 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 2:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Spyridon wrote: |
The Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection are divergent and in some elements do not overlap:
Resurrection Texts Comparison
http://propheticprogress.blogspot.com/2009/04/resurrection-texts-comparison.html
Should they be read spiritually or literally? Can a Christian suspend judgment on that question?
As a side note, when Jesus ascended into heaven, did he literally fly into outer space, reaching its furthest depths to enter the divine glory? Or do the ascension accounts reflect a prescientic worldview, in which the earth is flat, the sky is a dome-like firmament holding up water, and heaven isn't that far away? Can we be honest about Biblical cosmology? |
Spyridon, the Gospels diverge in many other ways besides the resurrection, as do the the Epistles occasionally, as do the OT books frequently. Being aware of the inconsistencies is obligatory to understanding the Bible, in my opinion.
As a Christian, I don't suspend judgement on it. I judge the inconsistencies unimportant, because my religion is not based on a book. The book is nice to have, but it's secondary and my many printed copies are full of various problems of textual transmission and translation, as are everybody else's.
Should I be concerned about the physics of the resurrection? Or how the multiplying loaves and fishes was accomplished? Personally, I don't sweat the molecular basis of miracles. Remember the "Joking Jesus" from Ulysses?
| Quote: |
Goodbye, now, goodbye! Write down all that I said
And tell Tom, Dick, and Harry I rose from the dead.
What's bred in the bone cannot fail me to fly
And Olivet's breezy... Goodbye, now, goodbye! |
I don't even worry about that version of the Ascension.
Should I be? Or rather, is your line of inquiry curious musings or are you headed somewhere specific? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jim Wilson
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 99
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Spyridon:
I've never understood why divergencies, or discrepancies, or inconsistencies, or contradictions (whatever you want to call them) should be of such great concern to people. Why wouldn't there be inconsistencies? If there were no inconsistencies, well that would be really strange and would indicate, to my mind, probably fabrication.
Have you ever heard four different reports of some event you didn't attend; say a concert, or a party, or a rally, or just a class session at college. You get four different accounts because the four different people have different interests, different memory capacities, different expectations as to what you want to hear, etc. It's not that anyone is falsifying what happened.
Re the Resurrection, for an articulate defense of the actual resurrection I refer those interested to N. T. Wright's, "The Resurrection of the Son of God". Wright is an Anglican Bishop and he presents a thorough defense of the traditional view of the resurrection.
Best wishes,
Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Janssens
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote Jim ,
It's not that anyone is falsifying what happened.
Early Christian Writings:`Acts of Paul and Thecla,
For there were certain men come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, saying: There is no resurrection of the flesh, but that of the spirit only: and that the body of man is not the creation of God; and also concerning the world, that God did not create it, and that God knoweth not the world, and that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but it was an appearance (i.e. but only in appearance), and that lie was not born of Mary, nor of the seed of David. And in a word, there were many things which they had taught in Corinth, deceiving many other men, (and deceiving also) themselves. When therefore the Corinthians heard that Paul was at Philippi, they sent a letter unto Paul to Macedonia by Threptus and Eutychus the deacons.
Guy, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Wilson
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 99
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good Friend Guy:
Nice quote.
In response, the discussion was about the four gospels and inconsistencies within those narratives. When I said that that no one was trying to decieve, I meant that none of the evangelists who wrote the gospels were trying to deceive; which I think is clear from the context of the thread.
Clearly there were gnostics running around creating works out of thin air, without historical content or even historical intention. And probably others as well. There always are such people.
But I think the focus here is if inconsistencies in the four canonical gospels constitute evidence that they are unreliable. I don't think so; in fact I would make the opposite assertion, namely that if all four gospels were completely consistent without any divergencies, then that would be a strong argument that they were in some sense doctored.
I'm often surprised at how brittle people are about the gospels. Variations among historians regarding other events are not taken to be evidence of utter falsification, nor do people draw the conclusion that the events didn't happen at all. It puzzles me as to why some people can't be more relaxed about the gospels.
Jim
Best wishes,
Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spyridon has a point about the resurrection, though. The Gospel accounts cannot be reconciled without leaving parts out or making the characters go through hoops in order to line things up. I've tried over and over to fit them together, unsuccessfully.
Even deciding whether the people at the tomb saw angels or men and how many can't be determined except by making assumptions and conclusions that aren't present in the story.
Why aren't the stories reconciled? Matthew, John, and Peter had years together to talk it over. Luke presumably was able to interview Mary for information, as he probably did for his stories of her younger life. Mark supposedly got his information from Peter.
The histories were apparently written down years later, after everybody had lots of opportunities to compare their experiences. Why do they contradict each other on an event so important to Christian doctrine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 3, 2010 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| The histories were apparently written down years later, after everybody had lots of opportunities to compare their experiences. Why do they contradict each other on an event so important to Christian doctrine? |
If you don't mind an apostate chiming in- you also have to into account translations, versions, and figures of speech, if I remember correctly they weren't all from the same area. Which is wicked hard to make sense of, sometimes, y'all know what I'm jawing about?
One can certainly choose to say, "Look, the flow makes sense," or, "Hey, the story doesn't make sense" depending on how much you believe the Bible needs to be understandable, inerrant, or some middle ground thereof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
When Biblical scholars look at the resurrection accounts, beginning with Paul in 1 Cor 15, they often conclude that these accounts are the product of a developing tradition, which began with a purely spiritual resurrection and ended with a corporeal resurrection.
Paul is silent on an empty tomb, contrasts the "natural body" with the "spiritual body," and states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God". If there is any evidence that Paul believed in an empty tomb, or that he believed the empty tomb is necessary for the resurrection to be true, I'd like to see it.
Everywhere else in the Bible, "flesh and blood" is used in a literal sense:
Genesis 29:14
Then Laban said to him, "You are my own flesh and blood." [ Jacob Marries Leah and Rachel ] After Jacob had stayed with him for a whole month,
Genesis 29:13-15 (in Context) Genesis 29 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 37:27
Come, let's sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood." His brothers agreed.
Genesis 37:26-28 (in Context) Genesis 37 (Whole Chapter)
Judges 9:2
"Ask all the citizens of Shechem, 'Which is better for you: to have all seventy of Jerub-Baal's sons rule over you, or just one man?' Remember, I am your flesh and blood."
Judges 9:1-3 (in Context) Judges 9 (Whole Chapter)
2 Samuel 5:1
[ David Becomes King Over Israel ] All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, "We are your own flesh and blood.
2 Samuel 5:1-3 (in Context) 2 Samuel 5 (Whole Chapter)
2 Samuel 19:12
You are my brothers, my own flesh and blood. So why should you be the last to bring back the king?'
2 Samuel 19:11-13 (in Context) 2 Samuel 19 (Whole Chapter)
2 Samuel 19:13
And say to Amasa, 'Are you not my own flesh and blood? May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if from now on you are not the commander of my army in place of Joab.' "
2 Samuel 19:12-14 (in Context) 2 Samuel 19 (Whole Chapter)
1 Kings 8:19
Nevertheless, you are not the one to build the temple, but your son, who is your own flesh and blood—he is the one who will build the temple for my Name.'
1 Kings 8:18-20 (in Context) 1 Kings 8 (Whole Chapter)
2 Kings 20:18
And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood, that will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."
2 Kings 20:17-19 (in Context) 2 Kings 20 (Whole Chapter)
1 Chronicles 11:1
[ David Becomes King Over Israel ] All Israel came together to David at Hebron and said, "We are your own flesh and blood.
1 Chronicles 11:1-3 (in Context) 1 Chronicles 11 (Whole Chapter)
2 Chronicles 6:9
Nevertheless, you are not the one to build the temple, but your son, who is your own flesh and blood—he is the one who will build the temple for my Name.'
2 Chronicles 6:8-10 (in Context) 2 Chronicles 6 (Whole Chapter)
Nehemiah 5:5
Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others."
Nehemiah 5:4-6 (in Context) Nehemiah 5 (Whole Chapter)
Isaiah 39:7
And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."
Isaiah 39:6-8 (in Context) Isaiah 39 (Whole Chapter)
Isaiah 58:7
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Isaiah 58:6-8 (in Context) Isaiah 58 (Whole Chapter)
1 Corinthians 15:50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1 Corinthians 15:49-51 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 15 (Whole Chapter)
Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Ephesians 6:11-13 (in Context) Ephesians 6 (Whole Chapter)
Hebrews 2:14
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—
Hebrews 2:13-15 (in Context) Hebrews 2 (Whole Chapter)
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22flesh%20and%20blood%22&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spyridon wrote: |
| When Biblical scholars look at the resurrection accounts, beginning with Paul in 1 Cor 15, they often conclude that these accounts are the product of a developing tradition, which began with a purely spiritual resurrection and ended with a corporeal resurrection. |
Out of curiosity... is this a theory, or something that can be shown quantitively? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shay wrote: |
| Spyridon wrote: |
| When Biblical scholars look at the resurrection accounts, beginning with Paul in 1 Cor 15, they often conclude that these accounts are the product of a developing tradition, which began with a purely spiritual resurrection and ended with a corporeal resurrection. |
Out of curiosity... is this a theory, or something that can be shown quantitively? |
I hope that I've already shown that in 1 Cor. 15, Paul contrasts the "natural body" with a "spiritual body," stating that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God". Paul also makes no distinction between how the risen Christ appeared to the apostles and his own vision on the Damascus road. Since this is the oldest resurrection account, many Biblical scholars consider it to represent an earlier tradition than the Gospels in which the resurrection was spiritual, not corporeal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| All I'm trying to say is the more we grasp for precision and certitude, the less we have of both. I used to claim to know everything, to have the only true way of seeing things. I now see the error of such a mindset. While I might be agnostic as to the precise details of Jesus' resurrection, I am confident that it is true, even if I cannot prove it definitively. I am trying to be humble in my faith, not claiming to know too much with too much certainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spyridon wrote: |
| When Biblical scholars look at the resurrection accounts, beginning with Paul in 1 Cor 15, they often conclude . . . |
| Spyridon wrote: |
| Since this is the oldest resurrection account, many Biblical scholars consider it to represent an earlier tradition . . . |
Be careful with all them Biblical Scholars. Not one of them was around to see what they write about.
Biblical criticism has fashions that go up and down like women's skirts, and often has no more lasting meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For example, Augustine's exegisis of the Wedding at Cana. A classic, from which here is a short excerpt:
| Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel of John. Tractate II., Chapters 1-11. wrote: |
. . . Hence “there were there six water-pots,” which He bade be filled with water. Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy.
7. But what means this: “They contained two or three metretæ apiece”? This phrase certainly conveys to us a mysterious meaning. For by “metretæ” he means certain measures, as if he should say jars, flasks, or something of that sort. Metreta is the name of a measure, and takes its name from the word “measure.” For μέτρον is the Greek word for measure, whence the word “metretæ” is derived. “They contained,” then, “two or three metretæ apiece.” What are we to say, brethren? If He had simply said “three apiece,” our mind would at once have run to the mystery of the Trinity. And, perhaps, we ought not at once to reject this application of the meaning, because He said, “two or three apiece;” for when the Father and Son are named, the Holy Spirit must necessarily be understood. For the Holy Spirit is not that of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For it is written,” If any man love the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him.”205205 1 John ii. 15. And again, “Whoso hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of His.”206206 Rom. viii. 9.
The same, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Therefore, the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Spirit also is understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And when there is mention of the Father and Son, “two metretæ,” as it were, are mentioned; but since the Holy Spirit is understood in them, “three metretæ.” That is the reason why it is not said, “Some containing two metretæ apiece, others three apiece;” but the same six water-pots contained “two or three metretæ apiece.” It is as if he had said, When I say two apiece, I would have the Spirit of the Father and of the Son to be understood together with them; and when I say three apiece, I declare the same Trinity more plainly. |
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.x.html
For context, translate the Greek "metretae" into the KJV's more accessible "firkens." I especially appreciate Augustine's acute observation that whenever a jar holds all three firkens, the Trinity is sure to be indicated, as opposed to only two firkens, which may only indicate the Father and the Son.
I call this "Firken Silly Biblical Criticism." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 7, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| Spyridon wrote: |
| When Biblical scholars look at the resurrection accounts, beginning with Paul in 1 Cor 15, they often conclude . . . |
| Spyridon wrote: |
| Since this is the oldest resurrection account, many Biblical scholars consider it to represent an earlier tradition . . . |
Be careful with all them Biblical Scholars. Not one of them was around to see what they write about.
Biblical criticism has fashions that go up and down like women's skirts, and often has no more lasting meaning. |
It's not just what the scholars say but what Paul's own words say.
The New Testament appears to be ambiguous as to whether Jesus' resurrection was corporeal or spiritual. I'm not going to make a judgment either way, because I believe the resurrection is ultimately true either way. I hope the verses of Scripture I've given have been helpful in showing this ambiguity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyridon
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 8, 2010 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That the resurrection is just a metaphor, as Crossan has claimed, is not a good enough explanation, in my view, of how the Christian movement could survive despite Christ's death. What good is a dead Messiah? I never want to give the impression that I deny the reality of Jesus' resurrection, even if I'm agnostic as to it's precise details. A spiritual body can have a physical presence, just as angels are described in the Old Testament. What Jesus' resurrection means to me is that Jesus' teaching and way of life are right, while the domination system of this world that crucified him is not. This is a view rooted in the epistles of Paul, and shared by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, despite their many differences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
