| The Ontario Debate |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by John Feakes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Ontario DebateIntroduction Not long ago, I engaged in a debate with a young man from Ontario on the trustworthiness of the New Testament. He was quite convinced that the New Testament, along with Christian doctrine in general, "evolved" in stages over time, and could in no way be regarded as factual history. To get the ball rolling, I sent him a few pages outlining some of the compelling manuscript and historic evidences which attest to the reliability of the New Testament. As we shall see, when it comes to sheer number and consistency of manuscripts, no other literary work even comes close. His response to me appeared less than honest. It seemed that he, like many critics, simply did not want to believe in Jesus. This hid beneath the guise of "an honest skeptic", my opponent quickly took the data I sent him to the internet to see if there was anyone else who denied its validity. Of course there was. This is to be expected. The question is, who is interpreting the data so, and why? My opponent failed to ask these questions; any denial of the data seemed to do. It appeared as though anyone who shared his contempt for Christianity was above reproach. This is hardly the approach on an "honest skeptic." This article contains his major objections to the data I sent him and my responses to them. There is a lot of data here and to make things a little easier, I divided my response onto two broad divisions: Historical evidences for the Christian faith and Doctrinal issues, where I dealt with my opponent's misunderstandings about what the Bible actually teaches. I'm presenting this lengthy document here for two reasons. First, it's meant to give those who have not trusted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour a chance to review some of the evidence for themselves. Many a skeptic has become a believer after conducting an honest analysis of the historic evidences. Second, for Christians wishing to defend their faith in a largely unbelieving world, this article may contain information they have not yet seen. Hopefully it will also help the Christian to spot the faulty reasoning behind many anti-Christian worldviews out there. Please note before you read my response that I've edited it a bit for viewing on this website. For example, his words and quotations I've highlighted in blue for clarity. I've also removed all references to my opponent directly, completely omitting his name. For the most part, however, the following is what he received from me in my last e-mail. One more thing: This "opponent" has since become a dear brother in the Lord! I appreciate the fact that you've read every word of my last e-mail to you. I indeed have read every word of yours. Here's my prayerful response. To begin with, please understand that this view you have of Christians, of our community, of me in particular, as ignorant followers of an unsubstantiated worldview desiring to stifle free thought, simply isn't true. I wouldn't dream of taking away your freedom to say "no" to Jesus. God wants us to love Him. Love requires choice. Choice contains the possibility of not loving Him. God accepts that, and so do I. If you want to council people not to believe in Jesus go ahead, provided they want to listen to it. The problem I see here isn't your lack of desire to embrace Christianity, but the hypocritical means by which you disguise this fact. You've deceitfully presented a case against Christianity to myself and to others, as one "being open to persuasion", an honest skeptic as it were. From your last mail: "Also, I'd just like to point out that IF after examining your evidence, I had found that it made a good argument for your faith, I would be man enough to admit it and would seriously (and probably gladly) consider converting." You've tried to present yourself as one who has tried Christianity and has found the evidence for it wanting. I'd like to believe that you examined the evidence in this fashion, but some of the statements you've made strongly argue against this "honest skeptic" portrait. Your statements regarding the Trypho / Justin Debate (which I will come back to later) are most telling: "Ok, at first I was a little disappointed because I couldn't dig up any dirt on Justin Martyr or Trypho, so I decided to find the passage and read it myself." Why were you disappointed in not finding any "dirt" if you didn't expect to find it in the first place? You seem to be working in reverse here. Trying to refute the text before even reading it! You said so yourself. You're free to pursue the matter in this fashion if you want, but this "honest skeptic" charade has got to stop. Listen, our presuppositions when conducting an investigation of this type cannot be our conclusions. Assuming at the onset the truth of the thing your trying to determine is simply arguing in a circle. It's the illogical practice of begging the question. Honestly, I've been obsessively researching this data for the last few years. I've already seen and considered most of what you sent me. It's obvious that, given your initial presupposition, you regarded the data with contempt and quickly got on the internet to find someone who agreed with you. I've news for you, boy, any asinine worldview or interpretation can find support on the internet somewhere. The fact that you found people who share your contempt for Christianity is to be expected. You're "research" is reminiscent of the so-called Jesus Seminar, a group of "scholars" whose goal it is to discover the "historic Jesus." The immediate presupposition that needs to be made of course is that the historic Jesus cannot be found in the New Testament. Please understand something of the time commitment we're talking about here. Years of my life have been spent on this. That's nothing compared to men like C. S. Lewis (please read some of his views on Christianity), Josh Mc Dowel, (who spent 700 hours researching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead), as well as Frank Morrison, a British attorney bent of showing the resurrection a fable but came back a believer. Morrison eventually wrote a book chronicling his research into the matter entitled "Who moved the Stone?" All of these men began life as atheists or agnostics, but took an honest and thorough look at the data. Josh McDowel has been accused of finding only what he wanted find, but he is adamant, as are Lewis and Morrison, that what they found was what they wanted to refute. And what of your time commitment? "…it took me less than half a hour of internet researching to find materials that put most of your quotes in context and cast reasonable shadow of a doubt on the meanings you'd like to give them." If you researched the entire matter the way you researched to Justin / Trypho debate, this isn't surprising. I HISTORIC EVIDENCES In my last mail to you, I cited the undisputable fact that for sheer number and consistency, the numbers of extant manuscripts which support the New Testament are without parallel throughout ancient literature. Here's that data again: To date, there is more that 24, 970 ancient New Testament manuscripts. Here is a quick breakdown: Greek manuscripts:
Ancient Greek manuscripts total 5,686 Other languages:
I stated that for sheer number and consistency, not other literary works even comes close. In fact, the next best-attested literary work, Homer's Iliad, has only 650 ancient manuscripts extant. Your response was: "If no other literary work comes close, it may be because no other literary work to date has had the backing of an enormous, monstrous and tyrannical religious institution to enforce their way of life on people like Christianity has in the form of the Roman Catholic Church." Honestly, is this the only way to interpret the data? Is the New Testament here because the Catholic Church became the monster organization that it did? Maybe we have a New Testament because Jesus of Nazareth really did what is reported of Him. Maybe the New Testament survived because it's the truth. Of course, if we apply your circular reasoning to this matter, the idea that the New Testament could be accurate history is removed from the pool of viable options at the onset. History is complete enough for us to be able to see with clarity that before becoming the official Roman religion in the fourth century, Christianity had experienced periods of intense persecution. How was Christianity being spread at this time? Certainly not by the point of the sword (as you suggest). How did Jesus say to spread the Gospel? In Luke 9:51-56, we read that Jesus and His guys were heading to Jerusalem through a Samaritan village. The villagers rejected Jesus and His message, which caused His angry disciples to ask, "Lord do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them just as Elijah did?" The text continues: "But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men lives but to save them." Jesus rebukes Peter for striking Malchus with his sword. "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?" Matthew 26:52-53 Jesus states to Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." John 18:36 In Mark 6:11 Jesus instructs: "And whoever will not receive you or hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them." In Matthew 5:44 Jesus states: "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." Paul tells us how to fight: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For our weapons of our warfare are not carnal (of the flesh) but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 In 1 Peter 3:15 we are told, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Acts 17:17, reports that while Paul was in Athens "he reasoned in the Synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there." Were these passages, and many more like them, added to the New Testament by the Catholic Church who didn't practice them? If so, for what purpose? If these passages were retained from a time before the fourth century, then how can we explain Christianity's triumph over its persecutors? In considering these questions, the idea that the New Testament just might be the truth must be allowed into the pool of possible options. To me, it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that Christianity came to be embraced because the arguments against it at the time were weak. It's not at all unreasonable to suggest that Christianity triumphed because it was the truth. I'm of the opinion that the manuscript evidence not only suggests a first century date for the New Testament's composition, but that no significant change had occurred to this body of text. In my last mail, I gave you some examples of the manuscripts and manuscript fragments that predate Constantine. I was hoping, thought not really expecting, you'd take an honest look at the data and consider whether it may be a valid argument in support of New Testament trustworthiness. Of course you didn't. Your response, however is telling and we must consider it. Here again is the list of extant manuscripts (which by no means represents anything close to an exhaustive list), which argue for an early date of writing of the New Testament. They also support, I believe, the notion that the New Testament books have not undergone significant change since their original composition. The list below is by no means complete. A much more complete list is outlined in Geisler's "Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics." The Most Significant Manuscripts:
You raised some objections to this data, which I don't feel were valid. Let's consider what your rebuttals were Dead Sea Scroll 7Q5 To begin with, differing points of view must be expected. My sources say that Qumran scroll fragment 7Q5 is a portion of Mark's Gospel. Your source says it is not. The honest approach here is to ask ourselves, who are these people are why are they interpreting the data such? In your mail, you admitted that, in a court of law, evidence that both the prosecution and the defense can agree upon as valid is most likely trustworthy. Your response was that this approach, "Seems like a reasonable premise." In case you haven't heard, Jews and Christians don't exactly see eye to eye on religious matters. With this in mind, what are we to make of the fact that Shemaryahu Talmon, a Jewish member of the editorial board of the Qumran scrolls has admitted that the contents of cave seven are Christian? Other Papyrologists agree as well, such as Orsolina Montevecchi, honorary president of the International Papyrologists' Association. She said, "I don't think there can be any doubt about the identification of 7Q5." Your own source cited the impressive credentials of two men in particular who believe 7Q5 is Markan: "If it were not for the fact that Jose' O'Callaghan is a reputable papyrologist and that C.P. Thiede is a German scholar, one has to wonder whether this hypothesis would ever have gotten more than an amused glance from the scholarly community." In your half hour of internet research, I highly doubt you were able to fully grasp the issues at hand regarding 7Q5. One of things that probably escaped your attention is the fact that those in support of this document being a portion of Mark's Gospel are, for the most part, papyrologists. Those against this interpretation seem to mainly be New Testament scholars. Why do you suppose this is? According to Thiede, many scholars today, like Burton Mack and his ilk, are operating from presuppositions about how Christianity and the New Testament "evolved in stages." For them, the New Testament began has oral stories were passed down, until someone got the idea to actually put in writing some of the sayings of Jesus. This non-existent document, known as "Q" was proposed to explain why Luke and Matthew contain similarities not found in Mark (Mark, they maintain was written first). The obvious way to reconcile this difficulty, of course, is to suggest that Matthew was written first. It's funny just how much time and effort guys like Mack spend on speculating on "the evolution of "Q." They propose that there was a whole series of "Q" documents, such as "proto Q," "Q 1", "proto Q 2", and so on. A lot of weight has been placed on this concept when formulating their theories. This is interesting because people like you are bashing the fragmental nature of some of the extant New Testament manuscripts (they're 2000 years old, man!), yet you embrace the theories of guys like Burton Mack who can't produce a shred of manuscript evidence to support their theories. Something is wrong here. So the New Testament scholar, you'll see, rejects 7Q5 as being Markan on a purely philosophical basis. To him, the idea that Mark's Gospel could have been written by AD 68 is unacceptable, because, according to the theory, this is far too early in Christianity's "evolution." It's also interesting to note that before the contents of cave seven were identified as Christian, papyrologists had already identified the palaeographic script on the scroll fragments as being "Zierstil" in style - which peaked at the turn of the first century. Colin H. Roberts acting on behalf of the editorial team, stated that 7Q5 is a late example of that style and should be dated no later that AD 50. We might add a few years if we suppose that the style fell out of use more slowly, still, a date of AD 68 is the most recent we can get, due to the destruction of that region by the Roman forces at that time. The papyrologist, on the other hand, could care less about the scholar's theories about source analysis and so forth. For him, only the actual piece(s) of writing matter. He's only concerned about what materials were used, the language portrayed, the size and style of script and so on. 7Q5 contains 4 letters on line four: "nu / nu / eta / sigma /." O'Callaghan searched for Greek words that had this letter sequence and at first considered the word "egennesen" ("gave birth") and considered whether the text might be part of a geneaological list. The problem with this idea was that it didn't account for the other letters on the fragment. A list of this kind simply could not be found in extant Greek literature. He then thought of other words with the same letter sequence and came up with "Gennesaret" - the famous lake in Galilee. The only place in the entire Greek Old Testament that contained this spelling of the lake was found in 1 Maccabees 11:67. The problem of course, is that none of the others letters on 7Q5 would fit 1 Maccabees. If O'Callaghan was a scholar and not a papyrologist, he would have never considered that 7Q5 could have been a portion of a Gospel given its date, but he did. Its identification as Markan, in my mind, is sound. But let's consider the points your source raised against it:
In short the controversy that surrounds this document has nothing to do with papyrology, but everything with people like yourself, not wanting to give up their worldviews. Now, really, do you have any clue what is contained in the Huleatt fragments, the Bodmer II, or the Chester Beatty papyri? Your source made much of the fragmentary nature of some of these texts, and indeed they are fragmental, but do you have any clue how complete they are? Is this something you purposed to find out during your half hour of internet research? I doubt it. For those who are following this debate, here is a list of most of the manuscript evidence (papyri) which predates the forth century. The bibliography for this material has been omitted for space but I have it here for whoever is interested. Much of the manuscripts here are incomplete, but is there enough to make a comparison to what is in our Bibles today? You be the judge: In these volumes were published the three New Testament papyrus manuscripts called the Bodmer papyri, after the name of the man who first brought them to the attention of scholars. Martin Bodmer, a wealthy collector from Geneva, purchased the manuscripts from an antiquities dealer in Cairo sometime in the 1950's. They are believed to be from the early third century. Their designations and contents are as follows. Papyrus 66 John 1:1-6:11; 6:35-14:26; 14:29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20; 20:22-23; 20:25-21:9. Papyrus 72 1 Pet 1:1-5:14; 2 Pet 1:1-3:18; Jude 1-25. Papyrus 75 Luke 3:18-4:22; 4:34-5:10; 5:37-18:18; 22:4-24:53; John 1:1-11:45, 48-57; 12:3-13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8. P20 Location/Catalog Number Princeton University Library, Am 4117 -- Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1171 Contents Portions of James 2:19-3:9 Date/Scribe Dated paleographically to the third century. Description and Text-type P20 is a fragment of a single leaf, 11.5 cm. tall and somewhat less than 4.5 cm. wide at the widest. It is the central portion of a leaf; both left and right edges are damaged, as is the bottom. Portions of 20 lines survive on each side, with usually about twelve characters per line. The original seems to have had about 30-35 characters per line, so the surviving portion is relatively slight. The hand is rough and hasty-looking; given the state of the manuscript, it is often difficult to distinguish the letters. P28 Location/Catalog Number Berkeley (Palestine Institute Museum), Pacific School of Religion Papyrus 2 -- Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1596 Contents Portions of John 6:8-12, 17-22 Date/Scribe Dated paleographically to the third century. The hand slants slightly and looks hasty and unattractive. Numbers are spelled out (as, e.g., in P66) rather than written as numerals (as in P75). Description and Text-type P28 is a fragment of a single leaf, ten cm. tall and five wide. The surviving portion is from the bottom of the leaf, and is broken on both sides. Eleven lines survive on the recto, twelve on the verso (plus a few blots from a thirteenth). About 13-15 letters survive on each line, out of an average of perhaps 32 letters per line (the lines seem to have been somewhat irregular). P39 Location/Catalog Number Rochester (New York, USA). Ambrose Swabey Library, Inv. no. 8864 -- Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1780 Contents Portions of John 8:14-22 Date/Scribe Dated paleographically to the third century. The hand is very clear and the surviving text easily read; one suspects an expert scribe. Description and Text-type P39 is a fragment of a single leaf, preserving the entire height of the manuscript but only one edge. There are 25 lines per page, but only about six or seven surviving letters per line (occasionally less, especially on the verso). There appear to have been about thirteen or fourteen letters per line (column?), meaning that about half the text survives. P45 Location/Catalog Number Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty I; Vienna, Austrian National Library, Pap. Vindob. G. 31974 (one leaf, containing Matt. 25:41-26:39) Contents P45 is surely in the worst condition of any of the substantial Biblical papyri. Even the surviving leaves (a small fraction of the original contents, estimated at 30 of 220 original leaves) are damaged; the most substantial pages are perhaps 80-90% complete, but many others are just small fragments. There are relatively few complete lines; many of the surviving leaves represent only about 20% of the width of the original manuscript. Therefore any list of verses included in the manuscript will make it seem more substantial than it really is; very many of these verses survive only in part (often very small part). With that said, the verses represented at least partly in P45 are: Matt. 20:24-32, 21:13-19, 25:41-26:39; Mark 4:36-40, 5:15-26, 5:38-6:3, 6:16-25, 36-50, 7:3-15, 7:25-8:1, 8:10-26, 8:34-9:8, 9:18-31, 11:27-12:1, 12:5-8, 13-19, 24-28; Luke 6:31-41, 6:45-7:7, 9:26-41, 9:45-10:1, 10:6-22, 10:26-11:1, 11:6-25, 28-46, 11:50-12:12, 12:18-37, 12:42-13:1, 13:6-24, 13:29-14:10, 14:17-33; John 4:51, 54, 5:21, 24, 10:7-25, 10:31-11:10, 11:18-36, 43-57; Acts 4:27-36, 5:10-20, 30-39, 6:7-7:2, 7:10-21, 32-41, 7:52-8:1, 8:14-25, 8:34-9:6, 9:16-27, 9:35-10:2, 10:10-23, 31-41, 11:2-14, 11:24-12:5, 12:13-22, 13:6-16, 25-36, 13:46-14:3, 14:15-23, 15:2-7, 19-26, 15:38-16:4, 16:15-21, 16:32-40, 17:9-17. It is possible that the codex originally contained other books (e.g. the Catholic Epistles); unlike many of the major papyri, it is not a single-quire codex, but rather uses gatherings of two leaves, meaning that it could have had many more leaves at the end. All told, we have two leaves of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and thirteen of Acts, with the leaves of Matthew being only the smallest fragments. The leaves of Mark and Acts are rather more substantial, but still badly damaged; those of Luke and John are relatively complete. Date/Scribe Dated paleographically to the third century. P46 Location/Catalog Number Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty II; Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Inv. 6238 Contents 86 leaves (out of an original total of 104), containing portions of Romans 5:17-1 Thes. 5:28 (plus Hebrews, following Romans). The surviving leaves (most of which are somewhat damaged) contain Romans 5:17-6:3, 6:5-14, 8:15-25, 27-35, 8:37-9:32, 10:1-11, 11, 24-33, 11:35-15:9, 15:11-end (with 16:25-27 following chapter 15!); 1 Cor. 1:1-9:2, 9:4-14:14, 14:16-15:15, 15:17-16:22; 2 Cor. 1:1-11:10, 12-21, 11:23-13:13; Gal. 1:1-8, 1:10-2:9, 2:12-21, 3:2-29, 4:2-18, 4:20-5:17, 5:20-6:8, 6:10-18; Eph. 1:1-2:7, 2:10-5:6, 5:8-6:6, 6:8-18, 20-24; Phil. 1:1, 1:5-15, 17-28, 1:30-2:12, 2:14-27, 2:29-3:8, 3:10-21, 4:2-12, 14-23; Col. 1:1-2, 5-13, 16-24, 1:27-2:19, 2:23-3:11, 3:13-24, 4:3-12, 16-18; 1 Thes. 1:1, 1:9-2:3, 5:5-9, 23-28; Heb. 1:1-9:16, 9:18-10:20, 10:22-30, 10:32-13:25 The original contents of P46 are subject to debate. If the manuscript was indeed 104 pages long (and the quite numberings make it clear that it was intended to be so), there is no possible way it could have contained the Pastoral Epistles; the remaining space would have allowed inclusion of 2 Thessalonians but not much more. But, of course, scribes had to guess how many pages they would need in a single-quire codex. The Pastorals represent only a little more than 10% of the Pauline corpus, and an error of 10% in estimating the length of the codex is not impossible. Thus, while it seems fairly likely that P46 did not and was not intended to include the Pastorals, the possibility cannot be denied that they were included on additional leaves attached at the end. Date/Scribe Various dates have been proposed for P46, based entirely on paleographic evidence. The earliest dates have been around the beginning of the second century (a date which has significant implications for the formation of the Pauline canon, but to which few experts subscribe); the latest have placed it in the third. The most widely accepted date is probably that of the Alands, who place it circa 200 C.E. P48 Location/Catalog Number Florence, Laurenxian Library, PSI 1165. Contents Portions of Acts 23:11-17, 25-29. Date/Scribe Dated paleographically to the third century. The script is considered quite similar to P13. P75 Location/Catalog Number Cologny (Geneva), Switzerland, Bodmer library. Bodmer Papyrus XIV, XV Contents Contains major portions of Luke and Acts: Luke 3:18-22, 3:33-4:2, 4:34-5:10, 5:37-6:4, 6:10-7:32, 7:35-39, 41-43, 7:46-9:2, 9:4-17:15, 17:19-18:18, 22:4-end, John 1:1-11:45, 11:48-57, 12:3-13:10, 14:8-15:10. The volume, despite loss of leaves, is in surprisingly good condition, we even have portions of the binding (which is thought to have been added later). We have all or part of 102 pages (51 leaves), out of an original total of about 144 (72 leaves). Generally speaking, the earlier leaves are in better condition; many of the pages in the latter part of John have gone to pieces and have to be reconstructed from fragments. Date/Scribe Dated paleographically to the third century (with most scholars tending toward the earlier half of that century); Martin and Kasser, who edited the manuscript, would have allowed a date as early as 175. The scribe seems to have been generally careful, writing a neat and clear hand (though letter sizes vary somewhat), and (with some minor exceptions) using a fairly consistent spelling. Colwell observed that his natural writing tendencies of the scribe were strongly restrained by the text before him, indicating a copy of very high fidelity. The editors of the codex argued that the copyist was a professional scribe. So, some of the manuscript evidence cited, like the Rylands papyrus, is very incomplete. Others contain a substantial amount of text for examination and comparison as early as 200 AD. This date places us about halfway between the original composition of the New Testament books and the Nicene council of 325 AD. It's clear that the text had not been significantly altered during the latter half of this period. I think it reasonable to believe that the text survived without significant alteration from its original first century composition to the midway point, about 200 AD. I have several of reasons for believing this. Of course, there's the fact that the early church fathers were quoting from these books, which would make up our New Testament, at a very early date. You had some objections to the quotations made by Ignatius which we will look at shortly. Before we look at the testimonies of the early church fathers, there's another piece of data that warrants consideration. The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books, discovered in 1740 by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, in a seventh century manuscript. It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. The list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which "some of us will not allow to be read in church." The English text below is from Metzger, "The Canon of the New Testament", (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). The Latin text, which is believed by most scholars to be a translation from Greek, is given in Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London, 1870). For a critical edition see S.P. Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford, 1867). "… at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed them in his narrative. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, whom Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to the general belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him to write, he said, Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign Spirit all things have been declared in all the Gospels: concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning life with his disciples, and concerning his twofold coming; the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, the second glorious in royal power, which is still in the future. What marvel is it then, if John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his epistles, saying about himself, What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you? For in this way he professes himself to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For "Most excellent Theophilus" Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence, as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the epistles of Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones they are, from what place, or for what reason they were sent. First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; next, to the Galatians, against circumcision; then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the plan of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle. It is necessary for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all. Paul also wrote out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to further the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church. For it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted in the catholic Church; and the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote "The Shepherd" very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time. But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians …"(the rest of the text becomes illegible and the fragment ends here). From the completion of the last of the New Testament books to the composition of this canonical list is about 90 years (if we assume with *William Foxwell Albright that the last of the New Testament books was completed by the year AD 80). From this list to the Nicene council is 155 years. A canonical list of this type made at such and early date supports the idea that what transpired at the Nicene council was really just a ratification of what was already believed. *William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971), PhD, litt.D., was and archaeologist and scholar. He was the W.W. Spence professor of Semitic languages and chairman, Oriental Seminary at Johns Hopkins University. He taught Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins from 1929 to 1958. He was president of the International Organization of Old Testament Scholars , director of the American school of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, and led a number of archaeological expeditions in the Middle East. Regarding the early patristic quotations Here again is the list of early church fathers that quoted from the New Testament books in their own writings. I maintain that these quotations, made at such an early date, argue for the reliability of the New Testament. My primary sources for this information comes from Josh McDowel's, "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict", 1999, pp. 42-45, and Norman Geisler's "Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, , pp." Both written works contain extensive bibliographies and biographical sketches of many of the authors cited.
The first church father cited was Ignatius. The fact that some people dispute some of the content of some of his letters proves nothing. As I said at the beginning of this mail, virtually any interpretation can find support somewhere. My question is, why are some arguing against the validity of Ignatius' letters? The critic you cited makes a point that we must consider carefully: "It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves the indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived." In other words, the Ignatian letters are not be trusted because certain portions don't seem fit the correct timeframe. Conversely, could we suppose that if everything contained in these letters did fit Ignatius' time, we could regard them as probably trustworthy? To the point, if this approach is valid, what are we to make of the book of Acts, which fits it's supposed time like a glove? We will look at Acts momentarily. Before we do, consider these quotes from the early church and their dates: From Iranaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 180), student of Polycarp (the disciple of John the Apostle): "For there are four quarters of the world on which we live, and four universal winds, and as the church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit. Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews (ie. The Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure (ie., their death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64), Mark , the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast (this is a reference to John 13:25 and 21:20), himself produced his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." Irenaus, "Against Heresies III" The succession here is significant. From John the Apostle, to Polycarp, to Irenaus. This is very early attestation of the fourfold Gospel comes to us from someone linked closely to the original Apostolic circle. Let's get back to the Book of Acts. Remember, you were willing to toss Ignatius' letter because certain portions seemed, to some people, not to fit the period in which he lived. Let's judge Acts by the same criteria. The Book of Acts The book of Acts is the second of a two-part work addressed to a certain Theopholis. The first is the Gospel of Luke (we'll discuss authorship later). Acts contains the events immediately following Christ's ascension up until Paul's house arrest in Rome (from 30 AD to about 62 AD). Acts describes the activities of the early Church, the missions they started, the opposition by their enemies, and their various trials and triumphs. Consider this written work - the Book of Acts - carefully; it's very significant in determining the reliability of the New Testament. The significance: When debating the issue of the New Testament trustworthiness, the place to start is the book of Acts. The date and authenticity of the Acts if the Apostles is crucial to the historicity of early Christianity.
I Manuscript Evidence
II Attestation by the Early Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria AD 150 -212 makes 44 quotes from Acts Justin Martyr AD 133 makes 10 quotes from Acts Irenaeus AD 180 makes 194 quotes from Acts Origen AD 185 - 253 or 254 makes 349 quotes from Acts Tertullian AD 160 - 220 makes 502 quotes from Acts III The Internal Evidence
The author of Acts gives many details in his narrative which may be checked for historic accuracy against archaeological data. The Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetic cites 43 examples of how the author of Acts had specific local knowledge which archaeology has shown to be accurate. To examine each citation here is beyond the scope of this article. We can, however, divide statements found in the book of Acts which show specific local knowledge into 5 main areas: 1) The Cultural Climate, 2) Nautical Knowledge, 3) The Legal System depicted, 4) Geopolitical Divisions, 5) Titles of Rulers. The fact that the author(s) has been proven accurate in every instance where his statements may be tested of course doesn't prove that Luke the travelling companion of Paul was the author. It does, however, make the alternate explanation that Acts was composed as a very clever forgery less likely. 1 - The Cultural Climate A) Lystra - Acts 4:12 "…saying in their own Lycaonian language," -Lystra an insignificant town in the first century B) Lystra - Acts 14:12 "And Barnabas they called Zeus and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker…" -Inscriptions located near Lystra from 250 AD records dedication to Zeus and Hermes by men with Lycaonian names D) Philippi - Acts 16:12-39 -states that the city gate was situated by a river E) Athens - Acts 17:16-34"…the city was given over to idols." -Other historians also commented on the religiosity of Athens: F) Athens - Mars' Hill v 22 "(Paul) reasoned…in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there." -established that metaphysical and ethical discussions took place at the Athenian marketplace G) Athens - Athenian Slang-v 18 "What does this babbler (spermalogos) want to say?" -Sir William Ramsey has verifies this as Athenian slang of that period H) Ephesus - Sorcery, Acts 19:18-41 -v 19 states that many practised sorcery in Ephesus I) Ephesus -Idol Manufacture said to be a lucrative trade, Acts 19:24-25 -silver idols of Diana, v. 24-25 J) The Famine in the Rule of Claudius, Acts 11:27-30 -Acts speaks of a famine throughout the land K) The Rights of a Roman Citizen, Acts 16:37-38 -Paul makes much of his Roman citizenship Sir William Ramsey, Archaeologist, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen", 1979, p. 238, "…the narrative never makes a false step amid all the many details, as the scene changes from city to city; and that is the conclusive proof that it is a picture of real life." 2 - Nautical Knowledge - The nautical knowledge displayed by the author of Acts in chapter 27 is unmatched in all ancient historic documents. Attestation by historians: A.T. Robertson, "Luke the Historian in the Light of Research", 1920, p. 206, "The story is told with such a wealth of detail that in all classical literature there is no passage which gives us so much information about the working of an ancient ship." A.T. Robertson, p. 206, "It is to Luke that we owe the most vivid as well as the most accurate account of sea-voyaging that has come down to us from antiquity. Experts in nautical science agree that it is without parallel." Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen", 1979 reprint, 1897, p.331-339 James Smith, "The Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul" Specific examples of Nautical knowledge Displayed in Acts: "…They sailed under the lee of Cyprus, keeping northwards with a westerly wind on the beam." Acts 27:14 "…here they ran before a wind under the lee of Claudia." Acts 27:14 "…putting out to sea, they sailed close by Crete. But not long after, a tempestuous head wind arose, called euraquilon (Northeaster). Note that the wind sweeps down from the Cretan mountains which stand over 7000 feet. This still creates havoc for sailing ship today. 3 - The Legal System Depicted in Acts Acts 25:16 - Festus' remarks to Agrippa: "It is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to destruction before the accused meets the accusers face to face, and has opportunity to answer for himself concerning the charge against him" This fits perfectly with 1st century Roman jurisprudence, see: A.N. Sherwin-White, "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament", 1978, p.48 Acts 25:18 - Festus' remarks re: the need for an advisor "…they brought no accusation against him (Paul) of such things as I supposed…" "Supposed" - Greek - "on ego hypenooun", or "suspected" The issue fell outside of the domain of Roman law, which forced Festus to request Agrippa as an advisor. A.N. Sherwin White, Roman Historian, ("The Trial of Christ: Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament", pp. 97-116) states: "The accounts of these trials in Acts is so technically correct that Roman historians since Mommsen have often judged them as the best illustration of Roman provincial jurisdiction in this particular period." A.N. Sherwin-White, ("Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1978, p. 189) concludes: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historian have look taken it for granted." 4 - Geopolitical Knowledge in Acts Acts 13:49 - Antioch was situated in the province of Galatia. Antioch was also the centre of a Roman region known as Galatic Phrygia. Archaeological evidence: Inscriptions located in Antioch confirm this. Evidence is supported by historians: - Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey, "St. Paul the Traveller", pp. 102-103 - J.A. Thompson, "The Bible and Archaeology", "Luke the Historian", 1987, p. 393, "Luke the Historian", 1954, p.10 Acts 14:6 - The Division Between Iconium and Lystra and Derbe "…and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and the surrounding region." - Note that Paul left the city of Iconium, travelled to cities of Lystra, then Derbe - From AD 37 to 72, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe all existed in the same province - The province of Galatia - However, Iconium existed in a separate political region known as Phrygia Galatia - Lystra and Derbe existed in the political region known as Lycaonia Galatia Attestation to this fact by: - Sir William Ramsey, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen The Division of Phygia into Two Provinces (Phrygia Asia and Galatia) Acts 16:6-8, "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in the Roman province of Asia. After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them. So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas." - Phrygia at that time was divided into two provinces: The Roman province of Asia (Phrygia Asia) and the province of Galatia Philippi Correctly Identified as the "First" in the Region; a Colony - Acts 16:12, "…and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost (first) city of that part of Macedonia, a colony." -Philippi was indeed a Roman colony, founded by Roman veterans, see: - Edwin Yamauchi, "The Stones and the Scriptures: An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology", 1981, p. 115 - Yamauchi cites papyrus found in Egypt which substantiates Luke's usage of the Greek word "Meris" for "part" or "region." (p. 115) - "Meris" was used as an idiom by colonists from Macedonia - Also see: Ramsey (St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 201-206) 5 - The Usage of Titles in Acts Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Acts 13:7) the Proconsul (Greek Anthupatus, Latin Proconsul) Some have challenged that no Proconsul existed at that time, only an imperial legate. Challenge is now unfounded based on archaeological evidence: History: - Cyprus (to which Paphos belonged) was ruled by an imperial Legate prior to 22 B.C. - Cyprus became a Senatorial province in 22 B.C., ruled by a proconsul - An inscription from Solo in Cyprus reads "…in the Proconsulship of Paulis…" B) Acts 16:20-39 - "Duumuirs vs "Praetors" -Luke calls the legal officials "Magistrates" (Greek Strategios, Latin Praetors) in Philippi, their officers he calls "sergents" (Greek Rabdouchoi, Latin Lictors), -In the Roman colony of Philippi, the Magistrates were called "duumuirs", not praetors It looks as though Luke may have been wrong, however, a parallel case occurred in the Roman colony of Capua where duumuirs preferred the more dignified title: "Although they are called duumirs in the other colonies, these men wish to be called praetors." FF Bruce, "Commentary of the Book of Acts", p. 335, J.A. Thompson, "The Bible and Archaeology", p. 396, "Luke the Historian", p. 14. C) Acts 17:6-9 City officials referred to as "Politarchoi" in Thessalonica Inscriptions found there verify Luke's usage of them. For example, by a Roman road leading into the city stands a Roman arch called the Vardar Gate. Inscriptions on the gate read, "In the time of the Politarchs…" this inscription dated to 30 BC to 143 AD See: "Luke the Historian" by J.A. Thompson, p.15, "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament", by A.N. Sherwin White, p. 96-97, "ANCT", by FF Bruce, p. 235. D) Acts 18:12 - Gallio called Pronconsul of Achia -Paul sent to appear before Gallio -some suggest that Achia was governed by a Procurator at that time and not a Proconsul -this is not the case: Achia was governed by a Proconsul from 27 BC to 15 AD -in 15 AD the control was given back to the emporer, it was governed by a procurator during this period -in 44 AD the control was given to the Roman senate and Achia was again ruled by a Proconsul -see: Sir William Ramsey's work, "St. Paul the Traveller", p. 258, A.T. Robertson, "Luke the Historian" -Also note that according to Roman historian C.J.Hemer, (in an article titled "The Historical and Political Background of the New Testament" found in the Erdman's Handbook to the Bible, 1973, pp. 571-573) "Paul was accused before Gallio, the new Roman governor, of teaching a religion contrary to the law (Acts 18:13)…This event may be probably be dated in AD 52: In inscription from Delphi in Greece mentions Gallio and gives a fixed point for the chronology of Paul's life." -both Thompson and Bruce address the Delphian inscription which states that Gallio became Proconsul of Achia in July, AD 51 (See Bruce, ANCT,p.324, "Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 374 and Thompson, "The Bible and Archeaology", p. 401, "Luke the Historian", p. 19 Acts 19:31, 35, 38 - Titles used in Ephesus -Chief men or "officials" (asiarchan) -"town clerk" (grammateus) -"temple keeper" (Neokoros) According to Bruce (CBA, pp 400-402, NTDR pp 83-84), Roman Historian A.N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, pp 85-91) and Thompson (Book of Acts, p. 408, Luke the Historian pp. 24-25), inscriptions discovered confirm the use of these terms at that time and place. Acts 25:26 - Festus uses "Kurios" (Lord) -Festus uses the term Kurios in addressing the emporer -some concluded that the text must be in error -Today we know that Kurios was indeed used with respect to the Roman emperor, see: -Diesman's work, "Light from the Ancient East", 1980, pp. 351-354. He states that in one Boeotian town an inscription refers to Nero as 'Lord (Kurios) of the whole world.' Diesman states: "the insignificant detail questioned by various commentators, who, seated at their writing tables in Tubingen or Berlin, vainly imagined that they knew the period better than St. Luke, now appears thoroughly credible." (p. 354) Acts 28:7 - Head official of Malta called "Chief" or first "Protos" -this title is vouched for by both Greek and Latin Manuscripts as the proper title for the Governor of Malta during the first century -see FF Bruce, "Commentary on the Book of Acts", p. 523, and Thompson, "Luke the Historian p. 25 Here's a few interesting quotes: "The student of Roman History is aware of the bewildering variety in the titles held by these men, and he cannot fail to be struck by the confident accuracy with which Luke uses them." "Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament," 1958, p. 325, "Revelation and the Bible" "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without error." Norman Geisler, "The Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 47 Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939) was a British archaeologist. Educated at Aberdeen, Oxford and Gottingen, he served as Professor of classical archaeology at Oxford (1885-86), and professor of humanity at Aberdeen university (1886-1911). Knighted in 1906, he made discoveries in geography and topography of Asia Minor and it's ancient history. Ramsey is quoted by Blaiklock, "Layman's Answer: An Examination of New Testament Theology", 1968 p.36: "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify with the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts and as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." Ramsey also stated: "Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this historian should be placed along the very greatest of historians." Ramsey, "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", p. 222. He adds, "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." Ramsey, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen", p. 81 Meril F. Unger (1909-1980), received A.B. and PhD degrees at John Hopkins University and his Th.M. and Th.D. degrees at Dallas Theological Seminary. He was a professor and chairman of the Semitics and Old Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. His views on the date of the Book of Acts differ from your sources, who place it as a second century work: "The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century and to involve the labour of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources." Unger, "Archaeology and the New Testament", p. 24 So let's consider Ignatius again… With respect to the trustworthiness of the Book of Acts, if we measure it by the same criteria we used on the Ignatian letters (that is, checking for phrases that do not fit the proper timeframe), then we have got to accept Acts as a valid historic document. At this point, we could scrap Ignatius' letters (though I think such a move foolish) and still be confident in the reliability of the New Testament. In your mail you stated that, "…the writings attributed to "Luke" which many believe to be the latest written of the four Gospels (100-130 CE apparently), written right around the emergence of the churches. So it is only a coincidence that the same person wrote "Acts of the Apostles" right around the same time when the churches were looking for support from the idea of apostolic connections?" The question is meaningless if Acts is indeed a first century document. You've given me nothing to suggest that it is not. I've given plenty to suppose that it is. In your mail you stated that, "I'm not going to dispute the fact that early church fathers quoted from early versions of the 'New Testament', but even this may be a misleading way to phrase the question, because it seems to imply that the 'New Testament' existed as a collection of writings that all Christians unanimously supported even before the 'Nicene Council', but clearly this couldn't have been the case, otherwise why they have needed to standardize anything?" It's important to understand that the need to "standardize" only came about because certain heretical belief systems were beginning to spring up and began canonizing there own scriptures. Marcion was the first to do this, in 140 AD, and in response, Christians "standardized" their own sacred scriptures. Consider the number of quotations by early church fathers from the New Testament books. It's clear that the "standardization" of the New Testament was simply a ratification of something the church was already doing. Some have expressed concern over the fact that certain other "Christian" groups, such as Marcionism were suppressed and eventually eradicated by what became mainstream Christianity. The question becomes, 'How do we know that Marcionism (or some other group) didn't represent the truth, and now we've lost their testimonies forever? Good question. Remember, with men like Polycarp and Irenaus, we have a direct link to the original Apostolic circle. This link is attested to by the forth century historian Eusebius. "Eusebius, the Church History", 3.36: "Celebrated at that time in Asia was a companion of the apostles, Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Symrna by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Lord. Distinguished contemporaries of his were Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Ignatius, still a famed name as second after Peter to succeed to the bishopric of Antioch." The challenge to Marcionism, or any other heretical belief system came from these men, and those who shared their faith. From the Reader's Digest, "After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity", p. 132: "Around 154 Justin noted that Marcion had attracted followers from every race, and Tertullian later wrote that he had established churches 'as a wasp makes nests.' The seriousness of his threat to the church was expressed by Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. When Marcion met him he asked, "Do you know me?" Replied Polycarp, "I know the first-born of Satan. " Eusebius (4.14) quotes Irenaus (book 3 of "Against Heresies", 3.3): "Polycarp not only was instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but also was appointed by apostles in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna. I also saw him in my childhood, for he lived a long time and passed away in extreme old age in glorious martyrdom. He continually taught the things he learned from the apostles, the traditions of the church that are alone are true." These facts are confirmed by all the churches of Asia and the successors of Polycarp to this day, and he is a much more reliable witness to the truth than Valentinus, Marcion, and all other errorists." You made a comment in your mail about the New Testament books containing, "…weird inconsistencies in events, themes and emphasis of ideas." You also stated that these existed because, "the different parts of the New Testament were written in geographically separated communities that were subject to different circumstances. Because different circumstances shape our opinions and beliefs even today, it makes sense that despite having a common inspiration (a Jesus who was the first to promote a community under God that transcended race and culture) many of these communities developed very different opinions over time with respect to the details of his life and the details of what it meant." Think about what you just stated here. You just admitted that Jesus lived and had a following. If this is true, then surely somebody was aware of what He really said and did. Now I don't have a problem with the idea that different circumstances may shape our opinions and beliefs. Nor do I have a problem believing that many different communities, inspired by this great Man, developed "different opinions over time with respect to the details of His life." However, what do you suppose would happen if someone tried to publish these "different opinions" - let's call them what they are - historic inaccuracies - about Him, while His followers and those they taught were still alive? Surely a "standardization" of some kind would be expected in order to make clear the distinction between historic fact and myth. As for the "weird inconsistencies", I frankly don't see any. Some examples would have been nice. In fact, I think the New Testament comes together as a single, unified piece of literature. Note what the New Testament says about itself: "…our beloved brother Paul, according the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also with the rest of the Scriptures." 2 Peter 3:15-16 Note that Peter is equating Paul's letters with Scripture. Paul states, "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul also makes another interesting statement. Check 1 Timothy 5:18. Here Paul states "For the Scripture says, 'you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain' and, 'The labourer is worthy of his wages.'" This is an important quote. Paul says, "The Scripture says" and quotes from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 25:4. Next he quotes Luke 10:7. There is no other place in scripture where this saying appears. The most reasonable explanation is that Luke's Gospel was already written by the time Paul penned 1st Timothy. Your opinions on how Christianity evolved over time in separate geographical locations but needed standardization once reached a critical mass of popularity, is just that: It's an opinion. In my estimation, it's just one of many "historical reconstructions" put forth by men like Burton Mack and yourself. It the end of this article I'll attach my work, "Questioning the New Testament Critic" as Appendix A, which may help to put these differing views into perspective. Before I tackle the authorship question there's one point I need to address here. It's the idea that perhaps mainstream Christianity had suppressed the truth about Jesus in writings more accurate than what is contained in our New Testament today. The worry is that God's truth has been lost to history, completely irrecoverable. This is my response to such a worry. I find it unthinkable that the God that would send His Son to die would allow His essential writings to be lost to history. The god that would leave us today to flounder in a sea of deception, with no light of scriptural truth is not the god to whom I would be inclined to pray. No, I am convinced that if God's scriptures have been recorded, they will be extant today and open to examination and comparison to other writings. They will be there in amongst an avalanche of deceptive and erroneous works, but they will be there, waiting for us to discern them. This is what this discussion is about. As for the authorship of the Gospels you stated: "…the Gospels themselves never directly identify who their authors are. This is a very telling omission, don't you think? So how do we know who their author's are?…all we actually have is the testimony of people who are the founders of the first institutionalized forms of the early church who during that time period (in the early mid to second century)?? had to counter the criticisms of legitimacy…" It's true that there is nothing in the Gospels' text that indicates who the authors were. However, is your explanation for how they came to be attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really the only explanation? If we apply your initial presuppositions it is. But what's say we take a more logical approach. To begin with, Thiede states that the first Christian writings were scrolls. The codex was not embraced until later. The scroll was the traditional medium for the Jewish texts and so Christianity, rooted in, and identifying with Judaism followed suit. Scrolls at that time often had a type of "name tag" called a "sillybos" or "sittybos" in Greek, attached to the outside, identifying who the author was. Of course, scrolls don't last forever, and must be recopied. Martin Hengel of Tubingen University is cited in Thiede's "Eyewitness to Jesus", p.15-16, from Hengel's work, "Studies in the Gospel of Mark", (London, 1985), pp. 85-113. Hengel notes: "At the latest when the communities had two different copies of the Gospels, titles had to be used to distinguish them, in order to avoid confusion. Where the author was well known to the community, a verbal reference would have been enough, but as soon as his work was copied, sent to other communities and put in an archive there, a title was absolutely necessary to distinguish it from other works. We may assume that at least the larger communities got hold of the newly composed Gospels relatively quickly because of the lively interchange between the communities…If, as is usually argued today, the earliest Gospels were anonymous or lacked titles, because of the pressing need to distinguish them in community libraries, a variation in titles would have inevitably arisen, whereas in the case of the canonical Gospels (in contrast to that of countless apocryphal writings) we can detect nothing of this." We must also remember that the book of Acts still stands as an accurate historic work, which cites the activities of Paul up until his house arrest in Rome c AD 62. Acts also records the words of both Peter and Paul testifying to the reality of Christ's death and resurrection. Acts also mentions Mark, John, and James as well. Since Acts is part two of a two part work, we must push part one (the Gospel of Luke) further back in time, closer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Remember that we also possess Paul's writings, which quote from Luke directly. Your own sources say that Luke was the last of the Gospels to be written, which means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had to all have been completed by c AD 62. Now let's be real for a second. How do you suppose, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's names came to be attached to Gospel's they had nothing to do with? How did such a move escape their attention at such an early date? What's more, why would anyone before AD 62 , want to attach the name "Matthew" (the "telones", or tax collector) to a Gospel? Matthew and his fellow "telones" were despised and rejected by orthodox Jewish society. Remember, even Jesus was attacked for mingling with such people (Matthew 9:11). It's difficult to imagine how and why this decidedly Jewish Gospel came to be attributed to Matthew if he was, in fact, not the author. The same questions arise when we consider the authorship of both Mark's and Luke's Gospels. Neither one was an eyewitness to the events they describe. Neither one was part of the "inner circle" of disciples. What was to be gained by attaching such names to a Gospel in AD 62? Yet their works somehow became accepted and their authorship uncontested. Maybe this came about because they really are the authors of these works. To me, this is the logical conclusion to be drawn here. John is the only name of prominence attached to a Gospel. If an anonymous author wanted his Gospel to be accepted, he might have some motive to attach John's name to it. The motive might be there, sure, but was there adequate opportunity to pull this off? I don't think so. Again, it's difficult to imagine how John's name came to be accepted universally as the author if this was not so. The mention of Joseph of Arimathea raises yet another point concerning both the date of composition and the accuracy of the Gospel narratives. According to the Gospels, Joseph was a "good guy", "a disciple of Jesus" (Matthew 27:57) who gave Jesus a proper burial in his own tomb. Joseph was also "a prominent council member" (Mark 15:43). Here the critic has some explaining to do. If the Gospels were written shortly after the events they describe, (a conclusion to which the evidence clearly points) then how do we explain the mention of this prominent council member in connection with Christ's burial of it was not so? The Gospel's claims about Joseph's status and role in Christ's burial would have been easily refuted if it were not so. To suggest that Joseph was a fictitious character written into the narrative in the second or third centuries is just as absurd. At this point the rift between Judaism and Christianity was already deep and wide. H.L. Ellison, lecturer and writer on the Old Testament, Dawlish, Devon, England, states: "At first Christians were regarded as a Jewish sect by both Jews and Gentiles. This led to opposition and persecution of the church by the Jewish authorities, who objected to its doctrines and the admission of Gentiles without their accepting the Law. After the Jewish revolts against Rome (AD 66-73, AD 132-35) most Christians disassociated themselves from the Jews. The Christians' refusal to support the revolts caused them to be regarded as national enemies. From this time few Jews were converted to Christianity. Increasingly Christians came to regard Jews as deliberate haters of the good. When the church became recognized by Constantine legal discrimination against Jews increased and they were gradually deprived of all rights." It's hard to imagine that Christians writing in the second or third century would invent a character like Joseph, a prominent Jewish council member, in such a favorable light. There are other passages that are equally inexplicable if we accept a late date for the Gospels' composition: Luke 7:37 - Jesus eats with the Pharisees. Luke 13:31 - The Pharisees warn Jesus about Herod's plot to have Him killed. John 9:16 - notes division among the Pharisees over whether Jesus was from God. John 3:2 - Nicodemus' (a ruler of the Jews) confession to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." The most reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that the Gospel's contain factual history. I personally don't have a problem with people who refuse to believe that the Gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The problem I have is with people who state emphatically that this could not be so, and label Christians as "blind" followers of an unreasonable faith. I could give a list of men and women of faith who posses, by every method of reckoning, the highest intellectual credentials. The charge that we are all "brain dead" or "mindless" demands explanation. This brings me to the next, ridiculous point you raised, namely, that the authors of the New Testament could not have been men of integrity, based on how they spoke of those who opposed them. Your source stated: "What was their attitude and behavior towards those who disagreed with them? What were they willing to do in defending and promoting the faith? I've already pointed out that Paul regards those who preach 'another Jesus' as servants of Satan [2 Corinthians 10-12'. The writer of the epistle of Jude condemns those who have beliefs and practices different from his own….are people who express such attitudes towards others liable to maintain 'integrity' when supporting their own point of view?" What an excellent question! I'll respond with one of my own. What is your response to those who disagree with you? Our Christian community here has had copies of your mail given to them to consider. The one point that is continually raised is how often you leave the agreed parameters of the debate - namely, a thorough examination of the evidences for Christianity's claims - and resort to personal attacks on myself. I've been called "mindless", "hypocrite", "liar" and so on. Judging by the criteria set by your sources, you are not a man of integrity and therefore statements made by yourself must be regarded as highly suspect. According to your criteria. Now you may protest, "But you guys ARE all mindless. John, you ARE just a hypocritical, programmed Christian robot!" If this is the stance your taking, then we may rightly conclude then that statements of truth will still be true regardless of how we may feel about them. In other words, I'll still be a "mindless Christian robot" no matter how uncomfortable such a statement may make us feel. So truth then - statements that correspond to reality - will do so regardless of public opinion. With this in mind, consider again the statements made by the New Testament writers. Are there really grounds to charge these men with dishonest intent, or lacking in integrity? Not if their statements are true. It seems that this option - that what the New Testament is recording is the truth - is simply not being allowed into your pool of possible options. Talk about the dice being loaded from the onset! I think there's enough here already to support the truthfulness of the New Testament's claims and to thoroughly question the critics' (including yours) real motives and moral integrity. Here's another quote from you that needs addressing: "If I were in a court of law describing my eyewitness account of some important event, I would completely expect my testimony to be mercilessly and thoroughly investigated and examined for truth, validity, and consistency." It's funny how you are regarding the opinions of any opponent of Christianity as valid without any "merciless and thorough investigation." The least you can do is treat the critics with the same "honest" skepticism that you're applying to the New Testament. Clearly this is not being done. "I would not expect to be given the 'courtesy' of the benefit of the doubt, and quite frankly, I don't believe the Bible and the bloody and evil history that stems from its use and misuse deserves better." This is another "straw man" argument - that the Bible is the cause of violence, war, hatred, etc.. It's true that people have committed unspeakable crimes in the name of Christianity. Big deal. I could go out today and commit all kinds of hate-crimes in your name. Should you get blamed for it? Yes, it is the same thing. Jesus said to bless those who persecute us. He said to love our enemies. Jesus of Nazareth would never have sanctioned the atrocities that have been committed over the years by people claiming to be Christian. Those people will answer for what they have done, rest assured. There's something else about your quote that requires addressing. That is, your use of the word "evil". You said that history was "bloody and evil." I'd be interested in hearing just how you know what is evil and what is good, and how this standard may be applied universally with reference to the God of the Bible. The next section of my mail dealt with secular history's attestation to the reality of Jesus Christ. I stated that from their writings alone, we could conclude that Jesus was:
You took issue with points 3,4,5,and 6 on grounds that I find very weak indeed. Let's consider again the list of secular sources I cited and what may be gleaned from them: 1) Cornelius Tacitus: Tacitus (AD 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of a half dozen emperors. His most acclaimed works are "Annals" which covers the period from AD 14 to AD 68, and "Histories" which covers the period from Nero's death (AD 68) to AD 96. Tacitus states that the great fire in Rome (AD 64) was being attributed to Nero. Hence, to suppress the rumour, he charged Christians with the guilt: "…and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius…" (Annals XV, 44) 2) Lucian of Samosata: Lucian was a Greek satirist who lived in the latter part of the second century. He spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians but never argues against Christ's existence or the fact that He had a following and was executed: "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…" (Lucian, The death of Peregrine, 11-13) 3) Mara Bar-Serapion: This first century Syrian philosopher wrote a letter from prison to his son which is still extant. In this letter he urges his son to pursue wisdom and then draws attention to the various men of wisdom known at that time. Among these is Jesus of Nazareth: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished." (Cited by FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p.114) Note that Mara Bar-Serapion was certainly not a Christian since in his letter he places Jesus n equal footing with Socrates and Protagoras. In other words, he saw Jesus as a wise man and nothing more. Regardless, this letter affirms Christ's existence, His execution, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, which took, place shortly after. 4) Josephus ben Mattathias: Born in AD 37/38, Josephus was a Pharisee at the age of 19 and commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee in AD 66. He was captured by the Romans in AD 67 and served the Romans as an interpreter and mediator throughout the Jewish revolt (which ended in AD 73). After being brought to Rome, he composed two great works: "The Jewish War", composed in the early 70's, and the mush longer "Jewish Antiquities," which was completed around AD 93-94. This Jew, certainly not a Christian, who wrote history for people also not sympathetic to the Christian cause, affirms much of what the New Testament claims: "Now there was about his time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities, XVIII,33) 5) Trypho: Around AD 150, a Justin martyr engaged in a cordial debate with a Jewish apologist named Trypho. This debate is still extant and contains the Jewish response to the empty tomb. "…he speaks of one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified; but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead an ascended into heaven." (Dialogue Against Trypho 108) The above list of citations, which serve to affirm the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, his miracles, death under Pilate, and resurrection from the dead, come straight from my last mail to you. Again, the list is by no means exhaustive. It was sent merely to "get the ball rolling" in our discussion. The list of secular attestation is more complete in Josh McDowel's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", and Geisler's "Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics." Dr. James Kennedy also gives a list of ancient attestation to the historicity of Jesus. His list includes (from "Why I Believe", 1999, p.105): "…Suetonius; Pliny the Younger; Epictetus; Aristides; Galenus; Lampridius; DioCassius; Hinnerius; Libanius; Ammianus; Marcellinus; Eunapius; Zosimus. Others have written whole books against Christianity, including Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian the Apostate. Numerous others, including Jewish writers, have written about Jesus Christ. So abundant is the testimony to Christ that historian Dr. Phillip Schaff says: "Standing on this rock, I feel safe against all the attacks of infidelity. The person of Christ to me is the greatest and surest of all facts; as certain as my own personal existence." Here are the issues you raised against these sources: 1. Cornelius Tacitus - The main issue here, according to critics, is that no one can be sure of what Tacitus' sources were. These possibilities were considered by your critics: He may have gleaned the information from police interrogation of Christians, it may have come from official documents, it may have been common knowledge, or he may have simply been repeating what Christians were saying at the time. The other issue involves Tacitus' motives. It is assumed by the critic that Tacitus favoured a Roman republic over the Imperial system and his writings were composed to bring the flaws in the latter out in bold relief. Tacitus, it is assumed, took this information about how Nero mistreated Christians and used it to support his cause, without ever bothering to verify whether or not the information was accurate. To begin with, writing Tacitus off completely on the grounds that he might have gotten the information from Christians is pretty foolish. So what if he was? An incredibly good case has already been built for the reliability of the New Testament. Why should we believe that Christians at that time would be incapable of relaying the truth? Especially when we suggest that the information may have been gleaned during police interrogation. Your source makes this comment: "According to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, he surely would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter first hand." Michael Grant must be a very old guy to remember Tacitus so well! He talks as though he had a personal relationship with the guy or something! How does he, separated from the events by nearly 2000 years, know what Tacitus would or wouldn't do? Tacitus, on the other had, lived from AD 55 to 120. At the time he recorded his statements about Jesus and Christianity, the Gospels were already written and were being circulated and quoted by men like Ignatius, Polycarp (a disciple of John the Apostle), and Clement of Alexandria. As for his motives, so what? Every historian has a motive. The historian from Britain and the historian from the United States may both have very different motives in recording the war of in dependence in 1776, but the fact that the war did occur remains unchanged. Perhaps Tacitus did desire to discredit Nero. So what? This in no way proves his history to be in error. "The Encyclopaedia Americana", 2001, vol. 26, pp. 210-211, states: "In general Tacitus was a careful researcher and even his severest critics ordinarily concede that his facts are accurate." The main issue here is not whether Tacitus received his information regarding Jesus from Christians, but that it was believed by him and published before 120 AD. The fact that Tacitus wanted to discredit the imperial system and expose Nero's vices in no way affects the information's validity. "The Greatest Historian of ancient Rome" surely had enough brains to figure out that in order to build his case, employing verifiable facts would be far more effective than easily refuted fables. Here's another interesting insight from the Colliers Encyclopaedia, (Vol, 22, p. 28) "Tacitus vents all his stored up hatred of imperialism and tyranny in a style which, with great dignity, is conceise, vigorous, and compelling." Note Tactus' bitter resentment toward tyranny. According to many critics, Christianity is a tyrannical system meant to instill fear, shame, unquestioning devotion, etc. It's difficult to imagine then, that Tacitus would believe, unquestioningly, the testimony of those upholding the very type of system he so desperately sought to destroy. I see no solid reason to deny the accuracy of Tacitus' claims regarding Jesus of Nazareth and the persecution of Christians under Nero. 2) Lucian of Samosata: The argument against Lucian's statements went like this: "…given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus." On what grounds is this assertion being made? Who knows what sources were available to him? Your own critic states these possibilities, "Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference…" I fail to see the problem with any of these possibilities. If he got the information from a pagan source, wouldn't that be excellent confirmation of the Gospel account of Jesus' crucifixion? If it was common knowledge at the time, we have to ask why. It may very well be that it was common knowledge because it was the truth. Again, tossing the testimony of this man, because he may have received his information from Christian sources seems more than a little absurd. "There is simply no evidence that Lucian ever doubted the historicity of Jesus." Maybe he didn't doubt the historicity of Jesus because it was true. This next quote from the critic regarding Lucian is the most telling and we will consider it: "Lucian's concern for historical accuracy is not even relevant as Lucian would have had no motive for investigating the matter." How does the critic know that Lucian's motives were? Maybe he had plenty of motives. Here's where we can see the critic's worldview for what it is: Unlivable. On the one hand, the critic rejects Christianity because it can't be proved. On the other he embraces the notion that Lucian had no motive to record accurate history, which also can't be proved. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. What I believe I also can't prove. But then again, my worldview doesn't demand that I do. Jesus didn't command me to prove anything. He only told me only to believe in Him. This I can do. And I can do so without leaving my intellect wanting. To me, if Lucian took the time to record this information, it's likely he had cause to believe it was true. Here's an interesting quote made by you: "The only thing it (Lucian's statements) prove is that Christians back then believed much the same thing that Christians believe today." I say, "Amen" to that! Doesn't this support the Christian view that the New Testament has remained immutable? 3) Mara Bar-Serapion - There was two objections raised against this source. The first was Serapion's choice of words. According to the critics, his calling Jesus a "wise king" is inexplicable unless he received this information from Christians. If he received the information from Christians, his letter cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. The critic's argument is flawed. Josephus was a Jewish historian of the first century and certainly not a Christian, yet even he referred to Jesus as a "wise man" and "a doer of wonderful works." The second objection was that Bar-Serapion's letter contained historic inaccuracies: "Yet another problem with Bar-Serapion's letter is its historical inaccuracies. In addition to the bogus claim that the Jews executed Jesus, Bar-Serapion's letter contains other errors. Till notes that the letter implies Pythagoras had been killed by his countrymen, yet, 'Pythagoras left the island of Samos in 530 B.C. and emigrated to the Greek colony of Cronton in Southern Italy. He later died in Metapontum, which is now Metaponto, Italy." The "bogus claim" that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death is not without secular support. Josephus states that Pilate had condemned Jesus to death "at the suggestion of the principle men among us." The critic is really reaching here with respect to his second "historic inaccuracy." The next issue, as I understand it, isn't where Pythagoras died but how. His letter states, "What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand…Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the stature of Hera." The critic's statement about where Pythagoras died, in Metaponta, Italy, is supported by The Encyclopedias Americana, 2001, vol 23, p. 45, Colliers, 1995, p.547, and Britannica, vol. 9 pp 827-828. None of these sources, however, mention just how Pythagoras died. What were the circumstances? Was it natural causes? Was he murdered? An accident with a power tool? No one knows. What we do know is that Pythagoras and his followers faced stiff opposition and persecution. Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 9, p. 827-828) states, "The first reaction against the Pythagorians led by Cylon, seems to have taken place in the lifetime if the master. Cylon was able to bring about the retirement of Pythagoras to Metapontum, where he remained until his death." My World Book Encyclopaedia (vol.15, 1985, p. 813) is a little more cautious. This source states that, "The people of Crotona were suspicious of the Pythagorian brotherhood because its members were aristocrats. They killed most of the members in a political uprising. Historians do not know whether Pythagoras left the city some time before the outbreak of violence and escaped death there, or was killed in it." These sources can't even agree on each other. Why would we be so quick to write off Bar-Serapion's letter as historically in inaccurate, when it was composed far closer in time and place to the events it describes than any of today's historic reconstructions? Furthermore, none of the sources cited actually contradict Bar-Serapion's account. He states that the people of Samos burned Pythagoras. Where and who are two different things. His countrymen, the people of Samos, could have had him killed anywhere. It might also be that Bar-Serapion is speaking allegorically by saying that the men of Samos "burned" Pythagoras. His fellow countrymen may have "burned" Pythagoras by betraying him into the hands of his enemies. If this is true, then the comparison to Jesus, "the wise king," is even more striking. The bottom line is, with so much uncertainty surrounding the life and death of Pythagoras, is it really wise to write this source of as untrustworthy? 4) Josephus ben Mattathias - Here again we see that a half hour of internet "research" isn't enough. The major argument raised against this citation from Josephus' work was that it smacks of later Christian tampering. Specifically, it appears as though some additions were made. Not everyone agrees, though. Basically there are three schools of thought regarding the Testimonium. One says that the text is pure with no interpolations. This claim is made because every extant copy of the Testimonium is complete. This view fails, however because it would require that Josephus made statements - such as calling Jesus the Christ - that a non-Christian Jew would never make. Another school of thought suggests that the entire quote is a Christian interpolation. This seems unlikely because, as mentioned, the Testimonium appears in all extant Greek manuscripts. Furthermore, Josephus mentions Jesus a second time (which we will consider) almost in passing and would have contained more identifying information if this was the first reference to Him. He also comments that Jesus won over many of the Greeks - a fact that is not paralleled in the New Testament but seems rather to be something that Josephus would have noted in his own day. The last option - that the text contains some interpolations seems to be the best explanation. If you really did your homework, you would have noticed that I have removed those portions of Josephus' Testimonium that are in question. Read the quote again. The italicized text is thought to be a later addition and was not included in the quote I sent you. "Now there was about his time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities, XVIII,33) John P. Meier, in an article entitled "The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible", (Bible Review, June, 1991, p. 23) examines the text: "Read the Testamonium without the italicised passages and you will see that the flow of thought is clear. Josephus calls Jesus by the generic title "wise man (sophos an'r, perhaps the Hebrew, "khakham"). Josephus then proceeds to "unpack" that generic designation (wise man) with two of it's main components in the Greco-Roman world: Miracle-working (wonderful works) and effective teaching. This double display of "wisdom" wins Jesus a large following among both Jews and Gentiles, and presumably - though no explicit reason is given - it is this huge success that moves the leading men to accuse Jesus before Pilate. Despite Jesus' shameful death on the cross, his earlier adherents do not give up their loyalty to him and so (note that the transition is much better without the reference to the resurrection in the deleted passage) the tribe of Christians has not yet died out." Paul L. Maier, ("Eusibius: The Church History", 1999, p. 378) relates how a discovery of an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus' Testimonium corresponds almost exactly to previous scholarly projections of what he actually wrote: "In 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of an Arabic manuscript of Josephus written by the tenth century Melkite historian Agapius, in which the passage in question translates as follows: "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucifies and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." Clearly this version of the passage is expressed in a manner appropriate to a non-Christian Jew, and it corresponds almost precisely to previous scholarly projections of what Josephus actually wrote." Following the Testimonium a couple of section later, Josephus refers to James the brother of Jesus. In Antiquities XX, 9.1 he describes the actions of the high priest Ananus: "But the younger brother Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bolt disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgement above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such disposition, he thought he had now a good oppritunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." Louis Feldman, professor of classics at Yeshiva University and translator for the Loeb edition of Antiquities, states, "Few have doubted the genuineness of this passage." (Josephus, "Antiquities", Loeb, 496). Josephus remains an excellent non-Christian source for supporting the historicity of Jesus as a teacher, and a miracle worker, who was slain at the insistence of the Jewish religious leaders in the reign of Pontius Pilate. 5) Trypho: There's a few points that need to be addressed here. Let's look at them one at a time. First, there's the issue of your extremely poor scholarship, which I addressed at the beginning of this mail. Specifically, you have stated that you were impartial and open to persuasion, yet admitted to seeking to discredit this source before even reading it! You also expressed disappointment for not being able to do so. This hardly sounds like the voice of one who's impartial and open to persuasion. Second, there's the issue of what I was trying to present as evidence of Jewish attestation of the empty tomb. You accused me of trying to pass off the quote I gave as coming from Trypho. It saddens me to admit this, but I have seen at least two sources try to do this very thing. Having read the passage for myself I wanted to avoid giving this perception, which is why I chose my words the way did: "This debate is still extant and contains the Jewish response to the empty tomb." And so it does. Justin throws the empty tomb and the godless myth that Christ's disciples had stolen His body from the grave in Trypho's face. What rebuttal is there? Nothing. How does one get away with making such an accusation, if it isn't true, without having their words shoved back down their throat? The same argument can be applied to 1 Corinthians 15:6. Here Paul asserts that the risen Savior had appeared to more than 500 people at one time, most of whom, he declares, are still alive for us to question if we like. Regarding the authenticity of 1 Corinthians, James L. Kugel (Starr Professor of Hebrew Literature at Harvard University and Professor of Bible at Bar Ilan University in Israel) states in his volume, "The Bible as it Was", 1997, p.596, "There is, however, general agreement that Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are authentically Paul's." Paul states that this information regarding the post-resurrection appearances was the first thing he shared with the Corinthians. "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: That Christ dies for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve. And after that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep." 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 When was this exactly? Remember, according to men like C.J. Hemer, inscriptions at Delphi help to establish a fixed chronology for Paul's life. See: "The Journeys of St. Paul", James Harpur, 1997, p. 50: "As Proconsul of Achaea, Gallio would have governed for one year only, beginning on July 1, and most scholars are certain this occurred in AD 51-52 - a rare absolute date in the chronology of Paul's history." Paul's first visit to Corinth was during his second missionary journey (AD 49-52). 1 Corinthians was written in Ephesus during his third missionary journey (AD 53-57), which means that Paul was out spreading this resurrection story for more than ten years. Who in their right mind would go around proclaiming such a thing if it was not true? Consider how easy it would have been to refute such a story if there really were no five hundred witnesses and Christ's body still lay in the tomb. Again, in the dialogue with Trypho we hear Justin's accusations about the Jews' godless "theft story" but absolutely no rebuttal. If we say there was one but it was later removed from the written work, we're just begging the question. Of course, we can take your route and cry, "It's not a real debate anyway, just Christian propaganda." On what grounds is this assertion made? Because, as you put it, "Justin Martyr practically does all of the talking and Trypho rarely gets a word in edgewise! Even when we does get a word in, he rarely puts in much of a rebuttal. Somehow I find it hard to believe that this is a dialogue with an actual Jewish apologist. The guy rolls over practically every time!" That's a pretty lame answer I think. If anyone had been keeping tabs on our debate, until just before this letter, they might conclude that this whole thing is contrived. After all, my mails have been very concise, only a page or two, while yours have been significantly longer. To claim the Justin / Trypho debate is fictitious simply because Justin appears to get the better of his opponent is a ridiculous assertion. It might very well be that Trypho didn't enter into the discussion to argue simply for the sake of arguing. Maybe he wanted to learn something. Maybe he did. For what it it's worth, here's a couple of quotes concerning the Justin / Trypho debate: "His (Justin's) Dialogue with Trypho consists of a lengthy debate with a certain Jew named Trypho (whom some have identified with R. Tarfon of the Mishnah), in which the pair discuss numerous matters of biblical interpretation; the views of both discussants are most informative about the state of exegesis at this point. The dialogue is set in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 - 135 CE; see Dialogue 1:3 and 9:3) but was probably written around 150 CE." "The Bible as it Was", p. 588 "The longest of Justin's three works is the Dialogue with Trypho. It apparently recounts an actual encounter at Ephesus years earlier." Colin J. Hemer, Tyndale House, Cambridge, England, "Justin Martyr", The Erdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity", 1987, p.108. Before I go on, I must stop and admit blame where it is due. I'm of the opinion that the Justin / Trypho debate may be cited as evidence that the Jews of the second century were aware of the resurrection story and the rumor set about to suppress it. This is its value to me. However, I do believe that my last mail was worded in a way less than ideal in getting this point across. In my desire for conciseness, I cut Justin's quote a little short, leaving it uncertain as to who was doing the talking. The Justin / Trypho debate is also cited as point 5 under the heading: Here is a list of citations from secular historians, which affirm these New Testament claims: This heading should have been changed to read: "Here is a list of secular attestation to the historic accuracy of these New Testament claims." The oversight is my fault as is the confusion that resulted in it. Nevertheless, the evidence remains valid and compelling (to me at least). You made this interesting statement that deserves consideration: "Unless you can produce for me an official Jewish transcript for this so-called cordial debate (or any other Jewish point of view you might want to present), then I'm not sure why I ought to think this is anything other than fanciful Christian propaganda!" If Jewish testimony is what your after we may also cite the Babylonian Talmud as evidence of the historicity of the crucifixion. It also testifies to Christ's reputation as a miracle worker. The Talmudic writing of most importance (to this discussion) are those compiled between AD 70 and 200 - the Tannaitic Period. The most significant text is Sanhedrin 43a: "It has been taught: On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days that herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!" In another version of this text, he is referred to as "Yeshu the Nazarene." The name "Yeshu" is a shortened form of "Yehoshua" (Yahweh is Salvation) in Hebrew. It translated as "Iesous" in the Greek and comes to us as "Jesus" in English. There can be little doubt that the Jews are referring in this Talmudic passage to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, this Talmudic source testifies to the mode of execution Jesus suffered. The word "hanged" is used throughout the New Testament to signify crucifixion (See Luke 23:39, Galatians 3:13). Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner writes: ("Jesus of Nazareth", 1925, p. 28): "The Talmud speaks of hanging in place of crucifixion, since this horrible Roman form of death was only known to Jewish scholars from Roman trials, and not from the Jewish legal system. Even Paul the Apostle (Gal.iii.13) expounds the passage 'for a curse of God is that which is hanged' (Deut. Xxi.23) as applicable to Jesus." Norman Geisler expounds upon the Nazareth decree (from" The Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics" p. 48): "A slab of stone was found in Nazareth in 1878, inscribed with a decree from Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) that no graves should be disturbed or bodies extracted or moved. This type of decree is not uncommon, but the startling fact is that here "the offender [shall] be sentenced to capitol punishment on [the] charge of violation of [a] sepulchre. (C.J. Hemer, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History" p. 155) Other notices warned of a fine, but death for disturbing graves? A likely explanation is that Claudius, having heard of the Christian doctrine of resurrection and Jesus' empty tomb while investigating the riots of AD 49, decided not to let any such report surface again. This would make sense in light of the Jewish argument that the body had been stolen (Matt. 28:11-15). This is early testimony to a strong and persistent belief that Jesus rose from the dead." It's clear that Jesus was a real person who had a following in Palestine, was thought a great teacher and miracle worker who was crucified by the Romans at the insistence of the Jewish religious leaders. As for Christ's resurrection from the dead, more than one person has set out to show it a myth and, after careful analysis of the data, have come to regard it as an historic event. Frank Morrison was a British attorney was determined to write a book refuting the resurrection story. After researching the historic data, Morrison did write a book - as a believer. The book is titled "Who Moved the Stone?", 1930, reprinted 1971. Morrison states: "We have to account not merely for the enthusiasm of its friends [of the church], but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever-growing stream of converts which came over to it. When we remember that certain highly placed personages in Jerusalem would almost have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands - we begin to realize that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have stood a silent, unanswerable fact, a fact which geography and the very fates themselves had made immovable. We realize why it was that throughout the four years when Christianity was growing to really formidable dimensions in Jerusalem, neither Caiaphas nor Annas, nor any recognized member of the Sadducean camarilla, whose prestige and personal repute was so deeply affronted and outraged by the new doctrine, ever took to obvious shortcut out of their difficulties." (pp. 114-115) Dr. James Kennedy sums up: "If the body of Jesus still lay in the tomb in which Joseph had deposited it, or if they themselves had taken it and placed it somewhere else, why did they not say so?" Dr. James Kennedy, "Why I Believe", 1999, p.138 In 1846, while still professor of law at Harvard, Simon Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled, "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administration in the Courts of Justice." Here are some of his critical observations stated in this work: "Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they did zealously propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had Jesus not actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact…If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication." Simon Greenleaf, P. 28-30 The Apostle Paul himself echoes this sentiment in 1 Corinthians 15:30-32. Paul asks that if the resurrection of Jesus was an historic fact then, "why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting of you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, which, as with 1 Corinthians, most scholars accept as genuine, Paul lists the sufferings he's had to endure for the sake of the Gospel: "In labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fasting often, in cold and nakedness - besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: My deep concern for all the churches." - 2 Corinthians 11:23-28 The very best quote that I've ever read with respect to the resurrection and the attempts to discredit its historicity, was made by the Scottish Theologian Dr. Principle Hill. Please read it carefully. There's a lot of wisdom here. "But if not withstanding every appearance of truth, you suppose their testimony to be false, then inexplicable circumstances of glaring absurdity crowd upon you. You must suppose that twelve men of mean birth, of no education, living in that humble station which placed ambitious views out of their reach and far from their thoughts, without any aid from the state, formed the noblest scheme which ever entered into the mind of man, adopted the most daring means of executing that scheme, and conducted it with such address as to conceal the imposture under the semblance of simplicity and virtue. You must suppose that men guilty of blasphemy and falsehood, united in an attempt the best contrived, and which has in fact proved the most successful, for making the world virtuous; that they formed this singular enterprise without seeking any advantage to themselves, with an avowed contempt of loss and profit, and with the certain expectation of scorn and persecution; that although conscious of one another's villainy, none of them ever thought of providing for his own security by disclosing the fraud, but amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh and blood they persevered in their conspiracy to cheat the world into piety, honesty and benevolence. Truly, they who can swallow such suppositions have no title to object to miracles." Quoted in Wilbur M. Taylor, "The Miracle of Our Saviour", 1890, 21,22, also quoted in Dr. James Kennedy's "Why I Believe", pp 136-137 Sir Lionel Luckoo, Attorney with 245 consecutive murder acquittals, knighted twice by Queen Elizabeth, former Justice and Diplomat had this to say regarding the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, "I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt." In the preceding pages we've really only scratched the surface. The historic evidence for Christian faith is as plentiful as it is compelling. Of course, if you've already presupposed that Christianity is a false religion, then no amount of evidence will change your mind. Regardless, I've addressed the issues at hand and now will proceed to the second section of this article, that is, addressing your misunderstandings of Biblical doctrine. II DOCTRINAL ISSUES Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6 Your problem with this statement was as follows: "How intolerant, impatient, insensitive, dismissive and self-serving is that?" Let's take these one at a time. Is the statement intolerant? It is narrow and exclusive, that's true, but here's the thing, every truth claim is. Every time you make a statement that you say corresponds to reality, you immediately exclude the possibility of the opposite from being true. If the problem here is that Christ's claim is too narrow for you, remember that your claim that Christ cannot be the only way to God is just as narrow as the claim that He is. The narrowness of the statement cannot be the issue else you create a self-refuting argument. The issue must be whether or not Jesus is telling the truth. Can you demonstrate that He is not? Of course you can't. How is the claim impatient? I don't see it. I think you're just on a rant here. Is Christ insensitive? Is He dismissive? Since New Testament doctrine is the focus here, let's consider what it has to say about the Lord's sensitivity: "Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." ~ Matthew 11:28-30 "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was on all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." ~ Hebrews 4:15-16 "Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." ~ 1 Peter 5:6-7 Listen to Jesus lament over Jerusalem. Does He sound like an intolerant, impatient, dismissive self-seeking tyrant? "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" ~ Matthew 23:37 Your claim that Jesus was self-seeking has got to be the most foolish thing I have ever heard. The New Testament is clear that Jesus went to the cross and died a horrible death for us all. He did this willingly, for you and for me: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." ~ John 10:11,18 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for His friends." ~ John 15:13 "…who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." ~ Philippians 2:6-8 It's very difficult for me - and I mean this with all respect - to understand where you're coming from by accusing Jesus of being self-serving. I think you are in grave error making this accusation. Please reconsider what the Bible actually teaches about Jesus and the sacrifice He made for us. Here are the other doctrinal issues you raised in no particular order:
Your description of mankind's nature, though incomplete, is consistent with what the Bible teaches: "But no, instead of accepting us as the wonderful, curious and inquisitive but easily confused creatures of his own creation, the Christian God is ridiculously strict about Jesus being the only way…" Yes, we are wonderfully made in our Creator's image. And yes, today we are both curious and easily confused. Let me ask you: Are you above this description? Might it be that you are confused, not knowing truth from error with respect to Jesus of Nazareth? What is the result of our easily confused nature? I'll tell you. People make wrong choices. Sometimes these choices have disastrous results. Think of Hilter. Here was a guy that was seriously confused. Think of the wrong choices he made. Think of the tragedy that resulted from an entire nation making the wrong choice to follow him. It's very romantic to think of humans as quirky creatures, who sometimes make mistakes. The harsh reality is, the mistakes we "curious and easily confused creatures" make can and have produced the most horrific and tragic results. Sometimes these results are not apparent for some time. What is the cause of this confusion? The Bible teaches that mankind sinned against God by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Our parents in the garden came to know good and evil, but their ability to distinguish between the two became hopelessly skewed. The Bible teaches that that initial rebellion against God changed our very nature. We are sinful creatures now (sin means literally, "to miss the mark.") Sin corrupts. It corrupts our thinking and our actions. Beyond the horrors this causes man to inflict on his fellow man, our sinful nature makes it impossible for us to approach a Holy and perfect God. "You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with you." Psalm 5:4-5 Now we have a problem. If God is perfect, he cannot look on, approve of, or dwell with imperfection. If He does, he compromises His own righteousness. If He turns His back on us completely, we face eternal separation from the embodiment of all that is good and Holy. What we need is a substitute; someone perfect who would exchange his Holiness for our sinfulness. Jesus did this. He did this for you and for me. Now let's consider the Bible's teaching on our responsibility to each other. You made this ridiculous statement: "So we see the Bible promotes yet another form of dependency, one which unfortunately also implicitly encourages people to behave irresponsibly." As if this argument wasn't erroneous enough, your so-called proof text was pulled completely out of context: "(Acts 13:38) Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you." Your strange interpretation: "The Bible, however, does not encourage people to take responsibility for their actions, especially with respect to setting things straight after they've done something wrong." You've made a giant speculative leap here, completely unsubstantiated. I hope your not propagating this rubbish. Jesus was clear that a right relationship with God is impossible without having a right relationship with each other. He directly addresses the issue of taking responsibility for wronging someone: "Therefore if you bring your gift to the alter, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the alter, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." The Bible has much to say about how a Christian ought to live. Irresponsible is not a word that immediately comes to mind. Consider this passage: "Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshy lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men - as free, yet not using your liberty as a cloak for vice, but as servants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." 1 Peter 2:11-17 The Bible speaks of two kinds of death. One, obviously, is physical death. The other is spiritual death. Both denote separation. Physical death involves the separation of spirit from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of spirit from God. Note that death in the Bible does not denote loss of being, but loss of well-being. The Bible teaches that we will continue to exist, whether in the presence of God or - in a place of darkness and torment (not torture - there is a difference), forever. "And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20:10 "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:13-14 "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake Some to everlasting life. Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:2 Right now, according to the Bible, people are walking around physically alive, but spiritually dead - that is - spiritually separated from God. The cause of this was willful disobedience by our first parents in the Garden of Eden. The moment they ate of the tree (of which they were instructed not to eat), Adam and Eve became imperfect. Imperfect because they directly opposed the perfect will of God. Since the Holy and perfect God cannot fellowship with imperfection, fellowship between our creator and his creation was severed. Adam and Eve died spiritually that day. This spiritual death brought physical death as well, not only to mankind but to all of creation as well. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world and death though sin, and thus death spread to all men because all have sinned" ~ Romans 5:12 "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will also be delivered from the bondage of corruption…" ~ Romans 8:20-21 Note the succession. Adam died (was separated from God) spiritually first, and then died a physical death afterward. Perhaps this is why the genealogical list of Genesis 5 repeats the phrase "and he died," a confirmation that sin has brought the unnatural state of death into our world. Death - spiritual and physical, is the punishment for sin. God can't turn a blind eye to it. The sentence must be exacted. The Gospel message, of course, is that Jesus suffered this sentence on our behalf. Like the first Adam, Jesus first experienced spiritual separation from God, then physical death afterward. Throughout His ministry, even during His horrific execution, Jesus maintained fellowship with God, addressing Him as "Father." Just before He experienced physical death, fellowship with the Father was severed. Jesus could no longer address God as Father. In Matthew 27:46 we read: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani' that is, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" This is not to suggest that Jesus was having doubts about Himself or His mission (as some have mistaken) but a confirmation of His trust in God and in His word. This cry, you see, is a direct quote from psalm 22, recorded more than 900 years before Christ and preserved in our Old Testament. At that moment, Jesus was truly alone in the universe. God no longer saw the righteousness of His Son, but regarded Him as being guilty of all the world's sin: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21 Moments later, Jesus experienced physical death as well, paying in full the price of our sin: "So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit." John 19:30 The New Testament is absolutely replete with texts affirming that physical death is the result of sin, which is why Jesus suffered physical death on the cross: "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." Colossians 1:13-14 "And you who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and irreproachable in His sight." Colossians 1:21-22 "Inasmuch as then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." ~ Hebrews 2:14 This is not the end of the story. Because absolute obedience to the perfect will of God has the reward of eternal life, death could not contain Jesus, for He was perfectly obedient to the will of God the Father to the end. Hence, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead: "…whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that possible that He should be held by it." ~ Acts 2:24 The resurrection of Jesus Christ is paramount. It was the main focus of all the sermons given by the apostles in the book of Acts. The resurrection is a testimony that mankind's most feared enemy - death - has been defeated. "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." ~ 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 In your second mail you stated: "…but if at some point the Bible says 'death is bad' but then turns around later and says 'death is good' then it seems to me that maybe the Bible is contradicting itself and should be taken with a grain of salt." I hope you understand that there really is no contradiction here at all. Death is a bad thing; the consequence of sin and an unwelcome intruder in God's perfect creation. But death, you see, has been utterly defeated by Jesus Christ. For those who trust in Him, physical death, mankind's enemy, has become our doorway to an eternity with God: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith and not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." ~ 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 To sum up: Death remains a fearsome enemy to those who reject Jesus Christ. For us who believe, physical death has become the doorway to a wondrous eternity with our Savior. You're welcome to believe that the original sin was farming if you like. To do this, however, would require lifting the entire Cain and Able story (which you look to for support of the theory) out of its biblical context. Your theory is not substantiated by the Bible itself, or by any ancient interpretation of this narrative that I'm aware of. Note these examples: "From a woman was sin's beginning, and because of her, we all die." Sirach 25:24 "For God did not make death, nor does He take delight in the destruction of the living. For God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of His own eternity, but through the devil's envy death entered the world." Wisdom 1:13, 2:23-24 "Giving up immortality and a blessed life, you [Adam] have gone over to death and unhappiness." Philo, Questions and Answers in Genesis 1:45, also Creation 152 "But man transgressed my ways and was persuaded by his wife; and she was deceived by the serpent. And then death was ordained for generations of men." Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, 13:10 "But a very horrible snake craftily deceived them to go to the fate of death…The immortal [God] became angry with them and expelled them from the place of the immortals." Sibylline Oracles 1:39-41, 50-51 "And you set one commandment on him [Adam], but he violated it; as a result you established death for him and his descendants." 4 Ezra 3:7 "What did it profit Adam that he lived nine hundred and thirty years and transgressed that which he was commanded? Therefore, the multitude of time that he lived did not profit him, but it brought death and cut off the years of those who were born from him. Adam sinned, and death was decreed against those who were to be born." 2 Baruch 17:2-3, 23:4, also 48:43, 54:15-19, 56:6 In fairness to you, I have noted that among the ancient interpretations of the Cain and Able story, there is some mention of Cain's profession being less noble that Abel's. That is, while the ancients did not consider farming the original sin, it was considered far less noble than pasturing sheep. This opinion is seen in the writings of Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1:53-54), Ambrose of Milan (Cain and Abel 1.3.10), and Philo (Questions and Answers in Genesis 1:59, also The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 14,51). Also note that the ancients had other explanations for God's refusing to accept Cain's sacrifice. Philo, for example, makes much of the fact that Cain did not bring his offering right away (Gen 4:3) but after "some days." Philo also notes that Abel's offering was "of the fruit of the ground" but not "of the first fruit." To Philo and other interpreters of scripture, Cain showed himself a lover of himself for these reasons. (Philo, The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 52) You may also look up, Ephraem, Commentary on Genesis 3:2, Genesis Rabba 22:5, and Midrash Tanhuma 9. Clearly, neither the Bible nor any of the ancient interpreters of scripture shared your view of what the original sin was. You might want to reconsider your position. According to you, the idea that death did not exist until after the first sin was committed appears flawed when we consider that plants had to have died prior to the fall. We must consider the fact that the Bible was written long before today's classification system, under which plants are considered living things. According to the Bible, plants are a food source, complex and self-replicating, but they are not "alive" in the way that humans and animals are. From Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor's book, "Creation and Time", 1996, p. 45: "We have found no instance where Scripture attributes life to plants. The Hebrew word "Nephesh" is one of the most commonly used words for life. It is never used in connection with plants. Plants are never said to contain "breath of life", ("chay" or "chayyah" ) or "spirit" ("ruwach"). The Bible certainly never speaks of plants as having minds or emotions. The Bible tells us that the life of creature is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11-14). Plants do not have a true blood system. Plants are not classified as having muscle and flesh ("basar"), as are animals and men. In the parable of the sower and the seed, the plants on rocky ground "withered". The same happened when Jesus cursed the unfruitful fig tree. Evidently they shriveled and ceased to exist. But in neither case does Scripture refer to plants as having "died" or having been "killed". Couldn't God Have Made Many Ways to Heaven? You stated: "I think I've heard at least one Christian say that "if there was any other way, don't you think God would do it?" To which I might reply "well he's God isn't he? Since he's all-knowing and all powerful, he could make it any way he wanted to, but for some reason (at least by Christian reckoning) has decided to be strict and intolerant. Strange isn't it? Are these not the actions of someone who is abusive and insecure?" Strictness and intolerance may be among the attributes of one who is abusive and insecure, however, these attributes will also be found in a good parent. We will discuss this a little later, but for now, consider just how strict and intolerant a parent needs to be sometimes. The parent of a toddler knows that it is never appropriate for their child to run out onto a busy street. A good parent is both strict and intolerant in this respect, because the danger to the child is very real. God's strictness and intolerance is appropriate if the danger to us is real. As for God's omnipotence, there's something you need to understand, and it is this: The Christian God can't do everything. He can't do things that are intrinsically impossible, like make rock so big that He can't lift it. This premise would involve God having to make an infinite finite thing (the Rock), which is non-sense. Miracles can be attributed to God, but not nonsense. He can't do things that are contrary to His nature; for example, the infinite God cannot cause Himself to cease to exist. The God who is the Truth cannot lie. The Holy God cannot look upon evil. Love; true, pure, unconditional love, is the greatest good in this universe. Do you disagree? What is more virtuous, more valuable, than self-sacrificing love? Think of loving someone so deeply it hurts. Can you think of anything more valuable than having that someone love you back in the same way? Of course you can't. Humans need love, it's the way we're designed. Now get this, according to the Bible, love is not really something, but someone: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:7-8 If this is true, then the greatest good for mankind is God's love. Now here's the catch. Here's where God cannot transgress His laws and His nature. Love, you see, can't exist everywhere. It only exists in a specific environment, an environment of choice. If choice is removed, then you just removed the possibility of love. The environment we're left with, once we've removed free choice, is one of coercion. Love cannot exist there. The flip side is, in an environment of choice, there will also exist the possibility of people not choosing to love. They may chose to hate, or to be indifferent instead. Adam and Eve were given the choice of whether or not they wanted to believe God. You and I are given the same choice. "Could God have made another way to heaven?" Yes, but it would involve some intrinsic impossibilities, like God acting against His nature by using coercive force. In fact, if He engineered things the way you suggest (by removing the possibility of not loving) He would be the evil tyrant you claim He is. Think of it this way: Love is the Greatest Good God's Love is the Greatest Good for Mankind If this premise is correct, then the reasoning is as follows: If we stop the possibility of not loving, We must stop free choice, but if we stop free choice, We stop the possibility of love. If we stop love, We've stopped the Greatest Good. If we stop the Greatest Good, We've just committed the Greatest Evil. That's why Adam and Eve were given a choice. They chose poorly. God who is love also had a choice. He chose to love us and redeem us from the penalty of sin. You have a choice today. What will you decide? You stated: "Even a little baby who hasn't done anything and can't even make rational decisions is already flawed and a sinner, by nature it seems. What kind of sense of self worth does this worldview of yours instill in people if it repeatedly tells them that they are weak and depraved and flawed from birth? And there isn't anything we can possibly do for ourselves, by ourselves, to better our state. I would argue that this is a very negative and shame inducing message…" There's a couple of issues here. First, I thought this debate was an attempt to get at the truth. If the truth is we are sinners by nature and incapable of helping ourselves then the Bible is perfectly justified in stating this fact. The fact that it may affect our sense of self-worth is beside the point. Again and again it seems you judge the truthfulness of a statement by how it makes you feel. You've denied this in the past but this is clearly what you're doing. It's a foolish and dangerous way to discern truth. Second, our value to our Creator is evidenced by the price He paid to redeem us. How can anyone look on the sacrificial death of God's only begotten Son and not feel a sense of awe and gratitude? How could one not feel incredibly valuable? Third, you are correct in stating that even babies are born into corruption. However, what you're not grasping here is the fact that the sins of the world have already been paid for on Calvary's cross. Every imperfection in that baby, and every sin he or she may commit in the future has been paid for in full by Jesus Christ. Just before His arrest and execution, the Lord stated, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." John 12:31 The price for every sin you've ever committed been paid for. Isn't that great? There's only one thing God's going to judge you on now: What did you do with His Son Jesus Christ and the gift He offered you? Did you accept or reject it? "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." ~ Acts 4:12 "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." ~ 1 John 4:12-13 As for little children, they cannot yet make the decision to accept or reject Jesus, therefore their place in heaven is guaranteed. The Bible does not say this implicitly, but this doctrine can be deduced from what is there. Here's some examples of what I mean. King David is the greatest king in Israel's history (next to Jesus), the ancestor of Jesus Christ, and writer of over half the psalms. David was God's man, a man after God's own heart. He was a hero and a prophet. In 2 Samuel 12, we read that David's infant son took ill and died. David states: "While the child was still alive I fasted and wept; for I said, 'who can tell whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." ~ 2 Samuel 12:22-23 David was sure that wherever his child was, he was going to see him again. Where is this exactly? David elsewhere states: "Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever." Psalm 23:6 David's infant son must also be dwelling in the House of the LORD. In the New Testament, Jesus assigns children a place of high honor: "At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea…Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 18:1-6,10 "But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14 So to sum up, the Christian worldview does not consider people worthless, but unworthy. We have fallen short of God's perfection and are unworthy to dwell in His presence. Our value in God's sight, however, is beyond words. Remember what was paid to reconcile you to God. When we realize that we have sinned against God we should feel humbled, not humiliated. Only God can humble a person without humiliating him. Only God can elevate a man without flattering him. "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 14:11 In your last mail you presented me with a list of things that a tyrant or someone interested in controlling people or maintaining power will do:
You then quoted a few passages of Scripture, which supposedly showed how the God of the Bible is seen to do all the things on your list. Therefore, according to your reckoning, God must be a tyrant. The reasoning here is flawed. You're not realizing that the things on your list are neither good nor bad. It depends solely on the context in which they are placed. Let's take point B) Instill shame, as our first example. Are you suggesting that a person ought to never feel shame? Of course not. Those that lie, or steal, or hurt people, ought to feel shame. They ought to feel plenty of shame depending on what they have done. A tyrant shames a person unjustly, while a good parent sees to it that their child feels shame when it is due. Of course you must agree with this. Remember, you tried to instill shame in me: "What I want you to notice here is how yet again you seem to try to strengthen you're case by glossing over the details, where the details actually paint a different a very different picture. Shame on you John." Of course, these bogus charges you laid against me don't stick, but the point is, even you agree that there is a time when shame is appropriate. If there is a God, don't you think it's His job to decide when that is? Understand that a good parent will see to it that their child feels shame when it is appropriate. When a child is caught lying, for example, they ought to feel ashamed of themselves. Understand, though, that God, like a good parent, does not make a person feel ashamed for who they are, but for what they have done. This point cannot be overemphasized. According to the Bible, we were lovingly fashioned in the image of our Creator. We are the criminals here. We disobeyed our creator. Though we didn't deserve it, He bought us back with his own blood. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21 We are human beings, created in the image of God, loved by Him, and redeemed by Him. There's nothing to be ashamed of in that. However, when we fail to put our creator and redeemer first in our lives, which is His rightful place, we ought to feel ashamed. We ought to feel ashamed when we begin serving ourselves and not Him; if we regard the loving voice of our creator with contempt. If we commit murder, or adultery, or theft, or if we lie, or steal, or covet, or slander or use people, we ought to feel very ashamed. Imagine a world where people committed these kinds of things and felt no shame whatsoever? What a terrible place to live. Yes, the Bible convicts people of sin and causes them to feel ashamed for some of the things they have done. But it also instills in them a sense of intrinsic value, purpose, belonging, and hope. I would also like to point out that God, unlike so many of us, holds no grudges. The Bible is clear that God forgives those who acknowledge their sin. Let's look at fear. From your last mail: "The reoccurring theme here…is that God is brutal or will be brutal to unbelievers in both testaments. Indeed, all good Christians fear the wrath of God. This is so true it's cliché. Clearly one of the goals of the Bible seems to be to instill fear." You are quite right in stating that one of the Bible's goals is to instill fear. Like shame, fear is neither good nor bad. It depends upon the context in which is placed. Policemen, firefighters, steelworkers, soldiers, etc will tell you that fear can be a great ally. It keeps a man sharp and alert to the dangers around him. But fear that cripples a man, or fear when there is no danger is not good. Crippling phobias such as agoraphobia come to mind. The world we live in is a dangerous place. There's shootings, stabbings, robberies, home invasions, rape, murder, child abductions, and just about every other sort of evil a man can imagine. It seems there is much to be fearful of on the earth. Despite this, the Bible offers much in the way of encouragement, and reassurance that we need not fear the things of this world. Here's some passages you neglected to mention. Do they sound like the words of a fear-mongering tyrant, or a loving parent? "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27 "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out "Abba (Daddy) Father." Romans 8:15 "For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you."So we may boldly say, "The LORD is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?" Hebrews 13:5-6 "The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" Psalm 118:6 "The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked came against me to eat up (devour) my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell. Though an army should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear. Though war should rise against me, in this I will be confident." Psalm 27:1-3 "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For You are with me; Your rod and your staff, they comfort me." Psalm 23:4 Jesus told us whom we should fear: "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear. Fear Him who, after He was killed, has the power to cast into hell; yes I say to you, fear Him!" Luke 12:4-5 Only God has this power. The word for fear used here is "phobeo", Strong's #5399. Strong's gives this meaning: "To fear, be afraid, alarmed, in some contexts improper and an impediment to faith and love; to reverence, respect, worship, in other contexts a proper fear for God, deep reverence and awe." Jesus isn't commanding us to fear God the way we'd fear a rabid dog or something, like God is an unpredictable monster, waiting to attack us. He's talking about an awesome reverence for our creator. Think about coming face to face with the architect of the universe, the designer and builder of every atom and of every titanic swirling galaxy. Imagine coming face to face with one of whom there is no equal. You can't seriously believe you'd just stand there and give flippant answers when He questions you. You and I are both going to bend our knee to his awesome majesty. You made much of the fact that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, speaks of fearing God's wrath. Yes, God gets angry. In both testaments He gets plenty angry. But that doesn't make Him a tyrant. It's true that a tyrant gets angry when his commands aren't followed to the letter, but this anger stems from self-centeredness. A good parent gets angry, too, when their child refuses to obey. This anger comes from the parents' deep love for the child and concern for their safety and well being. It's important to realize that anger is love's strongest voice. A parent will rightly become angry with a child who refuses to obey. This is especially true when the child's actions place him or her in danger. Your depiction of God as a tyrant is horribly skewed. The intellectual distance between a parent and their toddler is enormous. The parent must, for the child's own safety, place definite parameters around the child's behavior. It must be impossible for a toddler to fully comprehend why their fun is so often cut short by mom and dad. What could be wrong with sticking a fork into that thing on the wall, or playing "chase me while I run away" in a busy parking lot? To a child, it's fun and games. To the parent it's a full time job. A good parent allows the child freedom to grow and learn, while maintaining proper parameters. Is such an approach tyrannical because the child is not granted absolute freedom? As the child grows and learns, certain behaviors become unacceptable. A toddler may grab the scissors and run with them, unaware of the potential hazard. A six year old, after they have been repeatedly told, should know better. A parent at this point would be justified in becoming angry. Not because their appetite for power isn't being satisfied, but because their child's disobedience is placing them in danger. Now imagine the intellectual distance between God and man. It's unfathomable! Even so, we can see that God's commandments are for our own protection. God says don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, and don't covet. Imagine a world where people actually practiced these. You could walk anywhere you wanted to at night, you'd never have to face the heartbreak of an unfaithful spouse, you'd never have to lock your door or install alarm system or worry about your things being stolen, you wouldn't have to worry about being lied to or having people cheat you out of what it rightfully yours. Yes, God gets angry when we break these rules because when we do, someone gets hurt. God can't be indifferent to it. He cares about His creation. Now there's more. Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was. Here was His response: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. One these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40 This is an interesting passage. Notice that the first and greatest commandment isn't "You shall fear God", but "you shall love the LORD your God." That's what every good parent wants, for their children to love them. That's what God wants too. The Bible does talk about fearing God, its true, but there's a succession here I think. You see, when a person begins to clue into the fact that they will one day stand before the awesome creator of the universe they are going to feel a twinge of fear. Any sane person would feel this. However, when we consider what was paid to redeem us and reconcile us back to God, we cannot help but feel love toward our creator who first loved us. This love casts out fear: "Love has been perfected among us in this: That we may have boldness in the Day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us." 1 John 4:17-19 The Old Testament, which you maintain depicts a fear-mongering, tyrannical God, actually paints a very different picture. Listen to the words of our creator: "Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: 'Return, backsliding Israel,' says the LORD, 'and I will not cause My anger to fall on you; For I am merciful', says the LORD, ' and I will not remain angry forever. Only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against the LORD your God," Jeremiah 3:12-13 God's not asking for much here, just an admission that you've broken His laws. The acknowledgment of guilt is enough. If you refuse to admit that you've sinned then you forgo the grace of God to forgive you. God can take the direst circumstances and use them for good in our lives, but what recourse is there for the man who rejects God's forgiveness? There is none. God cannot overlook your sin, and He will judge you if you don't fess up. But be sure of this, God takes no pleasure in this. "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," says the LORD God. "Therefore turn and live!" Ezekiel 18:32 Let's look at your claim that the Bible discourages communication. Again, any good parent will discourage their children from conversing with other kids they feel are a bad influence. The Bible states, "Blessed is the man who walks not in the council of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the LORD." Psalm 1:1-2 "Do not be deceived: Evil company corrupts good habits." 1 Corinthians 15:33 "Do not be envious of evil men, nor desire to be with them. For their heart devises violence, and their lips talk of troublemaking." Proverbs 24:1 Having said that, the Bible is clear that we are to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I [Jesus] have commanded you;" Matthew 28:19 To pull this off, one is going to have to communicate, wouldn't you agree? We've already looked at 1 Peter 3:15: ""But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Certainly to defend one's faith this way is going to involve communication. Consider Paul's mandate for Christians as recorded in his second letter to the Corinthians: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For our weapons of our warfare are not carnal (of the flesh) but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 How are we going to cast down arguments without communicating? Paul relates to Titus that a bishop must be able to refute error by defending the faith (apologetics): "He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:9 Clearly, in order to fulfill such a mandate, we're are going to have to both use our heads and communicate, both to refute error in those who don't believe, but to also encourage those who do. "Confess your trespasses to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed." James 5:16 "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as is the manor of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Hebrews 10:24-25 "Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you are also doing." 1 Thessalonians 5:11 You stated that the Bible discouraged communication, "…particularly between people of different ethnicities. Instead of promoting discussion, love, tolerance, and acceptance between people of different cultures (so that we can understand each other and get along) what we see is the Bible repeatedly promoting exactly the opposite of all these things!" I think I've done a pretty good job of showing this assertion quite false. The charge of racism is unsubstantiated. Consider that Jesus found Himself against much opposition from His fellow Jews in asserting that the kingdom of God is for all who believe, regardless of ethnicity. See Luke 5:16-29. This extends back into the Old Testament as well. Read the story of Jonah. The whole thing is about communicating God's redemptive plan to even the most wicked and despised among the nations. Peter's assertion in Acts 10:34-35 is telling: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said: ' In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.'" Your argument that we ought to promote discussion, love, tolerance, and acceptance is good, but where is the limit? How much can we accept? We can't accept everything. You believe this, for you refuse to accept the Christian position that Jesus Christ is the only way to God! The Bible also refuses to accept some things. It refuses to accept the notion that God does not exist, or that we can approach Him on our own terms. We've already touched on this, but it bears repeating. Every statement that supposedly corresponds to reality is exclusive. It excludes the opposite from being true. This charge you keep laying on the Bible that it is intolerant also applies to everyone making a truth statement, including yourself. You say, we ought to accept and tolerate everyone, but you don't accept those who don't comply with this mandate. The entire argument is self-refuting. Before I leave this topic I must address your "proof text" which was pulled horribly out of context to promote your worldview. You cited Genesis 11:5-7 as proof that the Bible seeks to discourage communication. Here is the well-known tower of Babel story, which describes how people, wilfully disobedient to God, sought glory for themselves and began to work on a tower "whose top is in the heavens." God, we are told, thwarted their plans by confounding their languages, and so the people were dispersed from there, having to abandon the building project. Without going into all the ins and outs of this story, let me just say that wilful disobedience against God is sin, and sin will be judged. Yes God confounded their languages as consequence of their sins, but remember, Jesus came and paid for the world's sins. Christ's redemptive work has already begun to undo the damage that sin brought upon human language at Babel. Acts chapter 2 tells of a wonderful occurrence, which was but a taste of things to come. Here God's Holy Spirit, the helper promised by Jesus, fell upon men, and gave them the ability to speak in other languages. "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together and were confused because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were amazed and marveled, saying one to another, 'Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs - we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:5-11 The sin at Babel brought about the division of people, but the redemptive work of Jesus Christ brings us together under His kingship. Revelation chapter 5 gives us a picture of worship in heaven. Note what they sing: "And they sang a new song, saying: 'You are worthy to take the scroll, and open its seals. For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth." Revelation 5:9-10 It's clear that the Bible is not discouraging communication the way you say it does. It certainly doesn't promote racism. Let's move on now, and address your claim that the Bible discourages thought. In order to substantiate your opinion that the Bible discourages thought, you used John 20:29: "Jesus said to him, 'Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Your response to this passage: "As if to say: 'You've seen me, so it's no wonder you believe me. I give more value to those who haven't seen me but still believe me.' Which is to say Jesus gives special value to people who neither investigate nor think." Your interpretation is quite wrong. In the first place, nowhere does Jesus place greater value on one person compared to another. The same blood that was shed for one was shed for all. The price to redeem us and reconcile us to God is the same for everyone. In the second place, you are operating under the misconception that it requires less intelligence to acknowledge the things that can't be seen, and to deduce their existence from what can be seen. Quite the opposite is true. Thinking on the things that are unseen is a sign of maturity. For a baby, 'out of sight, out of mind', is the rule. As we get older, we begin to recognise causal relationships. It takes brains to deduce the most probable cause of an observed effect without actually observing the cause at work. It takes brains to sit down and look and the historic and scientific data and select the most probable cause for Christianity being in the world today. The thinking person, I believe, will come to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth really is the risen Son of God. Jesus isn't saying 'blessed is the guy who won't use his brain.' He is, in fact, saying quite the opposite. Consider again the passages we just looked at, namely 1 Peter 3:15, Titus 1:9 and 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. These passages instruct us to defend the faith with reason. How can you possibly charge the Bible with discouraging thought when it issues a mandate like this? Also consider these passages: "Test all things; hold fast what is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Paul is instructing us not to believe just anything but to test what we hear. Jesus instructs us to use our intellect when considering whether or not we want to be His disciple: "For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it-lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. Likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:28-34 Clearly, Jesus is telling us to use our heads. Consider God's words to Isaiah the prophet: "Come now, and let us reason together," Isaiah 1:18 The Bible is replete with instructions to use our heads. Proverbs 24:3-6 councils us to seek knowledge from others and assures us of the benefits: "Through wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; By knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches. A wise man is strong; yes a man of knowledge increases strength. For by wise council you will wage your own war, and in a multitude of councilors there is safety." "Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gains understanding. For her proceeds are better that the profits of silver, and her gain than find gold." Proverbs 3:13-14 God gave us our intellect and He expects us to use it. In fact, Paul explains in his letter to the Romans that God has given us enough to satisfy our intellect so that we are without excuse if we reject Him: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them (evident among them), for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (divine nature), so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:18-21 God gave us our minds and He knows how to satisfy them. He also knows when you're not being honest with yours. This is between you and God. One thing is certain: The Bible is not telling us to shut our brains off. The Bible is not discouraging thought. Let's move on to your next claim, that the Bible paralyses action. Does the Bible really work to paralyse action? It's hard to see how considering it's instructions to go and preach the Gospel, make disciples, defend the faith, refute error and encourage fellow believers. Not to mention these other instructions: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 1:27 "Cease to do evil, learn to do good. Seek justice. Reprove the oppressors. Defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:16-17 "You did not chose Me but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain…" John 15:16 The Bible encourages action all right. The "problem" is, the actions the Bible instructs us to take are often quite against human nature: "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." Matthew 5:40-40-42 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you," Matthew 5:44 Does the Bible seek to paralyse action? Indeed it does, when our actions place others or us in jeopardy. If you're about to commit murder, the Bible says, "stop!" It also says, "stop" when we are about to commit adultery, or theft, or deceit. The Bible also tells us to "stop" when we're about to shoot our mouth off without understanding (James 3:1-12). These things hurt other people. In the long run, they hurt the perpetrator too. Yes, the Bible paralyses action in this respect. Let's now address that last of your claims, that the Bible promotes dependency and unquestioning devotion. As proof that the Bible promotes unquestioning devotion, you quoted from Mark 16:16, Luke 12:46, John 3:18 and John 3:36. These passages stress that only those who believe in Jesus will be saved from the wrath of God. This much is true. However, in none of these passages is "unquestioning" devotion demanded. You've read something into the text that simply isn't there. As I've already clearly demonstrated, God wants us to believe in Him (Hebrews 11:6) but this is not to require shutting our brains off first. God knows that we sometimes have doubts. Everyone does from time to time. But God is merciful to His children. The Bible gives us a couple of really good examples of this. In Luke chapter 7, we read that John the Baptist was imprisoned. This was the same guy that baptized Jesus and asserted that He was the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). But imprisonment can bring a guy down I'm sure and so we read in Luke's Gospel that John sent some of his disciples to Jesus to ask Him, 'Are you the coming One, or do we look for another?' (v. 19). Now if Jesus was really the fear-mongering tyrant you claim He is, this would have been a great time to prove it. He could have made a real example of John here. He could have said, "Look at John. He doubted Me and now he's rotting in jail." He could have done much to instil fear at this point and demand "unquestioning devotion." This is not what He did though. Jesus instead instructs John's disciples to, "Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: That the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is He who is not offended because of me" (vv. 22-23). What Jesus did here was put John's doubts to rest by showing him that the things He was doing were fulfilling Old Testament Messianic prophecy. These miracles are all prophesied in Isaiah chapters 35, and 61 and are attributed to the coming Messiah. Jesus was saying, "Yes, John, it's Me. I'm the expected Messiah." Jesus issued no reprimand for his doubting, only reassurance. In fact, from verses 24 to 35, Jesus speaks favourably about John, stating that: "…among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist;" v.28 In Mark chapter 9, we read about a father whose son was being tormented by a mute spirit. The man cries out to Jesus for help in verse 22: "But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us!" (Italics mine) There's doubt here for sure, so much so that Jesus responds, "If you can!" Jesus continues: "All things are possible to him who believes." Now look at the father's response in verse 24: "Lord I believe;" of course he's just hiding his doubts. Look what happens next. In his very next statement he comes clean, "…help me with my unbelief!" Here would be another great place for a tyrant who demands unquestioning devotion to make an example of a doubter. But Jesus doesn't operate that way. The Lord healed the man's son and in the process, healed the father's damaged faith as well. Doubts are bound to come, but Jesus has all the time in the world for the honest sceptic like Thomas (John 20:24-29) and Nathaniel (John 1:44-51). Jesus wants devotion, yes, but not unquestioning devotion. Jesus always welcomes questions from a sincere heart. As for the remaining claim that the Bible promotes dependency, I agree with most of what you said, however, I do think you overstated you case just a bit. You stated: "Not only does the Bible constantly raise the stick on people by telling them they're flawed from birth, and that God is going to condemn people who doubt even the tiniest detail to hell, the New Testament also repeatedly enforced that Jesus is the ONLY way to have a healthy relationship with God." Nowhere does the Bible state that "those who doubt the tiniest detail are going to hell." The Bible says: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Acts 16:31 The redemptive work of Jesus Christ isn't a tiny detail; it's the very foundation of our faith. There's no negotiation on this point. Beyond this, however, there is plenty of room for discussion and interpretation. Paul addresses this point in several places: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." Romans 14:5-6 In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he addresses the dispute over whether or not a Christian should eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Paul states: "But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse." 1 Corinthians 8:8 Paul acknowledges throughout the chapter however, that for some Christians, eating meat sacrificed to idols is just plain wrong. Paul's instruction to the Corinthians was that a person should abstain from eating sacrificed animals if he thought it wrong, or if it offended his brothers. Here we see some differing opinions about what a Christian should and shouldn't do. Paul assures us that this is fine, provided we abstain from doing things that offend each other. James also addresses the fact that opinions will vary with respect to what a Christian should or should not do. He sums up: "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17 The Bible's teachings are reasonable I think. It offers us a great deal of latitude and allows a man's conscience to be his guide to a large extent. As for the charge that the Bible promotes dependency, I say "guilty as charged!!" Of course the Bible promotes dependency on God. Why shouldn't it? Listen, if God is the creator of this time / space universe, then neither space, nor time nor matter have dominion over Him. He transcends all three. He sees dangers I can't see. He sees the benefit of certain actions I can't comprehend. His love for me has already been demonstrated in that while I was a sinner, Christ died for me. Only ignorance or stupid human pride would keep a man from depending on so great an ally. I love this statement of yours. There's a lot of wisdom here: "To summarize: living detached from one's environment, detached from cause and effect, from having to deal with the consequences of your actions is ultimately living in a way that's an irresponsible self-destructive fantasy, on an individual level and on a global level. How does your worldview address this John?" I couldn't agree more. However, we need to be clear on what one's own environment is. If your going to suggest to me that living detached from one's creator is our natural environment then I'll have to strongly disagree. We were made to fellowship with our creator, not exist independently of Him. Trying to find fulfillment without God is an endeavor that is hopelessly doomed to fail. It is, in your words, "a self destructive fantasy." You're right in stating that we must deal with the consequences of our actions. This means owning up to the fact that we've transgressed the laws of God and are in need of forgiveness. Believing that we can approach a Holy God on our own terms is another "self destructive fantasy." In essence, you believe that God must accept everyone, regardless of what they believe. Here you are trying to force your own moral code, which comes from a man who hasn't even lived a single lifetime, on the creator of the universe! The logic here is horribly flawed. I think it takes a lot more wisdom to conform our minds to reality rather than deny reality in favor of what our minds would like to believe. This rebuttal is just about done. There's just one more statement that you made that needs addressing. In response to the data I sent you, you flippantly stated, "I think you're going to have to try harder." This is the last erroneous point of yours that I'm going to address. My response to this is simply: "No, I don't have to try harder." I've responded to every major argument you raised against the trustworthiness of the Bible. This I did in spite of your hateful remarks, unfounded allegations, and blatant dishonesty. I've spent as much time on you as I'm going to. It's time for my wife to have her husband back now, and my kids, their father. As for me, I'm through listening to you insult my friend Jesus. Please understand that all of us here are worried about you and pray for you often. If you want to continue this discussion, and I sincerely hope you do, then we must do it over the phone. You may call me anytime, day or night. For now, I have no desire to spend countless hours on my computer, neglecting my wife and kids, for someone whose mind appears quite made up already. Be advised that any mails you send me will be deleted without opening. If you have something to say, call me. |