I’m Back! (…and a nod to James Brown!)
It has been almost two months since my last post. If you follow my blog, you might have been wondering where I’ve gone? The short answer is that the tornado that hit Little Rock on March 31st just happened to hit my neighborhood, my house included. I’ve been spending much of my time over the past seven weeks doing things like calling the insurance company, calling the roofers, calling the ATT, doing this, doing that…. Throw on top of that trying to do all the “end of year” things teachers at this time of the school year are frantically doing, and well, working on my blog got put on the shelf. And oh, one other thing took up my time: putting the finishing editorial touches on my Blue-Collar Bible Scholar: New Testament Reader’s Guide and BCBS NT Reader’s Guide Workbook that is due to come out in September. The closer we get to the date, I guarantee to promote it more on my blog and elsewhere.
Let’s Look at that “Sign of Jonah”
All that said, I thought I’d get back in the groove a bit by writing a short post on that curious “sign of Jonah” mentioned in Matthew 16:1-4. The reason it’s so curious is that in its parallel passage in Mark 8:11-13, Mark doesn’t have Jesus mentioning the “sign of Jonah” at all. This had led some of a more skeptical stripe to conjecture that this is yet another example of a “contradiction” in the Bible that further shows the Bible is historically unreliable, etc.
To be sure, there are many examples of clear differences between the Synoptic Gospels that have sparked this kind of debate. Most of the time, Christians of the more “fundamentalist/inerrantist” stripe try to explain away the clear difference with some sort of over-simplistic answer. For example, in Mark 10:46-52, as Jesus is leaving Jericho to go to Jerusalem, he heals Bartimaeus, a blind beggar. Yet in the parallel passage in Matthew 20:29-34, there are two blind men and neither one is named. And to top it off, Luke 18:35-43 only mentions one beggar, but he doesn’t name him. Quite literally, all three accounts are different. So, which is? One or two beggars? The more “fundy” answer often goes something like, “Well, there was two, but Mark just mentioned one.” By contrast, the atheist skeptic tends to answer something like, “Oh look at this blatant contradiction! You can’t explain it away! You can’t trust anything in the Bible!” Okay, maybe that it a bit hyperbolic—but have you ever read some of the rantings of online atheists? They can get pretty hyperbolic!
Sadly, though, debates over differences like this often immediately go to arguing over some kind of historical explanation. On top of that, inevitably, with some of the slightly more knowledgeable “fundy” apologists and “atheist” apologists, there will be numerous quotes and citations from their preferred scholars that end up sounding like how so many long-winded historical-critical scholars tend to write—always trying to find some new, novel, or edgy explanation. Such explanations tend to convince only the ones spouting them.
What has mystified me from the time I was a grad school at Regent College up through today is how, when it comes to the Bible, people just can’t seem to let themselves actually read it as they would any work of literature. Don’t get me wrong, I think most of the Bible is historical. But I’ve also come to the clear conviction that its testimony to those historical events come to us in the form of literature, much like Mel Gibson’s movie Hacksaw Ridge is about a real historical person in the very real WWII, but at the same time is creatively shaped to fit into a two-hour movie format. Some dialogue is invented, some characters are slightly changed, but that’s okay. No one thinks it is a “documentary,” but at the same time, no one walks out saying, “Oh, in real life, Private Dobbs’ father pulled a gun on Dobbs’ uncle, not his mother! World War II never happened!” We know the movie is historical, but we also know that there are creative choices in the making of the movie…and we accept it and are okay with it.
The same dynamic happens all the time in the Bible, and we see it often on full display when we compare the Gospels…and in this case, that whole “son of Jonah” thing. When you analyze it as literature and take into consideration the larger literary contexts of both Mark and Matthew, I think the whole thing becomes quite understandable.
For example, the Gospel of Mark has a clear literary structure. In particular, Mark 3:20-9:29, which takes us from the Beelzebub Controversy to the Transfiguration has a clear structure that is largely copied in Matthew 12:22-17:22. Scholars have long-noted that Mark was probably written first, and then both Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark and add their own distinct features. That being said, in reality, Matthew largely takes Mark’s basic structure and just adds things here and there, and fleshes out a few ambiguities in Mark, while Luke takes a lot of Mark’s content, but then completely rearranges everything. (Shameless plug: I have made very neat “story charts” for not only Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but for all the New Testament books in my upcoming BCBS NT Reader’s Guide coming out this September!)
The Context of Mark
Now, let’s explain what Mark is doing with the passage in question. Follow the context: In 3:20-35, we have the Beelzebub Controversy, where Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan. He basically responds by saying, “That’s idiotic! Why would Satan cast out Satan? No, I’m the guy who ‘binds the strong man (Satan) because I’m bringing about the Kingdom of God!” Then, after telling some Kingdom of God parables in 4:1-34, we have the famous scene in 4:35-41, where Jesus calms the sea. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible will realize that 4:35-41 has Jonah echoes all over the place. There is one big difference here, though. In the story of Jonah, he confesses that he is running from God and that in order to get the storm to stop, the (pagan) sailors had to throw him in the sea. Yet here, Jesus just does a very God-like thing and orders everything to call down! That is why the disciples react by saying, “Who is this guy?” Anyway, immediately after that, in 5:1-20, we have the story of Jesus casting demons out of the demoniac of the Gerasenes—note, they have crossed the sea and are in “Gentile” territory. (Where did Jonah end up after his little ship at sea episode?).
The next big chunk in Mark is from 5:21-6:56. After crossing back into the Promised Land, Jesus heals Jarius’ daughter, as well as the woman with the flow of blood (5:21-43), then visits Nazareth (6:1-13), and then, after the beheading of John the Baptist, feeds the 5,000 in Jewish territory (6:14-46). After that, lo and behold, we have another scene on the sea where Jesus walks on the water to the disciples during a storm (6:47-52). In particular, Mark tells us that Jesus was “intending to pass by them”—no, he wasn’t out-running the boat! That phrase “to pass by” is an allusion to when God “passed by” both Moses and Elijah on Mount Sinai and revealed to them a glimpse of His glory. That is what Jesus was intending to do, but since the disciples freaked out, that revealing was “put on pause,” so to speak. After that, in 6:53-56, we have Jesus healing more people in Gennesaret, once again, Gentile territory.
Here comes the next big chunk in Mark 7:1-8:13. Jesus is confronted by some Pharisees and scribes about the Tradition of the Elders (7:1-23), then goes off to Tyre and Sidon (7:24-37), and while still in Gentile territory, feeds the 4,000 (8:1-10). It is at this point in 8:11-13 that the Pharisees ask Jesus “for a sign,” to which Jesus responds, “No sign for you!” Why does Mark have Jesus say that? Because there has been a clear Jonah-allusion weaving its way through the narrative involving how the Kingdom of God would be going to the Gentiles.
As a side note (well, it really isn’t a “side note”!), look forward to the Transfiguration in Mark 9:2-13, who do the disciples see talking with Jesus? Moses and Elijah, the two men whom YHWH “passed by” and revealed His glory. Here, the disciples were getting a glimpse of Jesus in his glory—what he was planning to do back in Mark 6:47-52.
Okay, let’s see what Matthew does with Mark’s chunk of 3:20-9:29.
The Context in Matthew
Matthew 12:22-17:22 is almost a complete copy of Mark 3:20-9:29…almost. Therefore, when we see differences and changes, we need to consider why Matthew chose to make that change. So, let’s note some of those changes.
The first difference we should notice is that Matthew has taken the accounts of Jesus calming the sea (8:23-27) and then his with the demoniac of the Gadarenes (different name in Matthew) (8:28-9:1) and put them in an entirely different place in his Gospel. There still is a clear Jonah allusion in 8:23-27, but that, along with the demoniac story in 8:28-9:1, simply has been moved.
Second, Matthew has actually split the Beelzebub scene in Mark into two parts. First, there is the majority of it in 12:22-32, but then where Mark has an entire chapter of Kingdom of God parables, Matthew has taken that out and inserted a scene where Jesus condemns the Pharisees (12:33-37), and then where the Pharisees ask him for a sign (12:38-45), to which he says they will get no sign except for the “sign of Jonah.” Jesus then talks about both Jonah’s three days and nights in the fish being a symbol of his future death and resurrection, as well as the repentance of the Ninevites. (He also mentions Solomon and the Queen of Sheba as well). After that, in 12:46-50, Matthew has the conclusion to the Beelzebub Controversy.
So, why does Matthew change things around like this? In respect to the “sign of Jonah” bit in 12:38-45, Matthew is making explicit something that Mark had made implicit—namely, using the story of Jonah to emphasize the Kingdom of God being extended to the Gentiles, despite the objections of Jews. Matthew then also draws that connection between Jonah in the fish and Jesus’ death and resurrection—something Mark did not do.
After that, in Matthew 13:1-14:36, Matthew has put Mark’s “Kingdom of God in Parables” section in Mark 4:1-34 in Matthew 13:1-53, displacing Mark’s story of Jarius’ daughter/the woman with the blood flow (because, just like with the stilling of the storm and the demoniac of the Gadarenes, Matthew has put it elsewhere in his Gospel—Matthew 9:18-26). After that, though, Matthew has Jesus’ time in Nazareth (13:54-58), the beheading of John the Baptist/Jesus feeding the 5,000 (14:1-21), and Jesus walking on the water/Gennesaret healings (14:22-36), in the same order as Mark has those scenes. Interestingly, Matthew does not tell us about Jesus “intending to pass by” the disciples in the walking on the water scene.
After that, Matthew 15:1-16:4 follows Mark down the line: the Tradition of the Elders (15:1-20), Jesus in Tyre and Sidon (15:21-31), Jesus feeding the 4,000 (15:32-39). Yet it is in 16:1-4, where Mark has Jesus simply responding to the Pharisees request for a sign from heaven with a “No sign for you,” Matthew has Jesus saying again that they would only get the “sign of Jonah” and that they couldn’t read the “signs of the times.”
So, is this a “contradiction,” or is Matthew making a deliberate literary decision to highlight something in his Gospel? Spoiler alert, I think it’s a deliberate literary decision. Mark used the two “sea scenes” involving Jesus calming the sea (Jonah-allusion) and Jesus walking on the water (Moses-Elijah allusion) to not only highlight Jesus true identity (he’s more than just a man!), but also emphasize that the Kingdom of God was going out to the Gentile world. Matthew, though, takes that implicit Jonah allusion and throws it in the readers’ faces.
If I can put it this way, by the time we get to Mark 8:11-13, where Jesus says, “No sign for you,” if we have picked up on these subtle allusions, we get it—the Pharisees don’t get a sign because they’ve missed the sign. In Matthew, though, both in Matthew 12:38-45 and 16:1-4, Jesus throws it in their faces—the only sign they’ll get is the sign of Jonah. But in Matthew, that “sign” isn’t just about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and it isn’t just about the Kingdom of God going to the Gentiles, but it also highlights the Pharisees’ resistance and rejection of him and the Gospel.
In conclusion, Matthew’s “sign of Jonah” in 12:38-45 and 16:1-4 isn’t some sort of contradiction to Mark 8:11-13. It’s an example of very creative and beautiful storytelling to highlight the historical realities surrounding Jesus and his ministry.
How dare you read a passage of the Bible within the context of the book and also within the larger context of the whole Bible? Do you realise how crazy you sound? 😜
hahaha!
Nice explanation. Thanks.
I’m happy to hear you are ok, Joel. I was truly beginning to worry something had happened. It is odd for you to stay silent for so long. To your post:
“Some dialogue [in the Gospels] is invented, some characters are slightly changed, but that’s okay. No one thinks it is a “documentary,” but at the same time, no one walks out saying, “Oh, in real life, Levi was the tax collector, not Matthew. (Even evangelical NT scholar Richard Bauckham believes that the anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew invented the calling of Matthew from Luke’s story of the calling of Levi.) This blatant example of story invention in the Gospels proves that Jesus never existed! The whole Jesus Story is one big tall tale” This is, of course, ridiculous. Just because some parts of an ancient story are fiction doesn’t make the entire story and the central character of that story fictional. We know that Jesus of Nazareth is historical. Period. Full Stop. But we also know that there were creative choices in the making the Jesus Story…and we accept it and are okay with it.”
However, the critical question is: Which stories are literary fiction and which stories are fact?
We can be near certain that Jesus existed; that he was a first century apocalyptic preacher; that he had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker; that he got into trouble with the Jewish authorities in the Temple; that he was arrested, tried, and executed by the Romans; that at some point after his death some of his followers believed he made appearances to them.
But how certain can we be that Jesus fed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes; that he healed people of leprosy; that he raised people from the dead; that he walked on the surface of the Sea of Galilee; that he stood on the pinnacle of the Temple with the Devil; that he appeared to two disciples on the Emmaus Road; that he made a special post death appearance to Thomas? Are these stories historical or more “creative choices”?
Any scholar or apologist who says he or she knows for certain which pericopes (detailed stories) in the Gospels are historical and which stories are “çreative choices” is not telling you the truth, folks.
“However, the critical question is: Which stories are literary fiction and which stories are fact?”
The most straightforward answer is, “No one can know for certain.” Still Jesus had the reputation (even in rabbinic sources) of being a healer and “magician.” Still, the way I see it, setting up the question as, “Is it fiction or fact?” is a bit misleading. It’s not an “either/or.” I believe Jesus did heal people and do the types of things the Gospels reflect. The same goes for what he said. Did he give an actual “Sermon on the Mount” all at once, or did Matthew compile various things he said in the course of his ministry into a single “sermon” within the framework of his Gospel narrative? I think the later. So, IN FACT, Jesus never gave “A” “Sermon on the Mount,” but I believe the things in the Sermon on the Mount reflect his teaching over the course of his ministry.
I think we are in agreement regarding not expecting the Gospels to read like a modern biography. And we are also in agreement that we should allow for greater “creativity” from ancient story tellers. But there remains a big problem for Christians: Agreeing that Jesus had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker does little to establish Trinitarian Christianity’s claim that Jesus was God the Creator or even help prove his resurrection. Many other people in Antiquity had reputations as healers and miracle workers. Should we believe that all persons in Antiquity with reputations as miracle workers really were performing miracles? Do Christians believe all these other ancient miracle worker claims? Of course not. So for Christians to sell Jesus as God the Creator to skeptical non-belivers they knew that they needed Jesus doing really BIG miracles, not just the run of the mill miracles performef by all the other miracle workers of Jesus’ day. So would it be wrong to “create” big miracles about Jesus if you sincerely believed him to be the Christ and believed that the eternal destiny of millions depended upon you convincing them with good stories about him?
On the apparently inserted pericope of the woman caught in adultery, I suggest it’s more likely to have been deleted by an incredulous scribe, whose work happens to be the parent of the oldest manuscripts currently in hand. For people steeped in ancient “purity culture,” such scandalous actions of Jesus were hard to believe. Later manuscripts may well preserve the original story, via a chain of copies we no longer have.
Yes, it’s possible, but ultimately, we can never know either way. I think an argument can be made that it fits nicely into the overall narrative of John and is thus an essential part of John.
But should the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery be considered the Word of God when it is read from the pulpit?
Right, creative license in the sense of something a director of a movie would do in a movie like “Hacksaw Ridge.” But again, we don’t call the minor artistic changes in a movie “fiction.” We understand they artistic changes done to emphasize some aspect of the very real historical story the director is wanting to emphasize. I don’t think it is wise or realistic to go through the Gospels and try to “figure out” what is “history” and “what is fiction.” I think that is a wrong mindset to have in the first place. I don’t attach “fiction” to the Gospels. I think the accounts of Jesus healing various people, for example, testify to the fact that Jesus really did heal people. Matthew may have added a second blind man to Jesus’ healing outside of Jericho, but that is because Matthew presents a whole lot of things in “twos” in his Gospel. It is just a stylistic feature. It’s not “fiction.” Get it?
So you can assure us that dead people were literally shaken alive out of their graves by an earthquake at the resurrection?
“Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).”
So being a miracle worker in the first century CE was no big deal. It certainly wasn’t evidence that you were the creator of the universe and the savior of all humankind. No, first century Christian story tellers needed Jesus do “whoppers”. Without BIG miracles, Jesus was just another traveling healer and wonder worker (snake oil salesman).
The Christian Gospels allege that Jesus performed greater miracles and raised more people from the dead than ALL the Jewish prophets of the OT combined! Yet not one first century non-Christian author other than Josephus mentions this “great” miracle worker. Josephus, the chronicler of all Jewish history, only gives Jesus a brief one or two line reference for being a “miracle worker and healer”. Big deal. (And for all we know, this brief statement is a later Christian extrapolation.)
Unless Joel and other scholars/apologists can provide good evidence that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands of people with a few loaves of Wonder bread, healed leprosy, restored sight to the blind, we can chalk up all these BIG miracle stories to …religious propaganda!
“These things are written so that you might believe!”
Typo: Should be “Christian INTERPOLATION” not Christian extrapolation.
“We understand these artistic changes done to emphasize some aspect of the very real historical story [Hacksaw Ridge] the director is wanting to emphasize.”
Is the Story of Hacksaw Ridge a “very real historical story”? How do we know? Is it historical just because Desmond Ross and four of his friends say so? No, of course not. No rational person would make such a claim without investigating Ross’s claims. So how would we investigate Ross’ claims? First, we would check his military record. Was he even in the army? If he was, where was he stationed? What does his military record say about him? Next, we would attempt to interview the characters in his story. Are these characters real or invented? If we cannot interview these persons, we can obtain their military record and interview their family, friends, and military buddies to corroborate Ross’ story. Since WWII happened within the last 100 years, it should be pretty easy too obtain sufficient evidence to verify Desmond Ross’ Hacksaw Ridge Story.
How do we verify the Jesus of Nazareth Story? How do we verify that Jesus of Nazareth healed people of leprosy? How do we verify that Jesus healed blind people? How do we verify that Jesus raised people from the dead? How do we verify that Jesus of Nazareth walked on water, turned water into wine, and fed five thousand people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fishes? How do we verify that Jesus of Nazareth did the amazing, earth-shattering miracles that Christians claim he did? Answer: We use the same techniques we used to verify Desmond Ross’ story!
-Are there any government or military records we can obtain to verify Jesus deeds? No
-Are there any eyewitnesses to the events in question that we can personally interview? No.
-Are there any undisputed, verified, eyewitness statements to the events in question? No.
What evidence do we have that Jesus of Nazareth performed laws-of-medicine-and-science miracles and feats? Hearsay. That’s it. We have four anonymously authored first century Christian texts (the identity and eyewitness status of these authors is HOTLY disputed even among Christian scholars) two and possible three of which borrow extensively from the first text, and, a very, very, very brief, vague statement by one first century Jewish author stating that Jesus had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker. My goodness, every Pentecostal preacher in my metropolitan city claims to be a healer and miracle worker. There were thousands of “healers” and “miracle workers” in Antiquity too. So is that all there is??? Isn’t there ANY better evidence to verify these fantastical claims?
Nope.
I guess the Christians on this website do not want to address the serious issues I have raised regarding the premise of this post: Joel’s claim that the Gospels can be trusted as historically reliable even if some of the details are embellished. What logic does that make if we cannot prove that 95% or more of the stories in the Gospels even occurred??? It is illogical. What evidence is there that Jesus walked on water? None. What evidence is there that he turned water into wine? None. What evidence is there that he raised people from the dead and healed leprosy? None. Tall tales. Hearsay. That is all we have.
And what about Joel’s argument regarding the scribal addition to the Gospel of John known as the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery? Just because it sounds like something Jesus would do and say we can assume it is historical? Really?? Is that how far Christians have sunk to maintaining their faith in the Bible? Good grief.
The next time the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery is read from your church’s pulpit as “the Word of God” ask yourself this: Is God’s Word simply anything that sounds like something Jesus would say or do? Really?? If that is the criteria the “experts” today use to determine what is and what is not God’s inspired Word, maybe that was the same criteria used by the early Christian bishops who formed the NT canon.
My, my, my…what a weak foundation for a worldview.
We’ve had this discussion over and over again. It’s tiresome. Once again, you jump from the point of my post to your own pet piñata that you just hammer away at for all time. By slight of hand, you jump from, “Oh, certain stories can’t be proven” to “THEREFORE THEY ARE TALL TALES!” You are jumping from one statement that AT BEST can take you to “We can’t know for certain,” to an utter assertion and claim YOU CANNOT back up with any kind of evidence.
Logic, well-reasoned, and thought out responses be damned. Gary has something he needs to push. 😉
Your reluctance to address my specific criticisms of your position should seriously concern your Christian readers. Attacking the critic and not his criticisms is a sign of fear.
No, as I said, we’ve had this debate over the past 3-4 years ad nauseum. I’ve bent over backwards to address your criticisms, over and over again. It’s just tiresome at this point. It comes down to this: (A) Acknowledging there isn’t rock solid “evidence” for claims in the Gospels that Jesus healed lepers does NOT lead to the conclusion (B) JESUS DIDN’T HEAL PEOPLE! IT’S ALL TALL TALES! blah blah blah. But that’s what you do ALL THE TIME.
As for “evidence” of things specific people specifically did 2,000 years ago, what realistically could one expect, other than written testimony of it happening? That’s what we have in the Gospels. You can choose not to believe it, but please stop with jumping to the illogical conclusions and claims you always do. And please stop screaming “I want evidence” when, as you know full well, the “evidence” for Jesus’ deeds (i.e. written testimony) is pretty much the same “evidence” we have for most everything else we know from the ancient world. This is why you’re criticisms ring hollow. You’re essentially demanding video footage from the ancient world, and when it can’t be provided, you say, “Aha! It’s all fiction!”
No, unlike you, I demand corroborating evidence. That is what any good historian would demand for any historical claim. Just because four texts from the same religious sect, two and possibly three of which borrow extensively from the first, make fantastical claims about the deceased leader of that same religious sect, is NOT good evidence that the tales in those texts are historical. This is very elementary. Why don’t you get that?
I believe that Jesus existed because there are non-Christian sources which corroborate his existence. I believe that Jesus had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker because there are non-Christian sources which corroborate this claim about him. But thousands of people in the first century had reputations as healers and miracle workers. Does that prove that all of them were gods? No.
Early Christians needed BIG miracles to promote their claim that Jesus was not just the Jewish messiah but God, the Creator of heaven and earth. Big miracles were attributed to the Greek and Roman gods, even to the caesars, so to convince anyone that Jesus was the greatest God, they needed BIG miracles. They therefore invented WHOPPERS. And in their minds, why is that a problem? If they sincerely believed that Jesus *could* heal leprosy, cure blindness, and raise the dead, what harm is it to invent fictional stories of him doing so?
The onus is on YOU to prove that Jesus performed BIG miracles, not on me to prove he didn’t. The fact that he may have cured people of their fevers and sinus infections does NOT prove he is God the Creator.
You are continually reading and interpreting the New Testament through the modern worldview lens of 20th century Protestantism. Until you see that, it’s pointless to engage.
And there you go again…”he may have cured people of fevers and sinus infections.” Nowhere in the NT is it claimed Jesus did those things. The claims are the lame walked the deaf heard, the blind saw, the lepers were cleansed, and the demon-possessed were freed from that possession. Those are the things the NT claims AND that non-Christian sources acknowledge.
“And there you go again…”he may have cured people of fevers and sinus infections.” Nowhere in the NT is it claimed Jesus did those things. ”
Good grief, Joel. It’s called sarcasm; the use of irony.
Once again you fail to see the forest for the trees. Just because Jesus had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker doesn’t mean that the whopper miracle tales told about him….ONLY IN CHRISTIAN SOURCES…are true.
You are not interested in truth. That is the problem. You are comfortable and happy in your beliefs and not interested in testing their validity.
Reader beware.
No, I think causing the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the lepers cleansed are pretty “big whoppers” in and of themselves. But you ignore those. Instead, you focus on things like “Did Jesus walk on water?” and then caricaturize Jesus’ miracles to the equivalent of “sinus infections.” Why do you do that? Because you don’t want to focus on the fact that both Christian and non-Christian sources attest to the fact that Jesus healed the blind and deaf, caused the lame to walk, and cleansed lepers. BY YOUR OWN CLAIMED STANDARD FOR “EVIDENCE” (i.e. do non-Christian sources attest to them?) those are substantial…but you ignore them. Maybe you are the one “happy” in your beliefs and who doesn’t want to be challenged.
If the Hindu Scriptures claimed that a Hindu prophet caused the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the lame to walk, and lepers to be cleansed several thousand years ago, would you believe these stories to be factual just because they are written down?
No. Of course you wouldn’t. You would demand corroborating evidence from non-Hindu sources. Where did you ever get the idea that just because an ancient tale is written down we must assume it is true. As the old saying goes, “Don’t believe everything you read.”
My standards are the same for ALL ancient claims. You, on the other hand, require less evidence and less scrutiny for Christian claims. That is our difference, Joel.
First off, Hinduism doesn’t have prophets.
Second, other cultures and religions DO have occasional claims of various healings. I don’t dismiss them out of hand. I acknowledge the reality of unexplained things.
You are missing the point, Joel. Should modern, educated people accept as fact ancient tales just because someone wrote them down? Of course not. Like any good historian, we should look for corrborating sources for these claims, preferrably from “outside” sources. If the claim cannot be corroborated, it doesn’t mean the claim is false. It just means we cannot be reasonably certain of its historicity. That is the proper approach to the Bible and all other ancient texts. You, on the other hand, want us to accept as fact the written Christian claims in the Bible as fact. until someone proves them false. Why the double standard?
“If the claim cannot be corroborated, it doesn’t mean the claim is false.”
“Tall tales. Hearsay. That is all we have.”
–Same guy.
Ancient stories are tall tales and hersay until evidence is suffcicient for historians to classify them as historical events. Historians consider the evidence sufficient to consider Jesus and his crucifixion as real historical events. I accept historians’ assessment on these two claims. Historians have NOT classified as historical the overwhelming majority of stories in the Gospels. These stories may be true but they are hearsay or tall tales until more evidence is dicovered. I accept historians’ assessment on these claims too. I am consistent. I use the same standard for all ancient claims. You have a double standard for Christian claims.
The indisputable fact that the early Church allowed scribal additions (Woman Caught in Adultery, Angel Stirring the Pool of Bethesda, Long Ending of Mark, Johannine Commae) to remain in the canon and be preached from the pulpit as the Word of God is evidence that early Christian cared more about evangelism than they did historical accuracy. If true, it is entirely possible that many of the stories in the original Gospels are also evangelism (fiction) and not historical fact.
I’m sorry, but you are displaying some wildly uncritical tendencies and assumptions that have little or no bearing on the reality of the early Church or manuscript evidence.
Is the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery the inspired Word of God? If you say, yes, by what criteria?
Again, you are displaying some wildly uncritical tendencies and assumptions that have little or no bearing on the reality of the early Church or manuscript evidence.
The early Church Fathers have long noted things like that, but they weren’t working from your modern Fundamentalist concept of the Bible. They all were aware that the story of the woman caught in adultery wasn’t in all the manuscripts. But being that it is found referenced in 3rd century manuscripts still shows it goes back quite a while and was part of an early tradition that made its way into John. On top of that, in terms of literary structure, it does fit nicely into John’s Gospel.
On top of that, simply because the earliest manuscript we have of something (let’s say Mark), doesn’t automatically mean the one we now have is actually the earliest one that was written. You are jumping to uncritical assertions to try to make your pet ideological point. Bottom line, early Church Fathers knew all this and it didn’t freak them out. It doesn’t freak me out either. I’m not a Fundie and I reject your imposed idolization of the Bible.
So even though everyone knows it was added to the original text by a scribe and not one of the apostles, it is still considered the *inspired* Word of God.
Wow.
Your ultra-fundie perspective is showing again.
Maybe.
I believe I have highlighted some very serious flaws in the Christian worldview; flaws which you have not adequately addressed preferring to attack me personally instead. But in truth, I have presented nothing new in this discussion. Skeptics and Christians have been aware of these flaws since the days of Celsus. All I ask is that Christians and skeptics review the evidence from both sides. Don’t just read your side’s propaganda. Test and probe both side’s claims. Let reason and good critical thinking skills be your guide, not your emotions. Only if you are wiling to admit you may be wrong, will you be able to see the truth.
Thank you for your time, Joel.
The simple point is something you already know. Early Church Fathers were already well aware of the issues surrounding the story of the woman caught in adultery, or the authorship of II Peter or Hebrews, or the longer ending of Mark. They knew about and wrote about these things long before modern skeptical scholars “discovered” them and claimed they blow a hole in the reliability of the Bible.
They don’t. The early Church Fathers didn’t think they did. They recognized some questions here and there, and it didn’t freak them out. It only freaks someone out who has grown up with a rather twisted (and I’d argue idolatrous) understanding of what the Bible is. The more fundie-biblical inerrantists (and those who were raised in that bubble but who have now rejected Christianity completely) view the Bible that way. That’s my point. You’re coming at this from essentially THAT fundie-mindset. That isn’t a personal attack. That’s an objective observation.
Yes, I did try the moderate/liberal version of Christianity for a while after leaving fundamentalism: “Silly fundamentalist. The stories in the Bible themselves are not inerrant, it is the overall message in the stories that is inerrant. The message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is inerrant.”
That is much easier to defend and justify…until I realized the entire foundation of Christianity has big holes in it. Jesus was *not* inerrant. Jesus believed that Adam, Noah, Moses, the Exodus, and the great kings David and Solomon, rulers of a vast Israelite empire, were real historical figures and events. Modern historians and archaeologists tell us that there is no solid evidence for these people or events.
But you know that too yet still choose to believe that Jesus is the omniscient, omnipotent king of the cosmos.
No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you that your cherished beliefs about your Lord Jesus are false if knowing the truth is not your highest priority, Joel.
It’s not about a “moderate/liberal version” of Christianity. As should be obvious by now, you can’t pigeonhole me with any of those labels of “moderate,” “liberal,” or “conservative” Christianity. Those very terms denote a very “modern” viewpoint that the early Church Fathers (and I’d argue Christianity as a whole for the first 1600 years of Church history) didn’t share. You’re still working from that “modern” viewpoint. That’s why we are always talking past each other. The very thing you are basing all your critiques and arguments on is a faulty caricature of the historical Christian faith.
Historians and archaeologists have not found any solid evidence of ancient Jews settling in North America. Neither have they found fossil remains of horses prior to the arrival of the Spanish. These findings contradict the core claims of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Yet 17 million Mormons on the planet continue to believe that Smith was God’s prophet. Why? Answer: Because they so desperately want to believe that their prophet’s tall tales are true. Their comforting beliefs are more important than the cold, hard truth.
Ditto for orthodox Christians.
There is no solid evidence for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan, King David, or King Solomon. Yet 2 billion Christians on the planet continue to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s prophet/messiah, and in reality, God incarnate himself. Why? Because they so desperately want to believe that their prophet’s tall tales are true. Their comforting beliefs are more important than the cold, hard truth.
Dear Joel: You can make up all the ad hoc justifications you want for why Jesus believed these OT characters and events were real, but the truth is your justifications are just as baseless and hollow as those of the Mormons. Your beliefs rest on a very, very shaky foundation: Jesus of Nazareth. He was not an omniscient god. He was a delusional fool. Nice guy, to be sure, but still a delusional fool.
Abandon your comforting superstitions and embrace reason and rational thinking, my friend.
There is literally ZERO historical/archeological evidence for Book of Mormon claims. There is oodles of historical/archeological evidence for a whole lot in the Bible. When you cherrypick isolated instances and then paint with a broad brush based on those isolated instances, you are disingenuous.
Just as there is no evidence for the tales in the Book of Mormon, there is no evidence for the tales in the first half of the OT, up until kings Omri and Ahab.
There is also no evidence for any of the tales in the Gospels. There is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the first century; that he had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker; that he was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who got himself into trouble with the Jewish authorities of his day and was executed by the Romans; that some of his followers believed he appeared to them after his public execution.
That’s it.
You know you can’t give evidence for any of the specific miracle claims or specific stories in the Gospels and that is why you keep obfuscating (huffing and puffing) when I ask for evidence.
1. Pharaoh Merneptah’s stela celebrates his military victories during his reign (1224-1214 BC); it contains the earliest mention of Israel outside the Bible.
2. Authentically Egyptian names, like Potiphar, Potiphera, Asenath, Zaphenathpaneah–all correspond to the general dates of Patriarchs. And Moses–and authentically Egyptian name.
3. The Balaam Inscription found in 1967 at Tell Deir ‘Alla names the Balaam of Numbers 22-24.
4. The Tel Dan Stela: (Latter half of 9th century) Mentions “the house of David” (“I killed Jerhoram son of Ahab king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziahu son of Jehoram king of the house of David”)
5. The Mesha Stela: (Moabite Stone—latter half of 9th century) “And the house of David dwelt in Horonen…and Chemosh said to me: ‘Go down! Fight against Horonen.”
6. The Shoshenq I Inscription: “highlands/heights of David” (50 years after David)
Please stop your self-righteous ignorant pontificating for the sole purpose to get me to respond so you can post snippets on your own blog.
Yes, yes, yes. This is the “evidence” that fundamentalist Jews and Christians use to hold onto their delusion that the biblical characters and stories in the first half of the Old Testament are historical, but the overwhelming majority of historians and archaeologists, including Israeli historians and archaeologists, say there is no solid evidence for these characters and events. They have very detailed explanations for why the “evidence” you refer to is not evidence for the historicity of these characters and events. Dear Reader: Google it! Here is an example of what you will find :
“The whole subject of the Exodus is embarrassing to archaeologists. The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. So we prefer not to talk about it, and hate to be asked about it. For the account in the Torah is the basis of our people’s creation, it is the basis of our existence and it is the basis of our important Passover festival and the whole Haggada that we recite on the first evening of this festival of freedom. So that makes archaeologists reluctant to have to tell our brethren and ourselves that there is nothing in Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.
Nothing at all. There are three Pharaohs who said they got rid of the hated foreigners, but nothing to say who the foreigners were, and no Pharaoh is named as having persecuted foreign slaves or suffered unspeakable plagues.”
–By STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG
The author is a Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem.
Source: The Jerusalem Post
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/the-exodus-does-archaeology-have-a-say-348464
As for posting snippets of your posts on my blog, you are the pot calling the kettle black! You do the very same thing!
https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/critiquing-matthew-hartkes-proposal-that-jesus-disciples-suffered-from-cognitive-dissonance-part-1-the-summary/
Stop your whining; be a professional, and admit you have been backed into a corner.
Hahaha….Taking the time to give a detailed interaction with someone’s claims is much different than cutting and pasting comments.
And I’m not “backed into a corner.” You’re just doing what you always do.
Do you admit that even most Israeli archaeologists doubt the Exodus was an historical event?
Well of course many doubt it. The ones I’ve read, like Finklestein, though, show me they don’t really have a knowledge of how to read ancient texts. But again, we’re just going to be going around in circles.
So you are saying that the consensus of archaeologists that there is “nothing” in the archaeological record that supports the Bible’s claim of an Exodus of a large mass of Hebrews from ancient Egypt is wrong? You know better because you can read ancient texts better than they can? Give me a break. That is a fundie mindset if I’ve ever heard one.
My guess is that you are going to say that the correct reading of the OT is that the Exodus did not involve two million Hebrews, or even 600,000 Hebrews, but a small band of Hebrews, and that is why there is no record of them.
This is nothing but ad hoc spin to maintain belief in your ancient superstition. Mormon and Muslim “scholars” do the very same thing when anyone finds a contradiction in their holy books.
Admit it, Joel. You will NEVER admit that your holy book contains *major* historical errors because doing so contradicts your warm fuzzy feelings that the ghost of Jesus lives in your heart. And that is the issue: We skeptics will never convince Christians of the non-historicity of the supernatural claims in the Bible, whether it is the crossing of a (red or reed) sea or the resurrection of a dead corpse, as long as you *feel* the presence of the resurrected Jesus within you.
Sorry to break the news to you, Joel: that still small voice you hear in your head is none other than…you.
Yes…archeologists are not automatically informed and literarily competent readers of ancient texts. And no, my view is the OPPOSITE of a “fundie mindset.” A “fundie mindset” is one that assumes everything in the Bible is given in a clear, “scientific,” objective way. A “fundie mindset” has a tin ear when it comes to literary artistry.
And, as always, you proceed to project on me your little caricature of actual fundie apologists because that is all you know, and thus you don’t know how to thoughtfully engage. I am a better-informed and more literarily competent reader of the OT and NT than you. Sorry.
Dear Readers of this blog: Joseph Smith claimed that he received a new revelation from God, given to the people of North America. Mormonism has thirteen witnesses who claim to have seen magical golden plates and some of those witnesses claim to have seen a supernatural being ( an angel) together at the same time and place.
Problem: the core of Joseph Smith’s story has been proven false by archaeologists. There is no evidence of ancient sea-faring Jews in North America. American Indians have no genetic link to Jews. So no matter how many witnesses Mormonism claims to have, we can discount Joseph Smith as a fraud.
Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be a special messenger of God, and some say he claimed to be God himself. He brought a new message that he was the fulfillment of the Exodus Story: the Passover lamb. He was now the center of worship, not the Tabernacle; not the Temple. He was God’s Passover Lamb, God’s sacrifice for sins. Christianity claims as many as 500 witnesses seeing him alive again after his public execution.
Problem: the core of Jesus story has been proven false by archaeologists. There is no evidence of the Exodus and the Passover that preceded it. No mass Hebrew slavery. No great plagues. No mass exodus. No mass die off before being allowed to enter the Promised Land. Nothing. Nada. Jesus of Nazareth was a fraud.
Neither Mormons nor Christians, like Joel, will accept this lack of evidence. Mormon “scholars” claim that the Mayan cities are evidence of these ancient Jewish settlements in North America. And Christian “scholars” will claim that the number of Jews in the Exodus was so small as to not leave any evidence. Ad hoc spin! These people will *never* admit they are wrong. Never
The fact you CONTINUALLY go back to the ludicrous Joseph Smith example just shows how bankrupt your arguments are. If thirteen people claimed to have seen “golden plates” that Smith showed them, that means nothing in regard to whether or not what was written on the golden plates was historical or accurate. (And for that matter, if I recall, even they said they “saw” them in a “spiritual sense”).
And Gary is fundamentally lying. He is a zealot atheist evangelist who cares nothing for the truth.
And it boggles my mind why he is so obsessed with proving Christianity wrong. I get that he’s no longer a Christian, and since he’s an ex-fundamentalist the odds are good he has real reasons to be angry at Christianity. But is arguing with Christians on the internet really a good use of anyone’s time?
Also, Gary, maybe you’d have more success in winning people to reason if you weren’t so rude and smug towards Christians and Christianity.
Why attack me and not my criticisms? Why do most archaeologists reject the Exodus as non-historical? Jesus claimed he was the fulfillment of the Exodus and Passover. If no such event occurred, Jesus was a fraud. Doesn’t that concern you? If true, shouldn’t you stop teaching gullible children this tall tale?
First, someone who wasn’t a Biblical inerrantist could just reject this argument out of hand. Secondly, Jesus was not omnipotent (Matthew 24:36).
My bigger point is that by calling people “deluded” or similar, they stop listening to your arguments. That’s simply a fact of human behaviour. It’s a thing you have to swallow if you want to be an effective evangelist.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
No one is “attacking you.” Your martyr complex is just the same as a lot of fundie apologists. You’ve been doing this for years. This post was about Matthew 16:1-4, 12:38-45, and Mark 8:11-13. And you (as always) have managed to take the conversation to the historicity of some of the OT events. Just like a fundie apologist, you have your pet issue that you ALWAYS steer everything toward. That isn’t an attack, it’s a statement of objective fact. But you, instead, just claim you’re being attacked. Eh…
And again, the basis of your rejection of the historicity of those OT events is that you are taking the “consensus” of archeologists who are NOT trained in Biblical Literature, and who consequently tend to read the biblical text in a very wooden, literalistic fashion, with no concept of literary artistry and creative shaping.
Case in point, you say there is evidence back to Omri and Ahab. Okay. But The very Deuteronomistic author who writes about Omri and Ahab in II Kings ALSO wrote I Kings, and II Samuel, and I Samuel, and Judges, and Joshua. And all along the line, he is claiming to put forth history. So, what you are saying is this: “Because there is some archeological evidence that corroborates THIS part of the Deuteronomistic history, I’ll accept that–BUT I’m going to claim that the same author is reliable in other places.” Okay…more power to ya! I think that is a very tenuous and uncritical position to take.
I’m not going to get into a debate regarding the identity of the author of Deuteronomy but some scholars believe that much of the history of ancient Israel was invented by the priests of King Josiah to bolster a sense of nationalism among the Jewish people and to centralize worship to Jerusalem. If that is indeed what happened, there is only so much history you can fabricate. The closer you get to the present time, the greater the chances your chicanery can be proven false.
You are asking us to believe that just because an ancient author included some historical characters and events in his story we *must* believe that all the characters and events in his story are true. This is naive.
Yes. And you’re siding with some pretty minimalist scholars. You can do that, but don’t pretend you’re trying to be objective.
I side with the majority of scholars, usually the consensus of scholars, on ALL issues.
So you are saying that if someone is delusional we should not tell them they are delusional? We should interact with them as if their delusion is true?
Well, if you believe that Jesus was not omnipotent then you are admitting he was not God, at least not while he was here on earth. Most Trinitarian Christians would vehemently disagree with you. My debate is with Trinitarians. I cannot debate every offshoot Christian sect under the sun.
1.You don’t say “delusion”, you say “mistake”. Words matter; choose them carefully. If you want to convince someone, don’t use words implying the person is insane or immoral or evil; that’s when most people start blanking out your words.
2. As Joel has said at least once in his posts on YECs, early Christians believed Jesus had a limited human mind as well as an unlimited divine mind – and the belief that He had only the latter, Apollinarism, was condemned as a heresy.
Please quote from any mainstream Catholic or Protestant denomination which states that Jesus of Nazareth was not fully God while on earth.
Gary, you are delusional. 😉
Again, a vitriolic personal attack on the critic, not a reasoned response to his criticism. This is the hallmark strategy of every cult when backed into a corner.
haha…it’s called a joke. Please just stop.
And then you do that: You attack me personally instead of addressing my valid criticism against your supernatural belief system; then when I call you out, you say you are kidding; then you ask me to shut up.
It’s called: obfuscation.
It’s called crying like a fundie with a persecution complex.
Signs of Delusional Thinking:
How do you tell if you or someone you love may be experiencing delusional thoughts? Delusions are characterized by an unshakable belief in things that are not true and, in many cases, there is a continued belief in the delusion despite evidence to the contrary.
It’s also important to recognize that not all delusions are the same. Some delusions might involve non-bizarre beliefs that could theoretically occur in real life, such as believing that your spouse is cheating on you. Other delusions are bizarre, fantastical, or impossible, like thinking that you are responsible for the fate of the world.
The nature of the delusional symptoms may play a central role in the diagnosis. Delusional disorder, for example, is characterized by non-bizarre delusions that often involve the misinterpretation of an experience or perception. Conversely, in schizophrenia, delusions may be bizarre and not rooted in reality.2
Gary: If you believe that the spirit of a dead person lives inside of you; that this spirit can read your mind and fulfill your wish requests; that it performs miracles for you at times; and that you can perceive or feel this spirit’s presence within you, then you are delusional, my friend. Sorry. I am not trying to be mean. I’m trying to help you.
Spoken like the doppleganger of a delusional fundie. 😉
Let’s see how long it takes for Gary to cut and paste something new for his blog! 😉 haha…
So Gary’s take is: You can’t logically prove to me something supernatural happened 2,000 years ago.
…
Uh… Correct.
At a certain point you have to decide if you believe in the text. Just like in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, there’s a leap of faith. With, you know, faith being the key word there.
I know that’s not satisfying on a rational, and I’m sure some guy a few years ago actually uncovered that faith as a concept was only added to the Bible in 2004 or something, but that’s been a common understanding of the text from the beginning.
I’m just some dude and even I understand that after 2,000 years of constant natural processes that slowly hide and change the geography of the land even just since the times of Christ, there have been multiple wars in the area, conflict, fighting, and change to the geographic areas of the Bible and all of the land surrounding it.
So, it makes sense to say, if the Bible is grounded in history, the ability to back that up with third-party resources may be a bit more difficult than submitting a FOIA request to your local government.
“At a certain point you have to decide if you believe in the text. Just like in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, there’s a leap of faith. With, you know, faith being the key word there.”
Exactly! If only more Christians would admit this. The evidence for multiple first century resurrected corpse sightings is weak. Disputed, 2,000 year old testimony is not considered good evidence in a modern court of law. So if you want to believe these claims, go ahead! But for Pete’s sake, please admit that you believe these claims because you have taken a “leap of faith”, not because there is good evidence to do so.
Not trying to argue the god of the gaps here, but I mentioned something in my first comment about how the physical world is literally not the same as it was yesterday, let alone 2,000 years ago in a constantly, and inconsistently populated geographic area. Would you expect to find absolute historical data in the Mediterranean about supernatural events relatively quickly? Where would you look? The Library of Alexandria? You going to do some archeological dig in the area of Turkey that had a massive earthquake? Which pagan ruler do you suspect would write down some Jewish guy walked on water one time?
You can disbelieve in the supernatural if that’s your apriori lens through which you view the world, that’s fine. Some could even say that’s not unreasonable. What’s crazy is you discount the pagan and Jewish converts into a religion that said it saw the Jewish Messiah raise from the dead. Sure, tens or hundreds or thousands of years later you’re operating on pure faith in that, but wouldn’t it logically conclude that at least more than like 11 people could have spread a rumor like that and it would actually take hold?
I know people can be tricked, but this isn’t like a Facebook meme that just backs up your previous beliefs while providing untrue information in it. This is like 20 people saying today: “the Earth is flat” and within 400 years flat Earthers have spread across the entire planet and are now ruling over the UN.
Again, I understand not believing in the supernatural. It’s a hard pill to swallow. But it’s at least not outside of the realm of possibility that something crazy happened 2,000 years ago in an area the size of New Jersey and nobody thought to take a selfie with post-resurrection Jesus.
They had camera phones in first century Judea???? 😉
I don’t know what else would be convincing enough. Maybe they had speed painters.
Hahaha!
I do not doubt for one second that something very odd occurred to lead early Christians to believe that their dead leader had visited them from the grave. The question is: What? In my worldview even the most improbable but still possible natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation. Therefore a combination of illusions, false sightings, and even hallucinations is the most probable explanation for the resurrection of Jesus belief. For theists, the opposite is true. Miracles are much more probable than very rare, very improbable, natural explanations. That is the source of our standoff.
They’re the first (and only!) Messianic Jewish group in recorded history to claim their Messiah was bodily raised from the dead.
“Seeing dead people” isn’t the same as seeing your executed Messiah bodily alive again after three days of being incontrovertibly clinically dead. In antiquity people saw ghosts or spirits all the time, and they had language to describe that which *isn’t* “resurrection.” *Resurrection* always involved a dead body coming to life again.
Which was a ridiculous concept for most ancient pagans to begin with. Ghosts they could accept and understand, but bodily resurrection was at best absurd, at worst downright *offensive.*
Pax.
Lee.
Every sect and cult we know of took a belief from its mother religion, gave it a new twist (enough of a twist that the mother religion kicked them out), and a new “faith” began. The concept of “resurrection” existed in Christianity’s mother religion, Judaism. Christians simply gave that concept a new twist. Why? Who knows.
Human beings are infamous for coming up with the strangest of wild claims. Bottom line: Christianity is NOT unique.
Your argument that belief in a single person’s bodily resurrection was so unheard of that it couldn’t possibly have arisen unless someone had literally seen a resurrected body is a logical fallacy.
“The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. For example, someone using the argument from incredulity might claim that since they don’t see how a certain scientific theory could be true, then it must be false. People often use arguments from incredulity in an attempt to discredit valid theories that they disagree with, and in order to support various unfounded or pseudoscientific theories, so it’s important to understand this fallacy.”
Just because you, Joel, and NT Wright refuse to believe that any first century Jew, Roman, or Greek would come to believe in a resurrected corpse without seeing a resurrected corpse with his or her own eyes does not eliminate the possibility that a tiny, tiny percentage of Jews and a whole lot of Gentiles would believe in this concept without ever seeing the resurrected corpse of Jesus.
Well man, that just seems like an irreconcilable difference. You can only debate when you hold certain things as a shared belief/assumption. Logic and data are only one of those assumptions. If someone believes in an omniscient and omnipotent personality who enacts their will on the state of the universe, and they base that on research and logic as well as faith due to personal experiences, it’s going to be difficult for anyone to argue against. Someone can expand their faith with evidence presented to them, but given that faith, by its nature, requires a personal acceptance of something not inherently verifiable, trying to tear apart at one particular claim or instance that may seem counter to available evidence is not an effective way to change one’s view.
It’s an uphill battle. In a lot of instances (and I’ll admit, this is anecdotal), it’s usually one greatly inspired experience that makes of one a devout believer in their faith. It’s also usually one greatly devastating experience that makes one a devout adherent to their loss or lack of faith. Sure, this all comes with other instances in ones life that can persuade someone one way or another, but this deeply personal experience is just not something you can easily argue away because you’re argument hinges on a basis that is simply not relevant to that experience (and I’m sure that’s frustrating for anyone with a shared belief with you, and I mean that sincerely).
I don’t disagree that the first thing someone should do is examine all natural explanations before the consideration of the supernatural. I’m not trying to argue in favor of supernatural explanations every time something happens I don’t immediately understand. Otherwise I’d worship my mechanic when he fixes my car from making a loud noise when it runs.
It just seems odd that a post about the literary comparison between the story of Jonah and the Gospels developed a comment thread about how there’s no historical evidence of the Exodus and ended up at: yeah, well, you’re crazy. There’s a way to try to persuade someone against religious convictions, but it doesn’t start with: most secular scientists say this is wrong and some religious ones say they don’t see evidence as of now.
Excellent comment, Kyle.
“but this deeply personal experience is just not something you can easily argue away because you’re argument hinges on a basis that is simply not relevant to that experience.”
You have hit the nail on its proverbial head. I believe for most Christians (I was once a Christian) their personal experiences with Jesus are the primary reason for their belief, not historical evidence. So, I and other skeptics can argue about historical evidence with Christians until we are blue in the face but our arguments are not going to change many minds.
So why do I do it? I do it hoping that my Christian interlocuter will one day have an “aha” moment; a day when the thick protective layer of their supernatural belief system develops a small crack. I hope that what I have said to them, maybe several months or years earlier, will come to mind at that moment.
I experienced the following “aha” moment when I was a Christian: My children attended a conservative Christian grade school. One Sunday the school had a singing performance during the worship service of the sponsoring church. Guess what topic the pastor chose for that Sunday’s sermon after my kids and all these other cute little kids had just finished singing: The Slaughter of the Amalekites!
As the pastor preached and attempted to explain that slaughtering women and little children today, en masse, would be wrong, it was different in the time of the Old Testament. We must accept God’s will that sometimes it is good and moral for children to be slaughtered.
“What???” said a voice deep in my head. “That can’t be true. It is never just or good to target little children for slaughter.” I didn’t deconvert that day but the shell of my faith definitely sustained a crack…which eventually led to my deconversion approximately a year later.
Yeah, that’s probably not the best lesson for a group of kids. And depending on how specific he got, that’s kind of morbid. But this seems to be the same sort of commandment that was given to Joshua with the Conquest: enemies with a culture that will undermine your own are in your land (as both the culture and land have been established by God specifically for a single group of people) and you need to wipe them out. Joshua didn’t really complete the entirety of the commandment and that leads to cultural problems generations later that eventually results in the Exile. So, when Saul refuses to go all the way, that seems to be an echo of that previous problem.
But (and I’m not advocating for genocide or anything), this wasn’t exactly uncommon in… all of human history barring the last 300ish years. Yes, that certainly sounds bad, but it kind of reminds me of Clerks, where they talk about how horrible it was that Luke killed probably millions of storm troopers with the first Death Star explosion. I’m not aware of anyone consuming that story who reacted in horror, despite murder being seen as a bad thing when Alderaan was exploded.
Obviously the argument turns into, “Well, they were kids! They’re innocent!” And yes, by modern standards, this is horrible. Obviously. But this opens up a theological question of why not just start with Christianity and skip the whole Judaism part? The only answer I can offer is: perhaps there are times when Biblical values are prescriptive and perhaps there are times when Biblical values are descriptive.
If the Bible once says say slavery was okay (as long as they were let go on the year of Jubilee), then changes to let Philemon be free since we’re all servants of Christ, then is used to be able to say slavery is totally fine, and THEN is used to be able to say slavery is obviously not okay… maybe, just maybe, these words from on high were given by a personality that is smart enough to comprehend gradual progress. Look at our own culture from 1950 to today. Very, starkly different. But it didn’t happen overnight.
I don’t know, you seem like an intelligent guy, so I’m sure this isn’t a new idea for you. This serves as a good way to flesh out my own understanding, I suppose. And I do think it is very Biblical to have questions about the nature and acts of God. But this seems a reasonable explanation (under the assumption the God of the Bible is real, of course) to me.
“If the Bible once says say slavery was okay (as long as they were let go on the year of Jubilee), then changes to let Philemon be free since we’re all servants of Christ, then is used to be able to say slavery is totally fine, and THEN is used to be able to say slavery is obviously not okay… maybe, just maybe, these words from on high were given by a personality that is smart enough to comprehend gradual progress. ”
Yes, maybe God knows more than we do and knows that the slaughtered infants, toddlers, and children were better off being run through with a sword than living full lives. But isn’t it also possible that God had nothing to do with this? Isn’t it possible that these children were murdered due to ignorance, greed, and hate? If absolute morality exists, a prohibition on butchering little children should be at the top of the list, don’t you think?
So if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God exists, his standards of morality, at least on the issue of butchering children, does not appear to be absolute…if these events occurred.
That’s not a super convincing argument. Murder is illegal as of the Ten Commandments. Yet, God never said no to having armies. Which kill people. You know, as an army does. It sounds semantic, but murder and killing, while overlapping in definition, are still separate concepts.
Yes, the elephant in the room in conversations like these is: maybe God didn’t command this, or even, maybe God doesn’t exist. That’s a separate argument that is utilized in order to not engage on the presupposition that the God of the Bible exists and as such, what is the meaning of what God does?
If we were to have an discussion about the Illuminati, discussing events that are supposedly linked to them, and you posited an explanation for what those events COULD mean… it would be disingenuous of me to reply back, “The Illuminati doesn’t exist.” Are discussion was about what the Illuminati’s actions could mean, not whether it exists. (I don’t believe that group exists, by the way, just thought it was a good example)
I’m starting to see why others become frustrated in this comments section. Yes, all of this means nothing if God doesn’t exists and if the Bible is just a compilation of lies. Okay? You said your goal is to provide logical evidence that may bring people to your side of the conversation. You started this thread by asking a relevant and interesting question: how do we know what’s real when all we have is the word of another person? But the conversation inevitably falls to: God is not real, therefore etc. Again, that’s just not a relevant argument.
I feel like I’m running in circles at this point, so I’m going to tap out now. But hey, I’ve seen that you’re a frequent commenter on these blog posts, so maybe I’ll take issue with something you say later lol.
Jesus spoke of the Sign of Jonah three times. In each of these instances he gave a different description of that that sign, but did not say that each was “a” sign of Jonah. Instead each was described as “the” sign of Jonah. That fact suggests that the Sign of Jonah is a trinity of closely related elements that are mutually supporting.
Traditional understandings of the Sign of Jonah rely on what theologians call “violence to scripture.” For instance, Jesus prohibition of a sign for first century Israel in Mark 8 is understood as an “initial refusal” or as an editing out of the phase “except the sign of Jonah.” Likewise, Jesus definition of limited burial in Matthew 12 is expanded to include his resurrection, and the definition as his ministry in Luke 11 is dismissed as nothing more than a conflation of earlier sayings.
An understanding of the Sign of Jonah that accepts Jesus’ three definitions at their face value has recently been published.
See: “The Enigma of the Sign of Jonah,” BSTS Shroud Newsletter, Summer 2023, pg. 42-46.
Thank you for your thoughts about the Sign of Jonah.
In Mark 8 the authorities demanded that Jesus show them a sign from heaven. Jesus’ reply of “In truth I tell you,” is a Hebraic oath formula. Essentially Jesus is saying, “May God do this to me and more,” if such a sign is ever given to this generation. That is a clear and irrevocable denial that a sign from heaven will ever be allowed for “this generation,” i.e. first century Israel.
In Luke 11 Jesus hears that the crowd wants a sign from heaven. Jesus lectures the crowd about how his ministry ought to be sufficient sign for them. He compares his ministry to that of the Prophet Jonah, and he relates how the Ninevites accepted Jonah’s ministry without making any requests for a sign from heaven. He labels his ministry as the Sign of Jonah saying that it is the only sign that first century Israel would receive.
Jesus’ denial of any miraculous sign for Israel in Luke 11 is compatible with the same denial he made in Mark 8.
Jesus’ defintion of the Sign of Jonah in Matthew 12 is different. Here Jesus predicts that his burial will last for more than 24 but less than 72 hours. He labels this event “The Sign of Jonah,” and compares it to Jonah’s burial in the great fish. I addition, he does not designate this sign to “this generation,” but, instead, to “a generation.” That difference allows us to alleviate the apparent conflict between Matthew 12 and Mark 8/Luke 11 by hypothesizing that the Sign of Jonah described in Matthew 12 was reserved for some future era.
See: The Enigma of the Sign of Jonah,” BSTS Shroud Newletter, Summer 2023.