Bart D.E.
But the question I’ve been being asked is: do I think apologists who say such things REALLY believe them? Or are they being dishonest, knowing full well that they can’t be right but insisting they are because in the end that will, in their view, lead to a better result (e.g., the conversion of unbelievers).
My personal sense is that whatever their deep conscience is telling them below the surface, they really believe (on the surface, or at least in their heads) what they say and do not think they are presenting falsehoods. That is, I personally suspect that (all of the time? Most of the time?) they are not being dishonest or at least trying to be dishonest. That what they say is what they genuinely believe. At least I think that’s what I think.
But what do you think?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Call a spade a spade.
I can respect Jesus to a certain extent; but, 1) he is a composite character of historical fiction; within that fiction, 2) he is a false prophet, and, in the end, 3) he took an atheistic stance against his god.
Jesus is placed in the category of apocalyptic prophets who proclaimed a tribulation for Jerusalem (that happened), followed by judgement (that did not happen), followed by a glorious kingdom of his god (that did not happen). Scholars say he is not 1 for 3 but 0 for 3 because the gospels were written after the tribulation where Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. What was the atheistic stance? The atheistic stance is telling people to remember him by consuming wine and bread representing his blood and body. That ran afoul of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (God turns his face away from that and separates the offender from his people).
Why would Jesus do this? There are two reasons: Jesus represents those who wanted a better government, some of whom participated in the Revolt against Rome (AD 66 to AD 70 to AD 73). Many lost their religion when they lost their Temple, so they decided to lose their god. That is what the gospel story represents.
There was a historical Jesus of Galilee. He lost the Battle of Galilee. Jesus of Galilee, John of Gischala, and Simon bar Giora were re-written by the gospel writers. Simon Peter asked what will happen to John, the Beloved Disciple. “What is it to you if he lives? … Someone will lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus of Galilee was probably killed when the land Battle of Galilee moved into the Sea of Galilee. John and Simon were captured. John was showed mercy and got life in prison. Someone led Simon in the triumphal parade for Rome putting down the Revolt, then, he was executed. That is what the gospel story represents.
Bart D.E.
After we had made our presentations there was a panel discussion, in which the moderator appealed to one specific issue to see how we would each address it. It’s a minor but intriguing difference between the Gospels.
In Mark Jesus sends the twelve disciples out on a mission to preach the coming kingdom, and he instructs them NOT to take anything with them (no bread, bag, or money) EXCEPT a staff (** you do not have permission to see this link **). And so the moderator asked us: which did Jesus really say? Take a staff or not?
Gospel of Mark
Take a staff.
Gospel of Matthew
Do not take a staff.
QUESTION: Which gospel is wrong?
Bart D.E.
Both cannot be right.
Apologists
This may seem to be a contradiction, but, in fact, it is not a contradiction.
Audience Member
Alright, who’s going to turn over the tables this time(?)–“seem to be a contradiction but isn’t.”
Mike Licona
Gospel of Mark is correct, Mark correctly reported what Jesus said. Matthew did a 180 degree on Jesus’ instruction.
Matthew intentionally said the opposite because that is what ancient biographers did to make a point.
Paul Wright
Mt and Mk use two different Greek words for “take” (as translated by NRSV). The ESV even translates them differently: “acquire” versus “take”. That allows them to claim no contradiction.
Bart D.E.
Wow. Thanks.
R.H.B.
This reminds me of the potentially endless argument in first semester law school legal drafting on the difference between unlawful and illegal.
= = =
W.B.
They are starting from the standpoint of *needing* each of these points – both doctrinal and historical- to be true. Because if any ground is given, the whole belief structure starts to crumble.
If you need something to be true, you will go to any length to synthesize contradicting truths.
I remember being a Christian, and as long as there *was* an explanation – it didn’t have to be a good one – I was satisfied. Combine that with the sincere belief that you are a spiritual warrior who must defend your faith, literally fighting on the spiritual plane.. it’s a difficult spell to break out of.
= = =
jhague
Toe the line and don’t cross it. If you do, you get disqualified and get no paycheck.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Don’t upset the applecart: do not spoil carefully laid plans.
It depends on the mission of the church, if that market adopts by book.
Is the mission of the church to develop truth seekers, to pursue historical accuracy?
Answer: No.
The Last Supper and Communion is a contradicts Leviticus 17: 10.
= = =
2380
Dr. Ehrman,
Perhaps you could ask them what license did the gospel writers use to overwrite the words of there divine savior, and by whose authority the license is granted.
Steefen said
Paul WrightMt and Mk use two different Greek words for “take” (as translated by NRSV). The ESV even translates them differently: “acquire” versus “take”. That allows them to claim no contradiction.
Bart D.E.
Wow. Thanks.
R.H.B.
This reminds me of the potentially endless argument in first semester law school legal drafting on the difference between unlawful and illegal.
= = =
W.B.
They are starting from the standpoint of *needing* each of these points – both doctrinal and historical- to be true. Because if any ground is given, the whole belief structure starts to crumble.
If you need something to be true, you will go to any length to synthesize contradicting truths.
I remember being a Christian, and as long as there *was* an explanation – it didn’t have to be a good one – I was satisfied. Combine that with the sincere belief that you are a spiritual warrior who must defend your faith, literally fighting on the spiritual plane.. it’s a difficult spell to break out of.
= = =
jhague
Toe the line and don’t cross it. If you do, you get disqualified and get no paycheck.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Don’t upset the applecart: do not spoil carefully laid plans.
It depends on the mission of the church, if that market adopts by book.
Is the mission of the church to develop truth seekers, to pursue historical accuracy?
Answer: No.
The Last Supper and Communion is a contradicts Leviticus 17: 10.
= = =
2380
Dr. Ehrman,
Perhaps you could ask them what license did the gospel writers use to overwrite the words of there divine savior, and by whose authority the license is granted.
How many times have I told you the peyote is strictly for the adults?
Tom H
Something inspired from a comment from ldr
Do you want to be relevant to scholars and church congregations or do you want to seek truth?
= = =
Bart D.E.
There are some that I refuse to share a stage with, normally because I think they are unpleasant human beings who think scorn and ridicule is a form of intellectual exchange.
= = =
Tuxedo
Tell it like it is, not how it has to be.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
“.. there is an ambiguity in the use of the Hebrew word svt, (shebet;) and the Evangelists, though they wrote in Greek, used the word rha’bdos in various senses. Matthew and Luke mean by it a rod which would be burdensome to the person who carries it: while Mark means by it a walking-stick to support and relieve a traveller.”
I think that Calvin’s explanation, if you unpack it, implies a position consistent with Mike’s. Mark reports Jesus as enjoining the Twelve to take a walking stick only – and I understand Calvin to maintain that Jesus actually said just that. But in Matthew’s and Luke’s understanding, ‘staff’ refers rather to a more substantial implement – presumably for a protection; and so they adjust the report to be consistent with the injunction not to carry anything burdensome.
So the instruction to carry a walking stick is inerrant; as too is the instruction not to carry anything burdensome.
Though Calvin emphasises, as he always does, that Jesus’s injunctions should always be interpreted in their Gospel contexts; these are not universal rules for Christian missions.
Reply
Note: the two contrasting stories also conflict on whether sandals are to be worn or not. Matthew says the instruction was to not wear sandals while Mark says the instruction was to wear sandals. Maybe the terrain was different – all staffs/rods may not be the same but sandals are sandals!!
= = =
speakforthose
This gets to the definition of dishonesty. Does self-deception count? Denial? Motivated reasoning?
= = =