Loading...I wrote chapter 7 of How Jesus Became God today, and started with this anecdote that will sound somewhat familiar to those who know my story….
********************************************************************************************************************
I first began to have serious doubts about my faith when I was in graduate school. After I had graduated from Moody Bible Institute I had gone off to finish my undergraduate degree at Wheaton College, a strongly evangelical liberal arts college and the alma mater for Billy Graham. For me this was a step toward liberalism. I was a very hard core evangelical in those years. But even though the liberal arts did expand my horizons significantly they did not make me particularly liberal. I came to graduate studies at Princeton Theological Seminary firmly convinced that the Bible was without error in any of its teachings and that the doctrines I accepted as a conservative Christian were given by God himself.
That began to change the more I studied the Bible. I had taken Greek at Wheaton as my foreign language, to allow me to read the New Testament in the original language. My first semester at Princeton Seminary I signed up to take Hebrew, to allow me to read the Old Testament in its own original language. And I did so, both testaments, rigorously. Over time, when taking courses in both Hebrew Bible and New Testament, I started finding problems that previously I had simply dismissed, written off, or facilely explained away. But the problems continued to surface and re-surface.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
I feel so bad for all the fundamentalists who have to struggle so hard with what are such common sense realities for most of us. Looking back at my childhood in sixties, my parents were religious (Catholic), but most everyone seemed to have a sixth sense about what was practical normal life. It was not a big deal if some kids decided to be atheists in high school. At a Catholic University, I doubt if any of the theology professors believed in the physical resurrection. What was important was taking care of the poor and good schools and playing golf at the public courses (not necessarily in that order). Was watching ‘She’s the One’ on TV, the other day:
John Mahoney (as Mr. Fitzpatrick): Hey, wait a minute, buddy, I don’t give a !@#$%&* what you say out there, but when you’re in my house you’re not going to start bashing the Church.
Edward Burns (Mickey): What are you getting so upset about, Dad, you don’t even believe in God.
Mr. Fitzpatrick: That doesn’t mean I’ve stopped being a good Catholic!
It’s interesting how it’s not the external things so much that cause one to question one’s faith, but the internal things; how one begins to think differently toward something that was always present that is the kicker. I remember back in my evangelical days that the big threat (if any I thought) to my remaining steadfast in the faith would be something external such as persecution, torture etc but for me it ultimately was our daughter’s severe brain damage during labour and delivery that caused me to begin looking at the bible differently and seeing what is now so blatant that I simply wrote off or explained away before.
Yes the chinks in the armour as you put it, or like that game of Jenga where certain blocks may be removed where the structure is weakened but remains intact, but eventually one block is removed that causes everything to fall with a mighty crash. The faith crisis; that one last block, that “fatal” chink in the armour upon where a decision must be made whether to cling to the relative safety of what one was brought up to believe or to step out and begin a new quest for the truth. The latter choice is certainly more liberating!
Wow! I am so glad that you are including these personal anecdotes in your book. They enrich the book so much and also provide some breaks from the Christology theology. I imagine that many readers of this blog have had experiences similar to the one you describe. My similar experience with Bible contradictions came during my college years with the reading of Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason” which I read after learning that this book had strongly influenced the beliefs of Abe Lincoln.
You have a gift for describing your experiences clearly without seeming self-absorbed. Keep it up.
Where do you think the gospel of John likely originated (i.e. Ephesus, somewhere else, etc.)?
I’m not at all sure. There are so few indications in the text itself, apart from the fact that it was outside of Palestine in a large urban area that had both Jews and Christians….
Many thanks to you and Professor Holmes for that quote from St. Augustine. I’ve had many restless nights wondering about being wrong in leaving my fundamentalist faith and what it might be like to burn in eternal fires. There truly is some solace in those words.
You say, ” In Mark 4 Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Well, actually, that’s not true, is it?” Where in Mark does Jesus say it’s the smallest “on earth?” He doesn’t say this, and if you’re honest, you’ll recognize it. I propose that you read carefully what he said, rather than introject your assumption. The mustard seed is, in fact, the smallest garden-variety seed to be found in Palestine, as well as the entire Eastern world, and the point Jesus was making is well-taken.
So if I have a third-string line backer from the Detroit lions over for a dinner party, and I announce to my guests that he’s the “highest paid football player,” that would be true because he would be the only football player in the room? OK then!
lol well said!
I think Ron’s point is more than valid from an historical standpoint, cause he points out how Jesus’ words should be read in the proper historical context and culture with no ambiguities.
Your counter-example of the football player at the dinner party, although amusing and provocative, it is not fully consistent because it assumes a different, modern context where your statement can have different layers of interpretations.
I believe that the main goal of historians should be to present facts putting them in their proper historical milieu, cause if you extrapolate a fact from his original cultural context and read it thru the lenses of our modern culture, then you lose the real meaning and significance of such fact. And this doesn’t help to improve our knowledge.
Again, Jesus did not say what you think he said – plain and simple! The mustard seed is, indeed, the smallest in Palestine to be “sown on the soil [in Palestine].” Orchid seeds don’t exist there, I’m told. If he had said that it was the smallest “on earth,” which would include those seeds outside Palestine, I could see things your way. BTW, with Neptune exactly conjunct your Mercury, you have a way of twisting things that I consider unbecoming.
Mark 4:31:
(NRSV) It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth
(NIV) It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth.
(NKJV) It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth;
I don’t get your arguement, Ron. Are we talking about the same verse???
poppy seeds!
Now that you are an agnostic what if anything has replaced “All truth is God’s truth” which you once found useful in your quest for truth?
Actually, I still hold to that, thinking of “God” metaphorically.
If God doesn’t exist then God’s truth doesn’t exist. So, you hold to “All truth is something that isn’t”?
To me, your reply seems to imply that you have been able to think about God non-metaphorically. Isn’t all thought about God metaphorical?
What metaphorical thoughts do you have about the God who doesn’t exist that enable you still to find meaning in “All truth IS God’s truth”?
I really have no idea what your reply means.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be talking in mysteries. All I meant is that if something is true, we don’t need to be afraid of affirming it, and we should go wherever we think the truth is leading us.
Thanks for the clarification. I think it is beautifully stated, and I definitely agree with it. Since it’s not a matter of mysticism but of inexorable logic, let me simplify and sharpen my argument.
If God does not exist then God’s truth does not exist. If it’s also true that “All truth is God’s truth” then “All truth is something that does not exist” or more simply “All truth does not exist”. Snap goes the logical trap. The assumptions have led to a logical paradox: There exists a truth, namely, All truth does not exist.
For the agnostic there is an obvious way out of the paradox: Deny the assumption that “All truth is God’s truth”. In the same vein, I don’t see how an agnostic can logically believe that Augustine got it right when he wrote that “…truth belongs to [the] Lord, wherever it is found…”.
This got my attention because of your reference to Arthur Holmes. If you haven’t read it, sometime you might enjoy reading Michael S. Hamilton’s doctoral dissertation (1994): “The Fundamentalist Harvard: Wheaton College and the Continuing Vitality of American Evangelism, 1919-1965.” In it, he writes at length about his interview with Dr. Holmes and the “challenges” he encountered teaching philosophy at Wheaton. There is other interesting stuff, too. I think it is unfortunate that Hamilton included the word “Fundamentalist” in his title. In my opinion, it does not reflect the professional competence of someone like Arthur Holmes who at the time of his retirement was one of the most honored and revered members of Wheaton’s faculty.
Yes, of course if God doesn’t exist then anything pertaining to him doesn’t!!! But I’m speaking metaphorically when I say “God,” not literally. In any event, I do think truth exists. The question is what it is.
Thanks for your reference to Hamilton’s dissertation. I hadn’t heard of it.
Bart,
In my own little way, I have gone through the same thing. Thanks for sharing.
You were kinda pastoral to me in this post in a strange sort of way.
Jerry
Bart, great post. As I was going through your older posts, I realized you had responded to me and I didn’t even know! It’s also a little frustrating to have to follow some interesting “questions and answers” threads. It’s impossible to know when they get updated. A quick suggestion: some of the other blogs I follow allow for getting email messages when some comments on a particular post that I’ve also commented. This is something easy to set up, I’m sure your tech guy can do it in no time. And I believe it will help to follow some very interesting answers to important questions.
Take care!
Then I’m afraid I’m not following your line if reasoning. You say that “In John Jesus is a pre-existent divine being who is equal with God. The earliest Christians did not believe this”, however, in your previous post on Paul and Philippians you made clear that “incarnation Christologies were probably around before Paul”.
And if we talk of a period “before Paul”, then we’re definitely talking of “earliest Christians” – for sure earlier than John !
Jesus was an enigmatic figure, not just for us, but enigmatic even for his first followers who tried to explain who Jesus was. One (early, jewish) explanation was the “incarnation Christology”: of course anyone is free to believe it true or not, that’s perfectly licit !
In my view, the NT represents the efforts of ancient jewish people to explain something extraordinary for them, something that forced them to review and rethink their beliefs.
In any case, all NT authors clearly deal with a manifestation of divinity, struggling to explain the “divine nature” of Jesus – no doubt about it. And that’s enough to believe in God, the “abba” invoked by Jesus, without whom there couldn’t be any “divine being” like Jesus – either pre-existent or glorified after his death.
That’s my two cents, ciao.
Ah! By “earliest” christains I didn’t mean all those around before Paul’s letters, but the very earliest ones — int he first few years of the faith.
Then this moves into the area of guessing, since we have no writings before Paul’s.
Ah, it may seem that way! But as it turns out, there are ways to get behind our writings to ealrier traditions. That’s why God invented scholars!
🙂 Very good point indeed.
Are we so sure that it was God who invented scholars …
Hey, who else would have invented them? 🙂
It’s a guessing game when you have scholars who can’t agree on the issues or the definitions, and even if they were to agree 100%, this is no guarantee that they’re right. To give just two examples: 1) it has been suggested here by one scholar that the Greek expression ἐντός ὑμῶν (which means “within you”) is to be interpreted as “among you” or “within your midst.” Both of these latter interpretations, they will tell you, means the opposite of “within you,” which is what the Greek phrase means. They will say this even knowing that the phrase ἐκτός ὑμῶν, which none of our Greek texts have, would clearly express the interpretation that they give, and 2) Galileo’s excommunication from the Church – now how could the majority of scholars agree that the telescope is a “tool of the devil”?
OK, but by that definition you too are playing a guessing game, since there are scholars who don’t agree with you.
What is the current consensus of biblical scholarship these days regarding the historicity of the Gospel of John – how much of it can be used to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus?
There are different opinions, but the majority of scholars seem to think that John is the least historical of all the four Gospels and has to be used very gingerly and critically indeed.
Hi Dr. Ehrman
I address you as such out of respect intending to demonstrate upfront acknowledgement of your academic accomplishments. I will now however and henceforth refer to you as Bart because I am your senior. I am an unapologetic (mono)theist whom “asked Jesus into my heart” at the age of four but whom has since experienced the proverbial “crisis of faith”. I am such simply because atheists have failed completely in their attempts to convince me otherwise. It was noticed in a prior comment that reference was made to your being an agnostic. It might needs be said that I am aware of the difference between atheism and an agnosticism. I would not presume to speak for you but it seems to me, from the admittedly limited exposure to your writings and/or debates and therein by extension your thinking, that you have “over reacted just a tad” to the “convoluted scripture reality”. It is my personal opinion that you may have thrown the baby Jesus out with the bathwater so to speak.
One Dr. Gerald Schroeder has, through his work in physics (combined with his acknowledgement of “ancient” wisdom), provided for me more credible evidence for the existence of “THE ONE” behind “the why” than any of the bible scholars with whom I have thus far had to do. The scientific evidence in “description of/explanation of” the universe which both you and I experience in some manner on a daily basis demands a verdict in favor of an eternal creator. An inspired and inerrant holy-book is not a prerequisite to/for acknowledging The Living God. And, you know what the irony is? As Mr. Schroeder so eloquently writes about his discoveries: The bible has been saying such things for millennia.
I have been engaged in a lengthy (in my sixth year) consideration of “The Book of Revelation”. It actually predicts the apostasy of the congregating/”the church”. I am of the opinion that “the monster” which purports to be the church has little or nothing to do with The Living God. Chapters two and three represent an easily distinguishable prophetic history of that group as it “spirals into the vortex”. Is it any wonder that “the writings” of founding stalwarts WERE desecrated by lesser men. I cannot disagree with your evaluation nor however can I support you in your response. As one who is “approaching the departure gate” I will say that I expect to see you in eternity. We both know that you really have no say in the matter. A fellow in transition
All I can say after reading that is thanks God I’m an atheist.
Lol.
The “church, ” which I presume to mean the Catholic Church, has been in apostasy for 2000+ years! It only takes one or two misinterpretations of Jesus’ parables to become adherents of this apostasy.
Thank you for the post. O.K. So I am basically becoming Agnostic about the divinity of Jesus. I have a wife that is Crazy Catholic. Deification of Mary, holy water urn in the kids room, Catholic art everywhere. It’s driving me nuts. What do others that have wives who are more than true beleivers do? She is going to think I’m crazy if I start bringing any of this stuff up.
Although i am agnostic, some of the sciences credited to the OT are intriguing. Such as Matthew Maury discovering the Gulf Stream from reading Psalms 8:8. That scientists have only recently found that vitamin k spikes to several times normal on a baby’s 8th day, the day that God instructed for circumcision. Vitamin K is essential for clotting.
Don’t know where the verse is located but it says that God hangs the Earth on “nothing” when the greatest minds of that time thought the world rested on a turtle’s back, or Atlas held it up.
These are just the ones that i can remember but there are lots more. Check out the Creation Science website. Interesting.