others, so he is creating people in order to subject them to eternal torture. But you are also supposed to believe that God is good. So I was a non-Calvinist Christian for awhile, but Jericho had been nagging at me since I was a kid (that’s another Calvinist thing– we read the whole Bible, including the genocidal pieces, starting from a very young age. I came home in tears for the kids who’d lived in Jericho one day when I was in second grade.) God ordered the destruction of everything living in the city– grandparents, babies, everyone– KNOWING that they’re going to hell. I think I can honestly say that my faith started to collapse that day. But in college, the more people around you insist that God is all-good, the more you think of the times when God was clearly not good. God was vindictive. God was wasteful of human life. God was genocidal. God was unmerciful. My de-conversion started with the realization (in college) that worshipping this kind of person was morally repugnant. Most of the people I knew who retained their faith through college refused to engage with that kind of argument– they just said ‘Well, God is good’, and that was the end of it. But the rest of us talked about it, and tangled with other difficult theological ideas, and most of us walked away in the end, at least to some extent.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Rich H writes I do remember a Time magazine article along these lines from a few years back, where they never mentioned burial, they just pointed out that most crucified criminals weren’t buried. They were left to rot (check out Spartacus). If the bodies were taken down, then all sorts of scavengers would be allowed to feed on the body. Which, if there was a Jesus, and he was crucified, then that would have been the most likely method of disposal of the body.
First off, a hat tip to you sir on referring to a movie. Nothing quite like Hollywood’s zeal for the facts eh?
Second, the text clearly states why the three that were crucified were taken down. It was preparation day, which means that the next day was a sabbath (actually starting at sundown). Leaving those bodies up would have profaned the sabbath and so rather than leaving them up to asphyxiate the legs of the two were broken so they would die faster, but Christ was already dead so it was not necessary. Now perhaps a “normal” sabbath they could have been left up there to die on their own, but this was the day before Passover which is a huge holy day for the Jews. The text also explains that a grave was available for the body of the Christ and as such they respectfully wrapped him and placed Him in the tomb.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Laura,
Not knowing your particular circumstances, I can say that a lot of people lose the faith because it was never fully examined, ie doubts were never looked into, perhaps because questions were stymied by themselves or others. Another common reason is that the faith was never really theirs in the first place. By that I mean that they “inherited” it from their parents (which of course isn’t possible) or they identified with it because of the culture they were born into. An example of the latter is that some 190 million people in America go to church on christmas and easter, but never enter a church any other time of the year. Those people are cultural christians and they do not have a real faith so anything that challenges it could easily take its place.
I think that the Church is hugely at fault for both those reasons, but moreso the former. The Church should encourage people to examine their faith and wrestle with it to make it their own. And it should start preaching the actual Word of G-d rather than feel good tickle-your-ears sermons that are so favored today. If it did so it would again become a relevant institution
February 8th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Good points, DMM. I think many people do lose their faith for those reasons. But I think a lot of people were quite committed, too, and arrived at different conclusions than those who stay in their faith. Do you think the opposite could be true as well: that some people keep their faith because they’ve never examined it or are born into the culture? I think the people who do question their faith very heavily and manage to keep it are very interesting because I don’t have any experience with that. Why do you think people keep their faith despite so many doubts?
February 8th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
“Why do you think people keep their faith despite so many doubts?”
Looking at the example of someone I once loved, truth simply wasn’t as important to her as it was to me. She was very intelligent and highly educated (formal education in science, not theology, though she had read a fair amount of theology as well). She simply decided to value some things, like emotional fulfillment, above demonstrable truth and logic.
I can understand the desire to live a delusion in extraordinarily stressful situations (e.g., Nazi death camp), although I’m not sure how much that’s a choice, but I don’t understand why people in ordinary life would choose that…
And at the price of our love, too.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Why do you think people keep their faith despite so many doubts? Because having doubts leads to either dropping a belief system, or examining it. Some of us have chosen to critically examine it and it has withstood our questioning. For me that has meant some serious wrangling because there have been bits and pieces that I didn’t like. Where I thought, thats not right, its immoral. But upon further reflection it has been I that has had to change my beliefs in greater conformity to the Bible. Please note that I am NOT saying I am good at practicing it. I actually think that it is harder for me to practice my faith because I have examined it, whereas the “christian” whose motto is “G-d is good” and thats the extent of their theology can go about their lives living as everyone else on the planet does. That is the Cheap Grace that Dietrich Von Bonhoeffer warned of in his book The Cost of Discipleship.
As for people being able to hold onto unexamined beliefs… absolutely. There are a great many things that we hold onto that are at least partially if not wholly false. Its part of human nature that we will discard information that clashes with our beliefs. Its something that we ALL do, and it is not easy to overcome (from my experience those who claim to be the most open-minded are the worst at it)
The following is a quote from Dr. Drew Westen of Emory University Hafta scoll down to “Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts”
“When people draw conclusions about … events, they’re not just weighing the facts. Without knowing it, they’re also weighing what they would feel if they came to one conclusion or another, and they often come to the conclusion that would make them feel better, no matter what the facts are.
When you realize that we all do this it really makes you examine your beliefs. Or at least it did for me.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
@ZDENNY: I am an example that your point “The only people I have noticed that leave the faith are those who don’t know the love of God who are looking for any reason to walk away”,is null and void. I lived on that love from god, for 3 years. I was raised a christian, but was never a good enough christian to really “feel” his love, until 3 years ago when depression led me to that drug of choice. And it was the best buzz. I wish I could still believe it, just like a child who believed in santa, I had to really face-up to this imaginary love. It was not easy to realize that santa (god) wasn’t the one bringing me those gifts. In fact he was a made-up figure by humans. Relief – yes, to realize that he isn’t watching my every move, but disappointment to realize that I am now responsible to make my dreams happen. And I am responsible for the huge mess I had created, simply because I believed in something false. I no longer can say, “Oh well, it must have been gods will”, or “It will all work out for good, in the end”.
But I already know your answer/thoughts to my reply, because I myself believed all those answers/thoughts at one time. So my experience with “gods love” wasn’t real either. Since, I’m sure yours is the only true experience of that “love”.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
DoubleMindedMan wrote:
What’s with the omission of the vowel à la religious Jews’ and some Messianic or Noachide Christians’ reluctance to write or pronounce the word?
The authors of the New Testament had no problem writing theos or kurios in full and unabbreviated (the use of nomina sacra in the mss. is not the same thing). Therefore, why a Christian should or would be reluctant to write “God” seems… well, odd.
Or maybe you are in fact an Orthodox Jew?
February 9th, 2010 at 12:04 am
You nailed it on the Messianic. And its not necessary. Its more a sign of respect than anything and I find it is useful to me.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:48 am
(GOD, ZDENNY MAKES ME WANT TO THROW UP! And yes, I meant to shout that!)
I got my Bachelor of Theology and kept the faith, but this was a Bible College, where there is less in-depth study of the origins of NT manuscripts and similar topics. I think in a moderate-to-liberal seminary there would have been more questioning of fundamentalist doctrines. I just had a counselling session this week with a psychologist, and noticed that he had a Masters in Divinity from Princeton, and when I asked him if he knew Bart Ehrman, he said, “yes, we were classmates”. The difference being that Bart Ehrman is not a christian any more, and my psychologist was, although he admitted he did not believe in the OT stories as having any historical fact behind them.
The fuse that led to my faith exploding into fragments was lit 40 years ago (was that ever a long fuse!), during an Intro to Philosophy class that I took at community college. The prof absolutely destroyed my attempts at christian apologetics during a private meeting I had with him (that I asked for because I felt he was being “disrespectful” to christianity during lectures!). I came away a bit shell-shocked, but felt that it was my fault because I hadn’t learned my apologetics well enough. I now realize that I just wasn’t that intelligent! But his reasoning stayed with me all those years, until I had the courage to say “the emperor has no clothes” just a couple of years ago.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:01 am
@doublemindedman “First off, a hat tip to you sir on referring to a movie. Nothing quite like Hollywood’s zeal for the facts eh?
Second, the text clearly states… ”
While I did watch the movie “Spartacus” (actually, both versions, but not the TV series yet…), I wasn’t basing my estimate of the treatment of crucified criminals on the movies, but rather the extant documentation about Spartacus (Plutarch, Appian, Florus, etc…)
There are a couple of points to note here. First, crucifixion is a Roman punishment. Not a jewish punishment. Second, Pilate was notoriously insensitive to what the Jews wanted. He was a tyrant who used particularly brutal (or, typically Roman..) methods of dealing with any perceived insurrection. Which means that if Jesus was crucified, it was because the Romans didn’t like people declaring themselves king, when the Romans didn’t do the appointing. The logical follow on is that the body was treated according how the Romans wanted to treat the body, not how the Jews wanted any bodies to be treated…
The last point concerns your statement that I quoted above..”the text clearly states…”
Which text? One text actually acknowledges that the Romans might have a say in what happened to the body, the rest ignore the fact that the Romans executed Jesus. Why is that? All of the texts seem to point to the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus. But why would the Jews use a Roman method of execution? What does the Jewish law say about execution? Shouldn’t he have been stoned? After all, in Acts, “the first martyr” was stoned by Jewish authority, without the Romans paying any attention. What was so different about Jesus?
Your quotation of the text ignores the fact that your text is self contradictory, and quite unreliable historically. It is almost as if people are trying to convert Rome, and to make it more palatable they implicate the Jews in the “Christ killer” mode, so that good Roman citizens fell better when they convert “_We_ didn’t kill Christ, it was those dirty jews!”
It’s a good thing that attitude died out when the Christians got control of Rome, isn’t it? Otherwise, people might still say bad things about jewish people…
February 9th, 2010 at 6:05 am
You nailed it on the Messianic. And its not necessary. Its more a sign of respect than anything and I find it is useful to me.
Okey dokey.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:18 am
@doublemindedman
Oh, one last footnote..my source for Pilate’s treatment of Palestine was from Josephus. Even for a Roman, he was pretty nasty… And it would be entirely against his character to ask a jewish mob whether or not to release any criminals the Romans had under arrest…
February 9th, 2010 at 11:57 am
This is my secret.
I found your blog from googling what people were saying about my secret… and I can email you the uncovered picture if you want proof this is me.
I went to a small baptist school and majored in Philosophy. I don’t believe it’s evil at all. My professors and the questions they presented with challenged my faith in a good way. I stopped believing the bumper sticker theology most american christians believe “all things happen for a reason” “god has a specific plan for you” blah blah bullshit and started believing what Jesus taught. I saw the bible stories as metaphorical, like every other religion reads their text. Like mythology. It tells a much more beautiful story if you stop arguing for a universal flood and start wondering why the writers told that story and what we can learn about it.
But the people I went to school with were nothing short of terrible. I was in a ministry leadership committee and the other 30 or so people in it were (all but maybe 3) super judgmental. They didn’t listen, they didn’t try to get to know people who were different, they judged me for my political views, and when I voiced my doubts to them they all jumped up and prayed for me, each trying to top the others with the depth and genius of their prayer. But no one asked how I was doing or offered help other than a vocal prayer everyone could here.
I was “de-friended” on facebook for voicing my liberal political views during the november 2008 election by like 15 people from my school.
I brought a sexual advertisement into my media class so we could talk about sex in advertising (hello, huge) and my professor freaked out and wouldn’t show it, making me do my presentation in private and not in front of the class.
I said something in class about my dad drinking beer and everyone stared at me for like ten minutes in silence.
I wish I could elaborate for you how incredibly judgmental the community of my baptist school was. (not all of them, but ummm pretty much most of them).. If I wanted to remain a christian like them, following the “rules” of not drinking alcohol or dancing or cussing (when does Jesus say any of that?!) then I could have remained a Christian through college. But I left that school not wanting to be identified with that movement in any way, shape, or form. I graduated in May and since then I haven’t been to church. I describe myself as a pluralist and constantly apologize for the Christian community, the vatican hoarding money, the crusades, the street evangelists screaming at harry potter fans…
On the back of my postcard I wrote “The truth is, it’s already gone.”
I wonder why frank didn’t post that side…
February 9th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous, thank you so much for posting! (I don’t believe philosophy is evil, either; I should have put quotes around it to clarify my meaning.) Having been through a Baptist school and Baptist ministry, I know precisely how judgmental the community can be. I understand; those stories are awful because it’s not like you did anything wrong at all.
Good luck to you, and if you feel like hanging around and commenting on anything else, you’re more than welcome. Having been through a lot of the same stuff, or so it sounds, also feel free to email me anytime you want to talk privately.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
rich h writes:
and quite unreliable historically.
Careful. Your ignorance and bias is showing. That was a tenable position thirty years ago. It is not anymore.
As for the rest ignoring the romans killed Yeshua… Are you serious? 1) learn to read 2) comprehend what it is you read. Crucifixion was, as you noted, a distinctly Roman punishment and the gospels were written during that same timeframe so it was quite obvious to the reader who had done it.
Why didn’t they put Him to death themselves? Because they did not have the authority to do so (John 18:31), and because He was such a celebrity that they could not have gotten away with it as they could with the minor players. Also, due to that celebrity, had they killed Him the backlash would have been upon them. So while they had already convicted Him (Luke 22:71) they were forced to go through the “proper” channels for a conviction.
Now keep in mind the events happening in the background. This is the eve of the Passover. And that means that essentially every last male from all of Judea was there. A VERY volatile time where pissing off the natives would have led to instant, and very large, mobs. Israel was a contested territory and had a history of uprising and had successfully thrown off the yoke of nations much more powerful than they in recent history. Before Pilate was a group that had already been whipped into a frenzy by the Sanhedrin, and the Sanhedrin held a LOT of sway with the people of Israel at that time and could have done the same thing with the rest. This is due to the fact that many Jews did not believe Jesus was their Messiah, as well as the latent Jewish resentment of the Roman occupation.
The fact that so many are in Jerusalem at Passover is probably the reason that it was Pilate’s custom to release a prisoner at Passover. Actually, Pilate states it was their custom but he offered it at that time, John 18:39-40. Rulers often play small games of PR to ease the restlessness of those they rule over. Tyrants are no different. For a modern day example, Saddam was good to the Christian’s in Iraq, even paying for the materials to build their churches. That wasn’t done out of the goodness of his heart, but rather as a way to play groups against each other so that they focus less on him. So your attempt at claiming this was out of character is incorrect and would have been easily refuted at the time of the writing of the gospels.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Anonymous:
You say you attended “a small baptist school,” but your Post Secret photo/postcard shows you at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Is Fuller “Baptist”?
Or am I miss(read)ing something?
February 9th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
@doublemindedman
“Careful. Your ignorance and bias is showing. ”
Careful, the only people who make that claim about me consistently are creationists.
Also, personal attacks are what people use when they don’t have an argument. I do know how to read. I have read the same bible you have, and quite a bit of other writings about the bible, to boot. What I haven’t done, is go to a preacher and ask him to explain away the obvious contradictions.
Regarding my statement about the historical reliability of the Bible, I’m not the only person who claims that. Read through this thread, and you will find at least one Christian who does not think that the bible is in any way historically reliable.
As far as my position being thirty years out of date, while I will admit that I do not perform archaeological research personally, can you point me to specific articles which are contrary to the general tenet of my post, which have been generally accepted by the research community after peer review? Because in the popularizations of current biblical research that I have read (Bart Ehrman most prominently), there isn’t anything in my post which contradicts current research.
So, let’s go point for point, with every passage you give. The priests didn’t have authority to put Jesus to death (John 18:31)? Then why did they so readily dispose of Stephen (Acts 6:11 -7:58)? There is a disconnect here. And as far as Stephen being a “minor player”? Acts 6:7-9 6:7 “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Stephen Gets Stoned
6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. ”
That guy wasn’t a bit player. He was a miracle worker who accuses the priests in Chapter 7 of being in league with the Egyptians.
Pilate not wanting to upset the Jews? Like in these cases?
Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.175-177
“On a later occasion he provoked a fresh uproar by expending upon the construction of an aqueduct the sacred treasure known as Corbonas; the water was brought from a distance of seventy kilometers. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate, then on a visit to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamor.
He, foreseeing the tumult, had interspersed among the crowd a troop of his soldiers, armed but disguised in civilian dress, with orders not to use their swords, but to beat any rioters with cudgels. He now from his tribunal gave the agreed signal.
Large numbers of the Jews perished, some from the blows which they received, others trodden to death by their companions in the ensuing flight. Cowed by the fate of the victims, the multitude was reduced to silence.”
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62
“He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in.
He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal.
They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising.”
He doesn’t seem to be worried about uprisings. He knew how to handle disgruntled Jews.
And my point that the gospels were probably written as tools to convert Rome, and convince Rome that Christians weren’t a threat? How about these passages:
Luke 23 is a long chapter blaming the Jews for Jesus death
The passion of John is more of the same.
John 20 has the famous passage “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (John 20:19)
And let’s not forget that jokester Paul, who states in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15..
“14For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men”
And a last point, you always seem to use the bible as your documentation. I will reiterate, the bible is not a very reliable source. There are numerous contradictions on very basic points, obvious insertions as late as the middle ages and no other documentation corroborates any of the accounts in any of the gospels.
Sure, there can be some facts gleaned from the gospels after much careful study. For instance, it is pretty much acknowledged that there was in all probability a preacher who did his preaching and was most probably executed by the Romans. We can go a little further and surmise that he was an apocalyptic Jew, in the same fashion as Daniel, even using the same wording for his prophecies (“The Son of Man” is a phrase the two have in common)
However, I wouldn’t go much further than that. The crucifixion narratives are very divergent if you read them alongside each other, rather than reading one, then reading the next.
(noted..edited a little of the atrocious English…)
February 9th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
REALLY BAD JOKE COMING…..
@Anonymous..
I’ve heard about you! You wrote all those songs, right?
END OF REALLY BAD JOKE
February 9th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Lets see.
Yup. They killed Stephen. Got away with it legally (or at least for the time being), but the repercussions were much greater than they expected. Woops!
I didn’t claim Pilate didn’t want to upset the Jews. And the point you make is of a minor issue. Sure some people were quite upset about it, but it was not all the men of Judea as would be the case on the eve of Passover. Ever seen a mob? I have a brief glimpse of what that would be like and its quite scary how helpless one person is against a large group. It wasn’t a real mob but it sure gave me some insight into how hard it would be to stand up to one.
As for your belief that the bible is not reliable, I am not going to try to convince you that it is. Quite simply your required level of proof, if past experience holds correct, somewhere between being stuck by lightning and a chorus of angels appearing before you. I have better things to do. Same goes for your belief that its just Roman propaganda.
As for some things in Archaeology… It was claimed that the Hittites didnt exist, that the name Canaan was not in use at the time, that King Sargon did not exist, and another king, this one Belshazzar. There was something in the past few years IIRC where the Biblical name given to a king was finally discovered to be the correct spelling where it had been assumed the Bibles spelling was wrong. Do I have links? No. I’m not even so much as an armchair archaeologist. I do find some of their finds quite interesting, but don’t pursue it with any regularity. I did know an archaeologist. He got into it with ideas of adventure and exciting finds. Turns out his work was mainly categorizing poop! lol. Kinda felt sorry for him. The field just isnt that terribly exciting here in America.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:57 am
@Doublemindedman
First, giving credit where it is due. Thank you for laying off the personal attacks. They really do nothing to forward anyone’s argument, and are generally an admission that the attacker has no argument.
While I can understand your discomfort around mobs, in all fairness, you aren’t a psychopathic dictator with 10,000 armed soldiers who have no compunction with killing civilians at your command. In Pilate’s case, I am merely going with what was documented by Josephus, then trying to understand why he would be so full of angst about killing someone who called himself king. That is what is completely out of character.
Throwing a bone to the local populace? Sure. It makes Pilate look good, it makes Rome look good, and it makes the Jews the villains in this story. Sorry, that just seems like wonderfully convenient story. Is it definitely wrong? No, I’m not claiming that. Is it pretty unlikely? Yes.
The standard of proof? It isn’t anywhere near as high as you want to believe. However, remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Christianity is claiming that dead people came to life (multiple times, not just once). I would like to see a demonstration of that.
Here is the rub, Christianity isn’t the only religion that claims that. However, I’m sure that you consider all of the Greek, Roman, Hindu, and Egyptian myths of resurrection to be just that, myths. I just add one myth to that list. I require the same proof of resurrection of Jesus that you do of Vishnu.
On your last point, archaeology: I see you have either read Josh McDowell, or have heard him speak. (Or just listened to some tool like Strobel simply repeat McDowell’s talking points…without credit)
Good. So have I.
One of McDowell’s points rests on his statement that “historians claimed the bible was false because nobody found the Hittites, and they were laughing at Christians about the Hittites.”
Unfortunately, this is a straw man of McDowell’s creation. Feel free to show me one peer reviewed paper which makes the statement that the bible is false because nobody found the Hittites. I can wait. I will also bet a very large sum of money that you won’t find that paper.
All of those factoids mean nothing. Let me give you a more modern example. Suppose I tell you a story about Nazi’s, Hitler, espionage, Berlin, Egypt, the Mediterranean sea, submarines, and Jews. Is that a historically accurate story? Because all of those places, people and ethnic groups are real, we can treat this story as actual historical fact, right?
Well, according to your defense of the bible, you just tried to make the claim that “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is a documentary.
McDowell tries to make the claim that we believe that Caesar conquered Gaul only based on Caesar’s book. Then he tries to argue that we have four gospels, so they are more trustworthy. Unfortunately for Josh, we have archaeological evidence for Caesar’s conquests. We have other written sources (by Caesar’s enemies) also corroborating Caesar’s claims, we have Roman construction, coins, weaponry, all gathered from all of the places that Caesar conquered. We have buildings and arches raised to praise Caesar. We have Caesar’s death mask.
What we don’t have, is Alesia. No christians that I know of are trying to claim all of Roman history is bunk because we haven’t found Alesia.
So, show me the corroborating evidence for resurrection. Show me documentation written Christianities enemies (from the first century) that make the same claim Christians do. Show me another example of Pilate throwing the Jews a bone, and anguishing over a criminal’s execution. (hell, show me an example of George Bush agonizing over a criminal’s execution. And I’m not claiming Bush is a psychopath.)
As far as the excitement of archaeology, the archaeologists I know actually get quite excited whenever they find something. I feel bad that your friend is categorizing poop, but imagine what he could do if he found evidence of something really cool based on that. Like a change of diet which gives evidence to a plague that wiped out a civilization or something. All of a sudden he publishes 10 papers and gets his pick of University positions to teach at.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
McDowell’s claim about the Hittites is not very precise; it’s not that no one had found the Hittites; it’s that no one had found the Hittites’ most important archaeological monuments.
Rich H. might want to think twice about placing any bets. In the mid-1800’s, Francis Newman claimed that the Biblical account in II Kings 7:6 was unrealistic and non-historical on the grounds that the evidence at hand seemed to indicate that the Hittites were a small group, incapable of putting an army in the field that would intimidate the Syrians. The claim was in the 1857 edition of “History of the Hebrew Monarchy,” and it was commented about later (after the much greater-than-expected extent of the Hittite Empire was discovered) in Expository Times #9, which can be accessed online via Google Books.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am
@James Snapp
Roger that. Can you give me the quote that states that the entire bible is incorrect because of the Hittites? You seem to pull one scholar’s statement that one bit of text in the entire book is probably not factual based on current research and want to use that to cause me to lose a lot of money.
Of course, that is like saying that a historian has claimed that “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is false because the uniforms worn by the senior petty officers on the submarine were of the 1942 style, not the 1932 style…
Basically, you missed my entire point. Just because you can point to a factoid that is correct (the petty officer’s uniforms were actually correct) does not make the whole schmeer correct.
Let me give you something. I will allow you to claim, without any contradiction from me, that the Hittites were actually as stated in the Old Testament, word for word. (of course, which bible version’s word, I’m not arguing either..because there is a boatload of variation there…). Fine. Hittites were real.
Show me how that proves that people crawled out of their graves and walked around. Show me how that proves that the sun was stopped in the sky. Show me how that proves that jewish slaves built the pyramids and were led out of Egypt by Charlton Heston. Show me how that proves that either Genesis Chapter I or Genesis Chapter II is the true story of creation. Show me how that makes sense of a god raping a woman, and the child resulting from that encounter being the same person as the god rapist, who then grew up so that he could be slaughtered…but not because he came back to life just to make the original god happy because he didn’t make his creations right in the first place. Show me how that proves a world wide flood. Show me how that proves that a deity who commands genocide…multiple times.. is somehow good. Show me how that proves that human sacrifice is a swell idea (Jepthah). Show me how that proves that incest with your daughter is good (Lot) yet a son seeing his naked father is worth eternal condemnation (Jonah’s son)… not of the son, but of the son’s descendants, who weren’t playing peek a boo with Noah’s willy.
Show me how that proves any other story in the bible correct.
Yours in Hahgwehdiyu
Rich H
March 9th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Greetings, Rich,
No; I can’t give you any quote in which anyone claims that the entire Bible is incorrect because of the Hittites. That was not my intent. I was just pointing out the kernel of truth behind McDowell’s imprecise claim.
You wrote, “You seem to pull one scholar’s statement that one bit of text in the entire book is probably not factual based on current research and want to use that to cause me to lose a lot of money.”
On the contrary, I cautioned you against betting. (And, I could have written more, but since you asked for just one example, that is what I provided.)
The fact that the Hittite Empire turned out to be extensive enough to command the respect of the Syrians does not, of course, prove that people left their graves and appeared to many; nor does it prove that Hebrew slaves built the pyramids of Egypt. (Btw, there’s no Biblical statement that the Hebrews built the pyramids; the text indicates that they worked on the store-cities of Pithom and Rammeses.) Nor does it prove any of the other things you mentioned (with gigantic inaccuracies). Nevertheless this is no reason to ignore the lesson that it *does* teach.
I hope you see McDowell’s imprecisely presented but basically valid point: in some areas of Biblical research, the holes in the current state of evidence justify an approach in which researchers may feel justified in suspending judgment. Especially regarding subjects about which the text has been vindicated in the past, the researcher may give the text the benefit of the doubt, at least tentatively, even when scanty evidence tends to oppose the implications of the text.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:59 am
@James
While you still ignored the tenet of my statement, including the fact that I allowed Hittites to be exactly as they are portrayed in the bible, allow me to state one thing plainly. McDowell does not say we need to “reserve judgement”. Do you know what the title of his primary book is? In case you’ve forgotten: _The Evidence Demands a Verdict_. “Demanding a verdict” is not the mealy mouthed “let’s not be hasty here”. He is demanding that people believe in his mythology because 4 gospels outnumber 1 commentary and we found the Hittites. Sure, he throws in a couple of other items there, but if you want a point by point, chapter by chapter rebuttal, go here -> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/ I don’t have the time, and this blog doesn’t have the space for me to repeat every point that Lowder, et al have.
Again, regarding the benefit of the doubt…consider the points I made, regarding what finding the Hittites did not do. Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to a text that claims that all the graves opened and dead people were walking around Jerusalem (Matthew 27:53-54). Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to a book that has 2 different creation accounts, neither of which have any resemblance to any scientific research that has ever been performed.
I’m sorry, but if I told you I could fly without benefit of any kind of flying machine, or if I could bodily raise someone from the dead who has been verifiably dead for dead for weeks, you would ask for more reasonable proof. You wouldn’t give me the benefit of the doubt. You would demand I jump off a roof, or raise your great-great grandmother from the dead before you believed me.
So, tell me how I should give your holy book the benefit of the doubt you won’t give to a real live person? Why the double standard? Why are your books claims worthy of “reserving judgment” when mine are held in such contempt?
That in no way makes your claims to the bible’s veracity any more real. Might does not make reality. It only forces people to pretend that your fantasies are real if they are afraid enough.
Yours in Cuthulu.