----- Original Message ----- From: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 04 November 2002 12:22Subject: Re: Rough Thoughts
ED: Jordan, thanks for your rough thoughts below. Any deep amount of
thinking begins with rough thoughts that eventually get smoothed out like
pebbles in the stream of thoughtful human discourse. I've added some
additional rough thoughts of my own below. Perhaps in our discourse we can
help rub the roughness off of each others roughest spots.
----------------------
Jordan: "It" split nothing of the sort; evil hearts making the Bible say
what they wanted it to say did the splitting.
ED: You appear to be saying that those Christians who believed slavery was
O.K., and backed it up with Biblical arguments, had "evil hearts." The
question I raised is not who had an "evil heart," but, "What does the
Bible say about slavery?" And the fact remains that...
The Old School (Presbyterian) General Assembly report of 1845 concluded
that slavery was based on "some of the plainest declarations of the Word
of God." Those who took this position were conservative evangelicals.
Among their number were the best conservative theologians and exegetes of
their day, including, Robert Dabney, James Thornwell and the great Charles
Hodge of Princeton - fathers of twentieth century evangelicalism and of
the modern expression of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. No one can
really appreciate how certain these evangelicals were that the Bible
endorsed slavery, or of the vehemence of their argumentation unless
something from their writings is read." - Kevin Giles, "The Biblical
Argument for Slavery," The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 66
You seem to be arguing that any interpretation of the Bible's view of
slavery, except that of Democracy-ized, Enlightenment-ized, post-Civil
War, 20th-century evangelicals such as yourself, involves "evil"
interpretations. Of course any member of any sect that disagrees with you
on any Biblical matter, could make the same claim, even to the extent that
perhaps your interpretations were the "evil" ones. (Hence the dividing of
major Christian denominations just prior to the Civil War over the issue
of what the Bible taught concerning slavery.)
----------------------
Jordan: Parables are parables not commands. Which verse?
ED: I agree parables are not commands, but they tell stories that people
often take to heart and that reflect the way society works. Like the
parable of the unjust judge who eventually grants the petition of the
woman who keeps pestering him day and night. The implication is not that
we are commanded to pester judges, but that we should petition God with
our prayers, and He's much more likely to grant our requests than, say, an
unjust judge who is not eager at all to listen to a woman's legal
complaints.
In the parable that I mentioned, the master punishes his disobedient
servants/slaves (the word is the same in the Greek). The implication is
the just punishment of a master toward those slaves "who knew their
master's will yet refused to do it." They will be "beaten with many
stripes." A lot of Christians during America's Antebellum era knew about
that parable. The slaves who were beaten sure did. Take this classic
passage from Frederick Douglass's autobiography:
We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and
babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen, all for the glory of
God and the good of souls. The slave auctioneer's bell and the
church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the
heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious
master. Revivals of religion and revivals of the slave trade go hand in
hand. Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to the
enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the
greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom
I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found
them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others.
It was my unhappy lot to belong to a religious slaveholder. He always
managed to have one or more of his slaves to whip every Monday morning. In
August, 1832, my master attended a Methodist camp-meeting and there
experienced religion. He prayed morning, noon, and night. He very soon
distinguished himself among his brethren, and was made a class leader and
exhorter. I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a
heavy cowskin whip upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to
drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote the passage
of Scripture, "He who knoweth the master's will, and doeth it not, shall
be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)
- Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An
American Slave
---------------------
Jordan: There's more to that story. Jesus never commanded anyone to beat
anyone.
ED: It's not just "anyone," it's "disobedient servants/slaves." 1 Peter
2:18-20 teaches that the Christian who is a slave should "patiently
endure" even harsh unjust punishments in order to "find favor with God."
And of course the O.T. mentioned that "If a man strikes his male or female
slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If,
however, the slave survives a day or two (before dying), no vengeance
shall be taken; for the slave is his master's money." (Ex. 21:20-21) In
line with such pearls of wisdom an early Christian Council, The Council of
Elvira (c. 305), prescribed that any Christian mistress who beat her slave
to death without premeditation was merely to be punished with five years
of penance.
So of course you don't go about "beating anyone." But beating disobedient
slaves was not seriously questioned in the Bible. Neither was putting
collars on them with their master's name. (See: Slavery in Early
Christianity by Jennifer A. Glancy)
Speaking of evidence of the "pro-beating" side of the Bible, consider the
following verses. (I can hardly think of slaves getting off the hook, not
when fathers are commanded by God to be treat their own children in the
following manner):
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his
crying. - Proverbs 19:18 (The Hebrew word for "chasten" means literally
"chasten with blows.")
The blueness of a wound cleanses away evil: so do stripes the inward part
- Proverbs 20:30 (The Hebrew word translated "stripes" means "beating.")
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beats him with the
rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shall deliver
his soul from Sheol. - Proverbs 23:13-14
As a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee (with
blows). - Deuteronomy 8:5
For whom the Lord loves he chasteneth, and scourges every son whom he
receives. - Hebrews 12:6 (The Greek word translated "chasteneth," also
means "beating.")
------------------------------
Jordan: Ed, Your history of political positions on slavery has been
snipped here. The question is what of the Bible and slavery, not politics
behind slavery and biblical misuse to support political positions.
ED: All political questions aside, you have yet to prove that the
pro-slavery position of many Christians was due to "biblical misuse." In
fact ministers on both sides of that issue blamed each other at that time
for "misusing" Scripture. I think you are attempting to shrug off such
questions by employing the "evil" use, and "misuse" of the Bible,
arguments, because you wish to center the controversies in a place other
than the Bible's own lack of clarity and/or lack of modern-day charity,
when it comes to the question of slavery.
-----------------------------
Now, on to the Bible and slavery: resurrection evidence can rationally
lead someone to conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead.
ED: Repeating that assertion does not make it so. Neither does my
questioning it make it impossible. But so far I see that historians only
have highly partisan religious documents to go by, documents that
disagree, and no proof that we even know where Jesus was originally
buried, and not even a single first-hand description of the "raised
savior" that the original eleven apostles allegedly "saw." However we do
know that the time was one of miracle stories and apocalyptic thinking
that centered round resurrections, i.e., a general resurrection as in
Daniel, and/or individual resurrections (were not people wondering whether
or not Jesus was John the Baptist "raised from the dead?"). By my own
reckoning, and that of the current head of the Anglican church (Peter
Carnely)among other theologians, the first alleged "seeing" of the raised
Jesus probably took place in Galilee, not in Jerusalem, and we know not
what went through the apostles heads at that time, after fleeing to
Galilee after their master had been executed. The Lukan stories of
resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, appear, upon comparisons with Mark
and Matthew, to have arisen later. We know this because Luke changed the
words of the "angel" at the tomb so that the apostles would not be told
that Jesus "went on ahead" of them "to Galilee, for there ye shall see
him." Luke altered those words and even had the raised Jesus tell the
apostles to "remain in Jerusalem.." In fact Matthew's story of the
"raising of the many saints" upon Jesus's death, and their entry into the
holy city to show themselves to many upon Jesus's own resurrection, also
appears to be a story that arose later. In fact, even the final chapter of
Mark, which contains a resurrection "sighting" story, appears, according
to textual critics, to be a later invention.
---------------------
Jordan: It does not follow that this God-Man is necessarily a benevolent
God, merely a God.
ED: Since I have yet to see any evidence that would rationally convince
me that Jesus of Nazareth physically arose from the grave, I need not
reply to your further assertion above, except to say that even a raised
body does not prove that the body raised was God. Indeed, doesn't the
book of Acts have Peter declare that Jesus was "raised by God," rather
than say that Jesus "was" God?
----------------------
Jordan: Someone such as you may conclude from the Bible that this God is
malevolent. So be it.
ED: "So be it?" So be what? Along with C. S. Lewis I would sooner
conclude that the Bible was less than "inspired" in parts than conclude
that God was malevolent.
-----------------------
Personally, I am at peace with the apologetics concerning the Bible and
slavery as well as other biblical criticism.
ED: I'm happy you have found peace. But simply reminding people you are
"at peace" does not constitute apologetics. But then, from what I have
read in a number of books on the "hard sayings" of the Bible, a lot of
what passes for apologetics consists of reminding the reader to remain
calm and not judge things too hastily, but to remain "at peace" concerning
even the hardest questions. Since it took me ten years of intensive study
and much debate before I agreed with other reasonable people that many
theological questions were valid, and since I have continued to study
matters for many years more, I too am "at peace" when I remind others that
neither the Bible, nor orthodox Christian doctrines, appear true beyond a
reasonable doubt.
---------------------------
Jordan: The Bible spoke to and addressed the cultures of the times; the
nuts and bolts remain today in modern form. Earthly utopia is not an
option. Until God calls His own and separates them from Satan's followers
and servants, evil will persist.
ED: Ironically, to some Christians, as well as to some members of other
religions, you appear to be one of "Satan's followers." As for me, I am
perfectly happy and content to let people continue to discuss religious,
theological, philosophical matters freely and openly, and hopefully
without having to stoop so low toward one another as to label each other
"Satan's follower."
-----------------------------
The Christian's duty is to follow Christ's instruction and example while
living amongst the sick and evil. Here's a work to interest our readers
regarding the subject:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
ED: Truly interested readers will also like to read a few books:
Slavery in Early Christianity by Jennifer A. Glancy (an important new
work from a major university press)
And also...an old classic...
LETTERS OF THE LATE BISHOP ENGLAND TO THE HON. JOHN FORSYTH ON THE SUBJECT
OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED COPIES IN LATIN AND ENGLISH OF
THE POPE'S APOSTOLIC LETTER, CONCERNING THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE, WITH SOME
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, ETC. Publisher: Negro Universities Press, NY Date
of Publication: 1969 Edition: Reprint of 1844
Bishop England was the first Bishop of Charleston, and his career was
long and illustrious (see his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05470a.htm . His career took him up and
down the Eastern U.S. and even to Haiti, in a day when anti-Papacy was
quite strong. In 1826 he delivered, by invitation, an eloquent discourse
before the Congress of the United States. It was the first time a Catholic
priest was so honoured. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia neglects to
mention his incredibly strong and well-referenced defense of the Catholic
church's approval of "domestic slavery" (not a defense of the "slave
trade," but of "domestic slavery") written in 1844, and published as well
as submitted to the then Secretary of State of the U.S. (The introduction
to the Bishop's letters was written by another Catholic of that time, who
wrote these lines: "How strictly this [Biblical] instruction is complied
with, and how beneficial are its effects, is known to every one who has
any knowledge of the character of Catholic slaves. They are everywhere
distinguished as a body for orderly habits and fidelity to their masters;
so much so that, in Maryland, where they are numerous, their value is 20
or 25 per cent, above that of others.")
-----------------------
- The Prayer of Eusebius (a pagan who lived some two thousand years ago,
as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion)
Jordan: Beautiful prayer--reminds me of, "Forgive us our trespasses as we
forgive those who trespass against us."
ED: Yes, I love that one too. (By the way, Voltaire once remarked that the
Our Father might be described as blasphemous since it does not require the
death of a substitutionary sacrifice to obtain God's forgiveness, all you
have to do is forgive others.)
Jordan: Ed, now let's not tie up readers with unnecessary intellectual
ping-pong. The prayer does not claim that God forgives us because we
forgive others. It asks that He continue to forgive us as we forgive
others. God's forgiveness comes from Christ's sacrifice. Much as I
appreciate Voltaire, that is a non-sequitur.
ED: Your explanation above constitutes an attempt to make the prayer
align with orthodox theology, however, the theology of the fourth Gospel
and of Paul does not appear to play as prominent a role in the theology of
the first three Gospel writers. When people asked Jesus how to pray he
said simply, "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned
against us." The implication is that both forms of forgiveness are
similarly direct. No mention is made of the necessity of Christ's
sacrifice in order for us to forgive those who have sinned against us any
more than for God to forgive us of our sins. Indeed, in the synoptics
Jesus is asked a number of times, "how to inherit eternal life," and never
once says it is absolutely necessary to believe his death takes away the
sins of the world in order to inherit eternal life. In fact, "salvation"
is only mentioned one time in all three synoptic Gospels, and in that case
it is of a man who cheated people of money and decided to return it to
those whom he cheated, and Jesus exclaimed, "this day is salvation come to
this house."
------------------------------
I think you should also read Bob Price's Beyond Born Again on the web,
rather than settle for what others tell you about it. (I've read Holding's
articles concerning Bob Price's writings, but the first step toward
understanding anyone is reading them for yourself, not settling for
reading reviews.)
Jordan: At Locks's request, I did read Price as well as Steve's other
references. The works failed to refute the points of My Position at my
opening page.
ED: If you had read Price's Beyond Born Again you'd realize that he
himself does not boast of "refutations" nor "proofs" but is content to ask
questions and draw comparisons (i.e., from history, the Bible, and
psychology) concerning the methods and means that people employ to
convince themselves that their beliefs are unquestionable.
--------------------------------------------
Jordan: Okay, you're better versed than I. Actually, I am better versed
than you present here, but, clearly, you are my atheistic knowledge
superior. Now, about those disciples' visions, please, help us out.
ED: I was merely comparing your level of knowledge of atheism prior to
your conversion to evangelical Christianity, with my level of knowledge of
Christianity prior to my leaving the fold. And I agree that I was better
versed in Christianity and Christian apologetics than you were in atheism,
prior to each of us leaving our respective folds. Not that I take that as
proof of anything. I am not even trying to prove "atheism" is true, since
I am not an atheist, unlike your attempts to prove that Christianity is
true.
------------------------------------------
ED: After reading my exchange with Habby you mentioned, " the implication
is that the Gospels are so messed up they can't be relied upon." You seem
to not have considered that parts of the Gospels might be so messed up
that they can't be relied upon, and which parts those might be.
Jordan: No, I asked you if that's YOUR implication. Is it? I am
comfortable with the Gospels.
ED: O.K. Here's my implication. My implication is that parts of the
Gospels, as seen via comparisons of certain verses in one Gospel with
another, open up obvious face-value questions as to the reliability and
truth of those parts.
(And when you mention being "comfortable" with the Gospels I haven't the
faintest idea what you are talking about. )
----------------------
Jordan writes: I received your "Habby" mailings. I enjoyed them. So far,
they offer no threat to my visions leg of my debate with Locks so I
haven't added them anywhere to my pages. Unless the implication is that
the Gospels are so messed up they can't be relied upon, which of course,
defies scholarly consensus in both camps.
ED: I do not debate "visions." With Habby I did however debate the
Gospels and compared particular verses between them and discussed the
obvious face value questions they raised. I also suggested, based on such
comparisons, that the eleven remaining apostles probably fled to Galilee
and remained there until they convinced themselves Jesus was not simply
dead and his mission ended, but that God had exalted him, and the final
judgment remained at hand. And they concluded that they must return to
Jerusalem and preach the resurrection of the dead, Jesus being the
first-fruits. Such ideas were not beyond the heightened apocalyptic
expectations of people of that day and age.
(Neither is my hypothesis new or unique, Peter Carnely, Thomas Sheehan and
many others have presented it in their own ways. I also pointed out in my
letter with Habby why I think that Luke's Jerusalem resurrection
appearance stories were questionable and may have arisen later, and Luke
altered the words of the "angel" at the tomb to fit such newly arising
stories into his freshly redacted Gospel.)
If there were any visions, I do not believe they came first, I believe the
apocalyptic expectations of that day and age came first. There may have
been angst-ridden discussions amongst the eleven in Galilee after Jesus's
execution, "How could we leave him like that?", "How could God leave him
like that?" -- maybe a dream or vision to one leading apostle that the
others also soon claimed to have "seen." But we really don't know. We
just know that the apostles had weeks to ruminate in Galilee while Jesus'
corpse was buried who knows where, the face decayed beyond recognition by
the time the apostles finally arrived back in Jerusalem "seven weeks"
later, during another festival in Jerusalem. In the end, Jerusalem the
city was destroyed around 70 A.D. leaving few remaining clues to follow
up. And Judaism split from that time forth into rabbinical Judaism and
Christianity.
----- Original Message ----- From: G. Zeinelde JordanTo: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 06 November 2002 12:25Subject: MailBag UpdateHi Ed,
I posted your reply in its entirety then commented following it.
In your first mailing, you copied Steve so I copied him here, also.
Talk at ya soon.
Jordan
Ed mail link: http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/emailbag_files/edmail.htm
----- Original Message ----- From: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 10 December 2002 04:39Subject: My response 12/02
Dear Jordan,
I know that intellectual discussions can be dry and taxing, especially
between people who do not see eye to eye on subjects that touch the
emotions as well as the intellect. But I would sincerely like to wish you
and yours a happy holiday season. And I want to thank you for having
donated your time, patience, and effort (as well as the price you pay your
web provider) to feature our discussion at your website.
Reviewing what I wrote below I do wish communication between us had been
easier to achieve, or that there was a sure fire method for achieving
agreements as to what each of us
1) thinks they know for a fact,
2) what each of us is certain that they do not know,
3) what each of us admits they have no way of determining either way,
and
4) which points each of us is willing to agree to disagree on
(and to what exact degrees in each of the above cases).
I also wish that so many little topics did not lead to so many other
little topics. But the Bible is fairly large and anyone who claims it is
inspired from cover to cover would seem to be begging for questions, lots
of them. I also wish to apologize in for discussing so many topics, even
repeating them with new quotations and from slightly different angles.
But I think you'll find that I cover all bases below, including at the
end, visions, and your four resurrection points.
I fear as always that I have said either too much, or not expressed myself
in a way with which you are fully at ease.
Lastly, I consider these thoughts of yours and mine as limited and rough,
not hewn in stone, and certainly not meant as attacks on each other.
Again, happy holidays,
Best, Ed
My response follows:
Whose Points Remain?
[recap] JORDAN: Ed has merely presented the same thoughts while merely
using different words. My points remain.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: Is it O.K. with you if I request that you
address me when you are speaking to me, rather than saying, "Ed has..."?
I don't mind preceding lines with the name of who spoke them, but when
addressing each other, I prefer we address each other directly. I am also
happy to leave it up to each of us to determine whose points remain. I
agree your "points remain" to you, as do mine to me.
-----------------------------
Slavery and "Biblical Misuse"
[recap] ED: . . . you have yet to prove that the pro-slavery position of
many Christians was due to "biblical misuse."
[recap] JORDAN: I have yet to prove nothing. You have already done it by
effectively presenting the Christian split over biblical slavery. One side
agrees with me, the other does not. One or the other is accurate.
[latest response 12/02] ED: Anyone can find a side that agrees with
them and claim that's the end of the matter. But that tells us less than
nothing about what the Bible says. The Bible does not say slavery is a
sin (and The Christian Think Tank article that you directed me to also
agreed that both Hebrew slavery and Roman slavery were not sins, and the
New Testament added that slaves "honored God" by their obedience). But
first, shouldn't your readers know a bit more about...
The Genealogy of Our Slavery Discussion
Introducing me to your readers with our discussion of Biblical slavery may
create the false impression that my emails began with that topic. But
neither of my first two emails to you mentioned slavery. In fact it was
only in two sentences of my third email that I stated, "Like the modern
day disavowal of the importance of pro-slavery Biblical passages, most of
today's Christians disavow the importance of anti-Jewish New Testament
passages, which is certainly an improvement over the past. Still, neither
the anti-Semitic passages, nor the pro-slavery passages, have been erased
from the Bible, and some people continue to find such passages 'divinely
inspired.'"
You responded by saying that you didn't see much difference between
today's "wage slaves" and slavery in New Testament times.
Then I replied in a further email in which I wrote that I saw a
difference, and invited you to "...consider Jesus' depiction of slavery in
a parable in which he said 'the slave who knew his master's will and did
not do it, was beaten with many stripes.'" And I added, "I'll take
today's 'wage slavery' over that." I also mentioned other verses from the
O.T. concerning the master's right to beat disobedient slaves ("for he is
his master's money"). Thus began our full blown discussion of slavery.
Hence, I was not attempting to divert attention from your testimony, nor
from the resurrection. In fact, my first two emails and most of my third
email addressed both your testimony and the resurrection stories in the
New Testament. It was after you attempted to lay the slavery question
aside that I continued to share quotations on that matter. From what I
have learned about it...
The Slavery Question is Not Simply Either/Or. The South Wanted to Reform
Slavery Rather than Abolish It. The Question Provides a Good Example of
Intractable Differences of Biblical Opinion, even Among the Most Pious and
Learned Christians.
History shows that the debate over the Bible's teachings on slavery is far
from easily answered. As long as the verses remain in the Bible, and as
long as some continue to view the Bible as "God's inspired word from cover
to cover," the same questions pertain even today. I agree with the
summation in The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible, ed. by Bruce
Metzger (an evangelical Christian), that "One of the chief ironies of the
conflict over slavery was the confrontation of America's largest
Protestant denominations with the hitherto unthinkable idea that the Bible
could be divided against itself. But divided it had been by intractable
theological, political, and economic forces." I agree that the Bible can
be divided by "intractable forces," not necessarily evil ones, simply
"intractable" ones. In fact the Bible is clear that slavery in itself is
neither evil nor a sin [but "coveting your neighbor's slave" is a sin
mentioned in the Ten Commandments], and a slave is "his master's money,"
and an obedient slave "pleases" God and is blessed whenever he accepts
even "unjust" punishments at the hands of his master.
Concerning the "Christian split over biblical slavery" (as you call it),
what made things most difficult were the essential agreements between
theologians. For instance, the vast majority of both Northern and
Southern churchmen and theologians agreed that according to the Bible
slavery itself was not a sin. The people at the Christian Think Tank
(whom you pointed me toward) agree. For instance, Miller writes: "It is
incorrect to say that the bible 'condones slavery' (in the modern
connotation of that phrase)"
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html So Miller agrees that
the Bible does condone slavery in other connotations, including ancient
Hebrew and Roman ones. Miller added, "In the OT we have NO REASON to
believe that God condoned chattel slavery, and indeed, we have substantial
bodies of data and argument to support the contrary -- that God desired
the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community ruled by
Him." http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html So The Christian
Think tank agrees that the OT condoned slavery, though not "chattel
slavery within the covenant community ruled by Him," in other words
amongst fellow Hebrews. But everlasting slavery of non-Hebrews is
acceptable according to the Bible, and, even the everlasting slavery of
Hebrew women (and any children she bore her slave husband) was acceptable
according to the Bible (i.e., masters often gave their slaves wives, so
they could produce slave children for the master, all of whom, including
the wife, were not allowed to leave with their husband or father, but
which remained the master's "possessions." Exodus 21:4-6) Even male
Hebrews were only given one chance to leave after being offered their
freedom, and if that chance was not taken, another is not apparently
offered them, because their ears were bored through to denote that they
remained the everlasting slaves of their masters.
So slavery, even of an everlasting sort, can be found in the Bible, and
not as a sin. In fact, the major Christian denominations in the U.S. did
not split over whether slavery was a sin, but over the question of whether
or not ministers ought to own slaves. Some in the North felt a minister
should be above all possible reproach. Even before the split on that
question, denominations agreed that the practice of chattel slavery in
America entailed abuses, and they wanted to halt those abuses and reform
the institution of slavery. It was abolitionists of the North (and not
the major Christian denominations of the North), who argued that the
institution of slavery must be abolished, instead of merely reformed.
Meanwhile, major Southern denominations and theologians were positive that
it was unbiblical to simply abolish the whole institution. Allow me to
cite the Bible as viewed by the elected president of the Confederacy who
concluded along with Southern clergymen, and in agreement with the
Southern Christian electorate:
"It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned
in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has
existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest
civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let
the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to
the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized,
regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed
then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in
Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall
come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies,
psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned
everywhere. "
Southern clergymen and politicians even argued that the South was more
"Christian" than the North, it was the "Redeemer Nation." "With secession
and the outbreak of the Civil War, Southern clergymen boldly proclaimed
that the Confederacy had replaced the United States as God's chosen
nation." And when the Confederate states drew up their constitution, they
added something the colonial founders had voted to leave out, namely, an
invocation of the Deity. The South's proud new constitution began: "We,
the people...invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God..." As you
can see, the "split" was quite "intractable." And the Bible alone could
not heal such intractable divisions amongst the foremost theologians who
studied it.
----------------------
I Did Not Conclude that God was Malevolent
[recap] JORDAN: Now, on to the Bible and slavery: resurrection evidence
can rationally lead someone to conclude that Jesus was raised from the
dead. . . Someone such as you may conclude from the Bible that this God is
malevolent. So be it.
[recap] ED: "So be it?" So be what? Along with C. S. Lewis I would sooner
conclude that the Bible was less than "inspired" in parts than conclude
that God was malevolent.
[recap] JORDAN: What exactly are you claiming? The Bible is too
inaccurate to believe God exists? God exists but He is evil? God exists
but the supposed Good Book is not of God? God exists but Jesus is a myth?
[latest response 12/02] ED: In each of your four queries you have
asked me about what "exists." But I wasn't making a statement concerning
God's existence, I was merely saying that I would "sooner" believe the
Bible was not "inspired" in parts rather than believe that "God was
malevolent." I added that I agreed with C. S. Lewis. Here's the passage
with which I agreed:
C.S. Lewis On the Goodness of God and the Inerrancy of Scripture
"The question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of
the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict [Lewis was
replying to the Biblical accounts of what he called "the atrocities (and
treacheries) of Joshua" and the account of Peter striking Ananias and
Sapphira dead, called "Divine" decrees by those who believe Scripture is
without error. - Ed.] I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the
more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship
of Him obligatory or even permissible...To this some will reply, 'ah, but
we are fallen and don't recognize good when we see it,.' But God Himself
does not say we are as fallen as all that. He constantly in Scripture
appeals to our conscience; 'Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is
right?' -- 'What fault hath my people found in me?' And so on...Things are
not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he
sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient
servant to the Divine Reason)...If 'good' means 'what God wills' then to
say 'God is good' can mean only 'God wills what he wills.' Which is
equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan." [Letter is quoted in full in
John Beversluis, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion
(Eerdmans, 1985, pp. 156f]
Lewis added in A Grief Observed, "The real danger is coming to believe
such dreadful things about Him [God]. The conclusion I dread is not, 'So
there's no God after all,' but, 'So, this is what God is really like.
Deceive yourself no longer.'"
-------------------------------------
The Hard Sayings and Finding Peace
[recap] ED: I'm happy you have found peace. But simply reminding people
you are "at peace" does not constitute apologetics. But then, from what I
have read in a number of books on the "hard sayings" of the Bible, a lot
of what passes for apologetics consists of reminding the reader to remain
calm and not judge things too hastily, but to remain "at peace" concerning
even the hardest questions.
[recap] JORDAN: Not my books. By the way, what do you mean by "a lot?"
[latest response 12/02] ED: Perhaps your question should be what I
meant when I said that such books remind the reader to remain "at peace."
Such books usually begin with the highest praise of Christ or
Christianity, as in the intro to F. F. Bruce's The Hard Sayings of Jesus
which begins by calling Jesus "the most important individual who has ever
lived." "Important" in a lot of ways, but Bruce doesn't delve into the
"hard" ways that Jesus was "important" in human history like the
theological conflicts concerning Jesus that erupted between Christians in
the early church -- to the heresy hunting Christian Roman emperors -- to
witch and heresy hunting Christians of the Middle Ages -- to
religion-related wars of Christian Europe (one of which some historians
say was the worst war Europe has ever seen) -- to the American Civil War
(and the role that Christian ministers and denominations played in
promoting secession) -- to today's 30,000+ different Christian
denominations and missionary organizations. Nor does Bruce mention the
fact that it was not merely Jesus "the individual" but a multitude of
differing, even conflicting, interpretations of that individual that
proved "important."
Moreover, Jesus remained unknown to most of the world even 1500 years
after his death. And Islam began to spread wildly 500 years after Christ
died (preaching its own interpretation of Jesus), even capturing a former
stronghold of Christian faith, North Africa. And Marxism/Communism spread
even more wildly than Islam did and in less than a century. Moreover, all
three of those beliefs spread via intensely serious true believers and
later with the aid of governmental proclamations and power.
I might also add that another "hard" fact about Jesus that Bruce does not
face is that in the scheme of civilizations, individuals may be important,
however even more important is how one civilization influences another.
In his book, Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern
Western Institutions, William W. Hallo listed the debt modern civilization
owes to ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of urbanism, the
formation of capital, the order of the alphabet, astronomy, mathematics,
algebra, the division of the day into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes,
the circle into 360 degrees, the coronation of kings, games, cookbooks,
and much more. In fact, the ancient Sumerians/Babylonians, who lived long
before Jesus, taught in their Councils of Wisdom, "Do not return evil to
your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you,
Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy." In his book,
The Dawn of Conscience, James Henry Breasted showed how the earliest known
recorded ethics and laws belonged to the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and
Babylonians, who preceded the Hebrews. In The Codes of Hammurabi & Moses
W. W. Davies showed how the law code of Hammurabi profoundly influenced
the later law code of the Hebrews in both style and content. [By the way,
steles show Hammurabi receiving his laws direct from "Shamash" the sun
god, much as Moses is later said to have received them direct from
"Yahweh," the god of the Hebrews] For a very brief general summary see
William Sierichs, Jr.'s article, "The Pagan Origins of Biblical Morality
(Or - Where Did Moses Really Get Those Commandments From?)."
http://nosha.secularhumanism.net/essays/sierichs6.html In Western
civilization alone there were ancient Near Eastern influences; Greek/Roman
politics, art, architecture, law, science and philosophy; Islamic
mathematics, astronomy, philosophy (including the thousands of Greek and
Roman manuscripts preserved by Islamic scholars at the library of Seville
that played a crucial role in re-igniting Western society's intellectual
progress). Other major influences include "guns, germs, and steel;" the
Renaissance; the Enlightenment; modern day socialist, humanist and
feminist influences and ideals; and "common sense" (as Thomas Paine might
say).
In The Hard Sayings of Jesus F. F. Bruce also reassures his reader in his
intro that "the high water mark of skepticism has receded somewhat."
Bruce also deals with the "hard sayings" mainly from the perspectives of
listeners in Jesus's day. For instance he begins with the saying in the
fourth Gospel about "eating my flesh and drinking my blood," and points
out that in Jesus's day even talking about such things would have repulsed
people. Bruce does not seem to consider the "hard" possibility that such a
saying might not have even been spoken by Jesus of Nazareth, but have been
part of the later theology of the community that produced the Gospel of
John. Such a possibility appears too "hard" for even Bruce to consider.
The overall impression I get reading such books is what I have stated
above. But the impression I received when you told me that you had "found
peace" is also to be considered. You were making such a statement to
convince whom of what?
----------------------------------
Ad Hominem (Know what it is Before Accusing Others of Employing It)
[recap] JORDAN: You are allowed one reminder ad hominem warning. Do it
again and your mailings are cut off.
[latest response 12/02] ED: I beg your pardon? That was not ad
hominem. I was not calling either of us "Satan's follower." Neither did
I state that either of our arguments were faulty due to either of us being
affiliated with "Satan." I was merely pointing out a matter of
relativity, that once the question of "Satan's followers" is raised,
people on both sides of any issue could conceivably (and have in the past)
label each other as being on "Satan's side," and such labeling has done
nothing to promote further understanding. In fact I was echoing your own
phrase that you sent me first, in which you stated, "Until God calls His
own and separates them from Satan's followers and servants, evil will
persist." It appears both inappropriate and premature for anyone to
introduce such terms as "Satan's followers and servants" without even
having agreed on the exact historical meaning and relevancy of N.T.
passages related to the "resurrection." I mean, do you seriously expect
someone with whom you have disagreements over "the resurrection" to also
overlook your introduction of "Satan's followers and servants" into the
discussion?
------------------------------------
Price's Approach Compared with Your Own
[recap] ED: If you had read Price's Beyond Born Again you'd realize that
he himself does not boast of "refutations" nor "proofs" but is content to
ask questions and draw comparisons (i.e., from history, the Bible, and
psychology) concerning the methods and means that people employ to
convince themselves that their beliefs are unquestionable.
[recap] JORDAN: In other words, "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with
the facts." Notice that if someone draws a conclusion from a reading
differing from yours, the reader is simply unaware of the writing's true
essence. My, now there we have a "freethought" philosophy, indeed.
[latest response 12/02] ED: Double pardon? I was merely comparing your
approach to Biblical questions which seems to involve claims of "refute
this," coupled with Martin Luther-like "Here I Stand" affirmations --
with Price's approach to questions of the Bible, history and religious
psychology.
Here's a passage from Price's Beyond Born Again to compare with your own
approach:
"Charles Talbert, in What is a Gospel?, has demonstrated that in Jesus'
era philosophers, kings, and other benefactors were often glorified in
terms of ancient legend. Heroes of antiquity such as Romulus and Hercules
were rewarded for their labors by "apotheosis"-- i.e., they were taken up
into heaven and divinized. Their ascent into heaven was supposedly seen by
gaping eyewitnesses (as in the case of Romulus) or was at least evidenced
by the absence of any bodily remains. The hero might even reappear to his
mourning friends to encourage or direct them. Not only were such legends
circulating about mythical figures of the past, but the same stories would
be applied in popular imagination to more recent or contemporary figures
such as Apollonius of Tyana, the Emperor Augustus, and the prophet
Peregrinus. In fact, so many contemporary figures were divinized that the
whole practice came to be satirized, e.g., in Seneca's The
Pumpkinification of Claudius...The application of this kind of
glorification legend to Jesus (as to other historical figures like
Augustus and Apollonius) is to be distinguished from the older, wholly
speculative theory that Jesus' resurrection was derived from vegetation
cults centering around mythical dying-and-rising deities like Adonis,
Sandan, or Attis."
[Bob Price, from
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap6.html
]
I have personally known Bob from the time he began his first master's
degree in religion to the time he obtained his second Ph.D. in New
Testament (at first I debated him via snail mail, exchanging hundreds of
pages), and over the years I have read his many articles and theses, and
visited him personally many times, so I think I am well aware of his
"writing's true essence." Your own "essence" I am less knowledgable
about, having not read comparatively as many pages of your writings as
Bob's, though you have stated quite clearly that you are a Christian first
and a freethinker second. And your website features in large letters,
"Beware," taken from a verse in Colossians. What do you think that
suggests to others about your own "mind being made up?" And what of the
mind of your favorite evangelical Christian apologist, William Lane Craig?
William Lane Craig's Mind is More than "Made Up."
William Lane Craig, wrote on pages 36-37 of Reasonable Faith: Christian
Truth and Apologetics (1984, revised 1994):
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the
fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and
evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the
latter, not vice versa."
"...as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, we should
employ it..."
"The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves
the gospel. Only the ministerial use of reason can be allowed."
"The Holy Spirit teaches us directly which teaching is really from God."
"The fact is that we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments
or not."
---------------------------
Historical Religious Visions
[recap] JORDAN: Okay, let us go to the comparisons approach. Let us
compare the followers' visions to other historical religious visions.
[latest response 12/02] ED: How exactly do you define "historical
religious vision?"
--------------------------
Comparing Historical Legends
[recap] JORDAN: Let us also compare other historical legends. Let us
compare other documents' dating. Let us compare other historical document
contradictions that attest our accepted historical events' veracity.
[latest response 12/02] ED:: By all means, let us compare. If we do make
such a comparison it would appear that the legendary miracles accompanying
Sabati Sevi (who lived during the Middle Ages) are more historically well
attested than Jesus'. There is a thick, well researched, book on his
life, including excerpts of letters attesting to miracles that accompanied
Sevi as he travelled from city to city. The letters were even dated mere
days, weeks, or months after the events in question.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/zevi.html
[Sabati Sevi] ...was 'encompassed with a Fiery Cloud" and "the voice of an
angel was heard from the cloud."
Letters from December of the same year related that Sabbatai "commanded a
Fire to be made in a publick place, in the presence of many beholders...
and entered into the fire twice or thrice, without any hurt to his
garments or to a hair on his head." Other letters tell of his raising the
dead. He is said to have left his prison through locked and barred doors
which opened by themselves after his chains miraculously broke. He kills a
group of highwaymen merely with the word of his mouth. Interestingly, the
miracle stories often conformed to the patterns of contemporary saints'
legends. The spread of such tales recalls the statements by the synoptic
evangelists that many of their miracle stories came from popular
reportage.
[from Bob Price's Beyond Born Again
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap5.html
and
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap6.html
]
The evangelical Christian website, Tekton, derides the comparison of
Sevi's historical legends with Jesus' because, "Jesus' stuck," while
Sevi's legends (and followers) faded from historical sight.
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_P_GGS.html#sevi But surely the question is
not what "remains," but which legends have historical documentation
nearest to the dates of the alleged miracles in question, and we have a
better case of historical documentation in the case of Sevi than in the
case of Jesus.
---------------------------
The Question of the Burden of Proof
[recap] ED: I am not even trying to prove "atheism" is true, since I am
not an atheist, unlike your attempts to prove that Christianity is true.
[recap] JORDAN: I have not attempted to prove anything.
[latest response 12/02] ED:: You told me in your emails, "...my
points remain," and, "resurrection evidence can rationally lead someone to
conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead." It can? I don't see how
it can. I see how people can believe it can, but that's as far as I can
see.
-------------------------
The Question of Who is Defending What From Whom
[recap] JORDAN: Skeptics solicit my reasoning behind my conversion. I
answer. The aggressors are the skeptics, not I. I merely defend my
conversion.
[latest response 12/02] ED: As a matter of fact, I defend mine too,
against some Christians who aggressively and wrongfully claim that I
"never was a born again Christian" or that I "never had a 'personal
relationship' with Jesus as my Lord and Savior." (But that's another
story.)
When discussing religious claims, questions of whom the "aggressor" is,
seems pointless -- especially in a nation such as ours which provides a
right to freedom of religion and speech rather than enforcing the Biblical
Commandment that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Do you think that none of your articles (nor the ones that you point
others toward) ever try to "demonstrate" or "make their case," or "prove"
anything? None of them is the least "aggressive" in promoting
Christianity (or a particular version of Christianity)? Can't it be
admitted that evangelical Christianity "aggressively" promotes itself on
billboards, on radio, on TV? And what of the vast number of websites by
Christians of all denominations advocating all manner of varying
interpretations from Genesis to Revelation, each only "defending"
themselves and never being the "aggressor?" I suspect that you and I and
many other folks on the internet share a basic human interest in spreading
our memes and discussing matters with people whose beliefs differ from our
own. I bet both of us also enjoy discussing things we love with like
minded people. A bit of both is what the internet experience is about.
Speaking of "aggression," you undoubtedly know that early Christian
apologists in the Roman Empire wrote books that denounced the works of
pagan scholars who questioned Christianity. Early Christian apologists
also wrote books that denounced the theological interpretations of their
fellow Christians. The works that were denounced were consigned to the
flames by the decrees of Christian Roman Emperors such that not one book
by a pagan who criticized Christianity during that time period survives
today (except in the form of selected excerpts in the works of Christians
who were only "defending" themselves against them). Furthermore, for
centuries "blasphemy laws" kept many in fear of the legal consequences for
speaking out in public or writing works critical of Christianity. One of
the last trials for blasphemy in America was held in New Jersey around the
turn of this century, though early American colonists instituted laws that
demanded the death penalty for denying Jesus's divinity or the Trinity.
Of course such tactics resembled those used by both Muslims and Marxists
in their desire to implement supreme acknowledgement by the masses.
After my own work was published, the Anderson county Library received some
phone calls and one letter demanding it be removed from the library
shelves because of its "anti-Christian" content. (An ironic claim since
one third of the testimonies in the book were written by people who
remained Christians, but who left fundamentalism for more moderate to
liberal pastures.) As a result of the phone calls the book was removed
from the shelves for "review" by the library director, and a meeting was
held to discuss objections with the public. The director pointed out that
nobody had challenged the inclusion of a book in the library's collection
on "religious grounds" for over 40 years, and the library contained
numerous books advocating Christianity, even fundamentalistic
Christianity, and it was good to have books presenting a variety of views.
The whole event was front page news down here. But nobody showed up at
the book review meeting, though it was widely publicized, and the book was
placed back on the shelf. I was asked for a sound bite from NPR, and I
said, "God Bless the Christians who protested the inclusion of my book in
the Anderson County Library, without their protests its publication might
not have been greeted with half the publicity it received."
----------------------------------
The Question of "Visions" and What Might They "Prove"
[recap] ED: I think you are attempting to shrug off such questions by
employing the "evil" use, and "misuse" of the Bible . . .
[recap] ED: I do not debate "visions."
[recap] JORDAN: Well I suggest that if you plan on tying up my pages,
you best stop shrugging them right about now.
[latest response 12/02] ED: The first line of mine that you cited above
was in reference to the question of what the Bible says about slavery. I
think I have elucidated some knotty questions raised concerning slavery
and the Bible, viz., above. And I think that employing the "evil use" or
"misuse" of the Bible response does not solve the difficulty of
interpreting what the Bible actually says. Neither did either the N.T.
nor O.T. responses at the Christian Think Tank deny that it was Biblically
legal to own slaves, "for they are their master's money." So yes, I do
think you are shrugging off the difficult question of slavery and the
Bible. As for my shrugging off the "visions," I have never
experienced one, nor any special auditory phenomena (except maybe right
before falling asleep at night, a whisper or sound that seemed real,
though I don't recall later what I heard). When I was in the fold I did
experience heightened sensations, heightened feelings, but no visions.
Perhaps you have more personal experience with visions than I have? I
would be interested in hearing about them if you have had any.
The totality of people's experiences always interests me, from visions to
NDEs. Though I have no particular explanations for any of them and they
strike me as being of a wide diversity, they are still fascinating in and
of themselves. I do hope they point toward something more beyond death.
I believe I mentioned in one of our earlier emails that I read a Gallup
poll (Gallup happens to be an evangelical Christian) that stated that
Southerners heard God's voice more often than Northerners did. And I
wondered if it sounded more "Southern" or more "Northern" to them, or
maybe more "King James English" to them?
About visions of Jesus. Let me ask you what portions of the Bible you
rely upon as accurate descriptions of what you think was seen or
revealed, when and where, and what was said and done? I have shared
with you my own views regarding the relative nature and importance of
Pauline and Gospel stories and the questions raised by each, even by
particular verses, i.e., in my letter to Habby and in our correspondence.
Please share your views.
To broadly sum up my own views:
Ed's point a.
The apocalyptic cultural milieu of the apostles and their state of mind
after losing their leader seems conducive to "revelations/visions."
Based on a comparison of particular verses in the Gospels, the apostles
appear to have gone to Galilee after Jesus's crucifixion ("...for he has
gone before you to Galilee , there you shall see him" - Mark and
Matthew), and stayed there at least seven weeks (per Acts). During that
time, Jesus' followers probably thought a lot about the death of their
leader and its meaning and tried desperately to make sense of those
traumatic events. Might not such grief and meditation be conducive to
experiencing "visions" and/or "revelations?" In a tight knit group
atmosphere it's easy to see how they would "corroborate" one another, "I
saw such and such, didn't we all?" It happens in modern day cults as
well, everyone agrees to see and understand what the others do in the
cult. Josephus mentions certain miracles and "visions" as if everyone in
Jerusalem 70 A.D. saw them
[ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html ]
though the miracles and visions Josephus mentions are not particularly
Christian nor Essenic.
Also, on the topic of visions in general, Bob Price mentions:
"...Collective hallucinations are a well-known phenomenon discussed, for
instance, in G. N. M. Tyrell's Apparitions and D. H. Rawcliffe's The
Psychology of the Occult. But to take one particularly relevant example of
mass visions, let us return momentarily to Gershom Scholem's remarks on
the messianic revival of Sabbatai Sevi:
The people of Smyrna saw miracles and heard prophecies, providing the best
possible illustration of Renan's remark about the infectious character of
visions. It is enough for one member of a group sharing the same beliefs
to claim to have seen or heard a supernatural manifestation, and the
others too will see and hear it. Hardly had the report arrived from Aleppo
that Elijah had appeared in the Old Synagogue there, and Elijah walked the
streets of Smyrna. Dozens, even hundreds, had seen him.... A letter
written in Constantinople notes apparitions of Elijah "whom many have
seen."
Visions of Sabbatai Sevi himself after his death were "very common in many
circles of the believers."These instances of mass visions are all the more
striking since they occur in circumstances closely analogous to those of
the resurrection appearances themselves.
The key thing to recognize is that in a group hallucination not all the
participants necessarily see the very same thing! We can easily imagine a
mass-psychological chain-reaction in which everyone present seems to see
an absent person according to the particular image of that person contained
in his or her memory. Paul does not tell us "He was seen by over five
hundred brethren at one time, and they all compared notes, and after an
exhaustive series of interviews it was determined that all without
exception saw Jesus wearing a red cloak over a white tunic, holding out
nail-scarred hands." All we can be sure of is that they all saw their
mental image of Jesus, doing or saying something.
In fact one ancient Christian document envisions precisely this
possibility on an analogous occasion. In the apocryphal Acts of Peter we
read of a scene in which Peter leads a group of charismatically endowed
women in a collective visionary experience.
Then Peter said to them, "Tell us what you saw." And they said, "We saw an
old man, who had such a presence as we cannot describe to you"; but others
said, "We saw a growing lad"; and others said, "We saw a boy who gently
touched our eyes, and so our eyes were opened,"... So Peter praised the
Lord, saying,... "God is greater than our thoughts, as we have learned
from the aged widows, how they have seen the Lord in a variety of forms."
(chapter 21)
Or compare a series of visions of the Virgin Mary which began in Dordogne,
France, in 1889. Here is the description of George Barton Cutten in his
classic treatment The Psychological Phenomena of Christianity:
A neurotic child of eleven years, named Mary Magoutier, was the first to
see the vision. She saw a figure like the statues in the churches in a
hole in a wall situated in a lonely place. The vision next appeared to
children of her own age, and then to a large number of peasants, both men
and women. The suggestion was general, and each one filled in and
particularized for himself. For this reason, while the visions were
similar, the details differed. To some the Virgin appeared dressed in
white, to others in black; sometimes she was veiled and sometimes not;
sometimes the figure was large and at other times small; sometimes the
body was luminous, or lights were attached to the shoulders or breasts; at
times the surroundings also changed.... On August 11 more than fifteen
hundred persons visited the wall, and many of these saw the Virgin...."
...And what of the suspiciousness of even eyewitness reporting of miracles
in the ancient Hellenistic world? The Roman satirist Lucian, after
watching the self-immolation of the charlatan-prophet Peregrinus,
whispered to a couple of people standing round that he had just seen a
vulture ascend from Peregrinus' funeral pyre and that the vulture cried
out that Peregrinus had been exalted to heaven. The next day Lucian was
startled to overhear an old man solemnly testifying that he himself had
witnessed this (invented) marvel! No doubt others besides that old man
would also have testified that they had "seen" the vulture rise up from
the pyre and cry out that Peregrinus had been exalted to heaven. [This
last paragraph heavily edited by me. -- E.B.]
Charles Talbert, in What is a Gospel?, has demonstrated that in Jesus' era
philosophers, kings, and other benefactors were often glorified in terms
of ancient legend. Heroes of antiquity such as Romulus and Hercules were
rewarded for their labors by "apotheosis"-- i.e., they were taken up into
heaven and divinized. Their ascent into heaven was supposedly seen by
gaping eyewitnesses (as in the case of Romulus) or was at least evidenced
by the absence of any bodily remains. The hero might even reappear to his
mourning friends to encourage or direct them. Not only were such legends
circulating about mythical figures of the past, but the same stories would
be applied in popular imagination to more recent or contemporary figures
such as Apollonius of Tyana, the Emperor Augustus, and the prophet
Peregrinus. In fact, so many contemporary figures were divinized that the
whole practice came to be satirized, e.g., in Seneca's The
Pumpkinification of Claudius. Thus Michael Green is simply mistaken when
he reassures his readers that "nobody had ever attributed divinity and a
virgin birth, resurrection and ascension to a historical person whom lots
of people knew." The application of this kind of glorification legend to
Jesus (as to other historical figures like Augustus and Apollonius) is to
be distinguished from the older, wholly speculative theory that Jesus'
resurrection was derived from vegetation cults centering around mythical
dying-and-rising deities like Adonis, Sandan, or Attis.
[from Bob Price
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap5.html
and
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap6.html
Ed's point b.
The Ostensible Growth of Legends in the Gospels Is Not Difficult to Trace
The Gospel of Mark (ostensibly the earliest of the four Gospels) is silent
as to what went on out there in Galilee (though someone, apparently
Christians, later tried adding three different endings to that Gospel to
try and portray a post-resurrection meeting with Jesus, and added commands
from that Jesus, but none of those endings are not found in the earliest
known texts of Mark, which merely ends with the women leaving the tomb and
"telling no one" what they saw). The other Gospels, all ostensibly older
than Mark are equally of little help in ascertaining what kind of
"visions" or "revelations" we are talking about because Matthew and Luke
apparently plagiarized Mark's Gospel, reproducing over 90% in their pages,
and then had to add post-resurrection appearance stories of their own
because Mark contained none. Hence, the post-resurrection appearance
stories in Matthew and Luke diverge more from each other than the rest of
their Gospels do from one another, except in places where neither author
could follow Mark, as in their post-resurrection narratives and in their
birth narratives, both of which Mark lacked.
Notice that the Gospel of Matthew ends quite abruptly with very few
commands allegedly delivered by the post-resurrection Jesus in Galilee,
and it also tells us nothing about what was actually seen: "Then the
eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had
appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some
doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
That's all it says concerning Jesus' alleged post-resurrection
appearances, and the Gospel ends there. Moreover, the phrase, "And Jesus
came and spake unto them..." is a common connecting passage found
throughout the Gospel of Matthew and hence does not provide evidence that
Jesus was necessarily "literally seen," and literally "came and spake unto
them." Also, a point I have not mentioned to you before is that the
Gospel of Matthew adds two earthquakes to its resurrection narrative that
none of the other Gospels mention, i.e., it introduces one at Jesus's
death to open the tombs of "many saints," and introduces a second one on
the morning of Jesus's resurrection to open Jesus's own tomb. But none of
the other Gospel writers mention either quake, nor do they mention the
peculiar two-verse description in Matthew of "the raising of the many
saints," though all the verses both before and after those, appear in
Mark.
I make more such comparisons in my letter to Habby.
Ed's point c.
A More Recent Vision of Jesus: The Story of Sadhu Sundar Singh -- For
Historical and Psychological Comparison
Speaking of "visions" one of the most interesting recent cases is that of
Sadhu Sundar Singh, famed Christian convert from the Sikh religion. He
too had a vision of Jesus and converted to Christianity, and this was less
than a hundred years ago. He says he was young and wasn't sure of what he
believed having been challenged by Christian missionary teachers in a
school who taught him to read by using the Christian Bible. He even
burned a Bible in public protest. (Must have felt quite guilty, being a
Sikh, to have harmed any book that someone else considered "holy." Sikh's
strive to take the best of all religions and holy men, both Hindu and
Muslim, they also believe in one God.) So Sundar swore one night that he
would stay awake till dawn and he'd kill himself by lying down on railroad
tracks if he did not discover the truth. He saw a "vision" that night of
"Jesus." I do not personally know what Sundar saw, but he claimed he saw
Jesus and converted to Christianity.
But even a vision of Jesus apparently did not ensure Sundar's doctrinal
soundness. Throughout his life he expressed doubts concerning the
doctrine of eternal damnation: "There was punishment, but it was not
eternal...Everyone after this life would be given a fair chance of making
good, and attaining to the measure of fullness the soul was capable of.
This might sometimes take ages." Concerning the way non-Christian
religions were treated, Sundar said, "The old habit of calling them
'heathen' should go. The worst 'heathen' were among us [Christians]...
There are many more people among us in India who lead a spiritual life
than in the West, although they do not know or confess Christ." Sundar
also fell in love with the writings of Swedenborg the (heretical) mystic
and visionary: "Having read his books and having come in close personal
contact with him in the spirit world, I can thoroughly recommend him as a
great seer." Sundar also told many miraculous stories (besides his
conversion account) which included Sundar's meeting with a "365-year-old
Maharishi of Kailash," Sundar's fasting for "forty days," being thrown
into and plucked out of a Tibetan well, and stories of miraculous rescues
and martyrdoms of other fellow Christian believers. Even his sympathetic
biographer, Heiler, pointed out that "The critical historian...draws
special attention to the curious sameness of the miracle motif [in
Sundar's stories]. There are really only two types of miracles which
appear in slightly varied form again and again in his stories. In the
larger number of incidents supernatural figures appear and disappear with
startling suddenness. The martyr-stories too, which the Sadhu tells, are
almost all of the same type; in the midst of terrible suffering the
martyrs are filled with supernatural joy which convinces the spectators of
the truth of their faith...We cannot, however, help noticing one curious
fact: the converts and martyrs of whom Sundar Singh speaks reveal exactly
the same kind of experience as the Sadhu; they think, feel, and talk just
as he does...Finally, various parallels from the New Testament, and from
the legendary literature of Christianity and Buddhism, show that many of
the leading ideas in the Sadhu's miracle-stories are in no way either new
or original...In addition, in all these tales of the miraculous the whole
mentality of the Indian and especially of the Indian ascetic, must be
taken into account. One of the most able students of the history of Indian
literature says decidedly: 'Indians have never made any distinction
between Saga, legend, and history.' This applies particularly to ascetics,
who for days at a time are quite alone among the magnificent mountains of
the Himalayas, and who give themselves up exclusively to the contemplation
of Nature, to inward concentration, and supernatural ecstasy [exactly as
Sundar did, who spent much time travelling alone in his beloved Himalayas,
and who admitted that he slipped into and out of "spiritual ecstasy" (or,
as the Hindus call it, "samadhi;" or as we would call it today, "altered
states of consciousness") spontaneously and frequently, which included
seeing visions and hearing voices - ED.]. In their experience the inner
vision becomes developed to such an extent that the usual difference
between subjective and objective truth disappears entirely. [Even Sundar's
supporters and personal friends admitted that he had difficulty at times
in distinguishing between vision and empirical reality. - ED.] All this
suggests that some of the Sadhu's stories of the miraculous need not be
considered as historical facts, but as legends; doubtless they have some
solid foundation, but, in the form in which they are told, they have been
worked up by a creative miracle-fantasy. Even scholars who admit the
possibility of the miraculous cannot refuse to consider such a
suggestion...Those who are familiar with the problems of biblical and
hagiographical miracle find, to their astonishment, in the anecdotes which
the Sadhu tells over and over again, certain clear principles, which show
how legends are formed: repetition of the same motif, doublets, and
variants. It is a striking and significant fact that we can thus confirm
these principles of the growth of legends in people belonging to our own
day, for the Sadhu's stories deal exclusively with experiences of his own
and of his contemporaries. So we see that legends do not necessarily arise
after the death of a saint, and within the inner circle of his disciples,
but during his own lifetime, and perhaps even in his own mind." [Note the
last sentence, as it concerns the question of "historical religious
visions." - ED.]
I do not know what to make of Sundar today. But even if his vision of
Jesus was instigated not by his youthful and impetuous imagination and
religious conflicts and the late hour and his own tortured groanings for
certainty, still what of his other visions and beliefs? If the
visions/revelations of the apostles and of Paul are cited to prove the
truth of the apostle's teachings and/or Paul's, then what do Sundar's
"visions" prove? That his teachings and beliefs were true?
And what of non-Christians who experience "visions" and/or NDEs? Does
that prove their beliefs are true or their religious doctrines? Fourth
century Nicean creed Christians are not the only ones who have experienced
"visions" down through the ages. I bet that Gnostics had them, Ebionites,
Nestorians, Marcionites, and many other members of various denominations
and sects, probably some of the preachers whom Paul warned his flock to
stay away from had visions too. There are people having visions today as
well. For those reasons citing visions to prove something appears
problematical to me. What does it prove to you?
-------------------------------------------
"Dictate?"
[recap] JORDAN: I allowed the slavery topic here because I presented in
my testimony that, "anything that Jesus fella actually said was not
particularly offensive." I will defend that claim. You, Sir, will not
dictate what I should or should not claim and/or defend.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: You are the sole dictator of both your
website and your beliefs. I have read the Christian Think Tank articles
you suggested and find that they neglect the obvious. Slavery is nowhere
condemned as a sin in the Bible. In fact, Jesus and the apostles and Paul
must have witnessed some of slavery's most degrading aspects, yet never
spoke a word against it. Jesus himself used it in his parable of God the
landowner, returning to his land and "beating his disobedient
servants/slaves with many stripes."
-----------------------------------------
"Sidestep?"
[recap] JORDAN: Using slavery to sidestep the points of my conversion is
careless at best, outright deceitful at worst.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: So far you have claimed that of the two
of us, I am the one with the "made up" mind, I am the "aggressor," I am
"dictating" to you what you should claim or defend, and now you say that I
am "sidestepping" the points of your conversion, and you suggest that I
may even be practicing "outright deceit" as well. But I do not see
that I have side-stepped the resurrection, as even you admit I have had
"much to say" on this already but also am interested in other subjects
that come up. Remember that you started your web page of our emails with
a discussion of slavery, but that is not where our own e-correspondence
began, nor even where any of the first three emails I personally sent you
began. You could have started with something I wrote about the
resurrection, but instead slavery was the topic you decided to post on
your webpage concerning our conversation. I am willing to discuss
anything about the resurrection that you wish. I have discussed visions
above, and have also discussed all four of your resurrection points below.
----------------------------------
"Genitalia?"
[recap] JORDAN: My focus is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That keeps
me busy enough. If you wish to argue matters such as whether God created
Adam with male genitalia before He created Eve, you need to visit such an
apologist; I do not care.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: I am curious where your "genitalia"
illustration of "things beneath your interest" came from. I did not
discuss such a subject with you in our emails.
---------------------------------
Am I "Ten Years Behind" or Simply Raising Unchanging Face-Value Questions?
[recap] JORDAN: Regarding your ten years of intensive study: that figures
about right considering it is a good ten years behind modern scholarship...
[latest response, 12/02] ED: My questions (as in my letter with Habby)
are based on face-value comparisons of statements in the New Testament.
Such statements haven't changed for over a thousand years, another thing
that hasn't changed are the inevitable (face-value) questions that such
statements continue to raise.
-------------------------------
Your Four Points
Point a.
[recap] JORDAN: My Position. Nearly all New Testament scholars,
regardless of their theological leanings, agree: a. Jesus Christ existed.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: Scholars call him Jesus of Nazareth, not
Jesus "[the] Christ." So to speak in the most scholarly fashion possible
why not change a. to read "Jesus of Nazareth existed."
--------------------------------
Point b.
[recap] JORDAN: b. He faced crucifixion.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: Agreed. But then, many people faced
crucifixion back then.
--------------------------------
Point c.
[recap] JORDAN: c. By Godly hook, earthly crook, or whatever, there is
no body.
[latest response, 12/02] ED: There are no bodies to be found today for
most people who died in the First Century A.D. Neither do scholars even
agree where Jesus was buried.
Further questions: Wouldn't it have been difficult to positively identify
one particular victim of crucifixion, especially if, as Luke says, the
apostles didn't return from Galilee and begin preaching in Jerusalem until
seven weeks after Jesus' execution -- how recognizable would a face be
that was sunken in and decomposed for that long? We don't know. [After
only "three days" Lazarus "stinketh"] Neither is it clear to scholars
where Jesus was buried. Nor is it clear exactly how the authorities
would react seven weeks after Jesus' execution to his followers preaching
in Jerusalem during another crowded city-wide holiday. Probably the city
was swollen with visitors, very busy, and there were other preachers of
various sects as well, doing some preaching. As long as Jesus' followers
didn't enter the Temple and start overturning tables, or start a riot,
they could go about unmolested by the authorities [both political and
religious] who probably had many matters to attend to during such a busy
time of year. Besides, Jesus' followers were not Jesus, they didn't enter
Jerusalem to Hosannas, etc. In other words I don't think that any of the
authorities at that time and place, seven weeks after Jesus' execution in
Jerusalem felt the need to go out of their way to try and deprogram
everyone in one particular sect, i.e., the "Jesus is risen" sect. Even
if some Jew was daring enough to disturb a seven-week-old rotting corpse
after Jesus' followers had begun preaching, dig up the corpse, plump up
the face and add makeup to it until it looked a bit recognizable, the
further doubt remains how Jesus' first followers would have reacted. There
have been great disappointments in the history of religion before, and
true believers have always found ways to deal with them, or shall we say,
get "around" them. [see note] Lastly, simple name-calling ("heretics!"
"blasphemers!"), and persecution, and waiting for a sect to die out, is
the usual method of choice employed by ruling authorities.
[NOTE: A few "great disappointments" include the 7th Day Adventist Church
and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both having gained many followers after
wrongly predicting the soon end of the world (they reinterpreted their
earlier predictions). The Bahai religion had its founder killed, along
with tens of thousands of followers, but a generation afterward such
slaughters the Bahai religion remained as did stories of miracles that the
founder allegedly performed (though during his lifetime some texts claim
that he denied he did miracles). So it is problematical predicting how
people might or might not react to "great religious disappointments." To
bring up a modern day phenom, some people can't even get over Elvis being
dead -- some people have even had "visions" of Elvis. Now imagine what
that might have meant if Elvis had lived in say, an ancient culture in
which people believed you were an angel because you sang like one, and
those same people followed such singers around, and believed in a soon
judgment and resurrection of the dead? Hmmm. ]
---------------------------------
Point d.
[recap] JORDAN: d. Jesus' followers saw SOMETHING they believed to be a
risen Jesus.
[latest reply, 12/02] ED:
1. We do not know what Jesus' followers saw either singly or together.
We don't have any description of what was seen in 1 Cor., nor in the
ostensibly earliest Gospel, Mark. We can only be reasonably sure that the
apostles went to Galilee after Jesus' death.
2. Neither do we have any first person descriptions of seeing Jesus. We
have secondhand claims. [ One possible exception to second hand claims is
Paul, who does say himself that Jesus "appeared" to him. But the
description we have of that sighting is not from Paul but a second hand
description by Luke who says that Paul saw a bright light and heard a
voice. And Paul put his sighting in the same category as that of all the
other apostles and what they "saw" (in 1 Cor.) Moreover, some scholars
even doubt whether the list of people to whom Jesus "appeared" (in 1 Cor.)
is an authentic Pauline passage or a later insertion. ]
3. If any of the apostles literally "saw" Jesus, they had very little to
say about it. Luke says that Jesus appeared to Paul and said, "Why do you
persecute me?" Not much there. Even less when you consider that Paul
also states he was "taken up to the seventh heaven" but does not share a
whit of what he allegedly saw or heard while up there either. Likewise
the Gospel of Mark, ostensibly the earliest, is silent on Jesus'
post-resurrection appearances or sayings. The Gospel of Matthew contains
only three sentences allegedly of the post-resurrection Jesus. Luke and
John each contain more alleged post-resurrection sayings than Mark or
Matthew, but it can be shown that Luke is not averse to altering the
message of an angel at Jesus' tomb in order to fit in his added
post-resurrection sayings and doings around Jerusalem, and the Gospel of
John was finished last of all, so the legend of Jesus' post-resurrection
appearances and his post-resurrection sayings has had more time to grow.
4. In short, I don't think we know what truly "appeared" in reality or in
the apostle's first-century outlooks and minds. Nor is there any easy what
to distinguish that from what later Christian legends came to embody as
"post-resurrection appearances" of Jesus. We only know what they came to
believe about Jesus. And we also know that they already believed in
resurrections and a soon coming judgment of the living and the dead, ala
the Book of Daniel and the Book of Enoch, and ala beliefs that the Essenes
also shared, of a soon coming world judgment and resurrection.
Resurrections and apocalyptic beliefs went hand in hand back then.
5. May I add some of the things that I think we DO know and that we can
be reasonably certain of? We have plagiarism in the Gospels. The case
for minor plagiarisms is clear, and constitutes the question known as the
synoptic problem. The solution today that appears most agreed upon by
scholars today is the primacy of the Gospel of Mark. But this leads to
questions that also affect how one views the changing story of the
resurrection appearances of Jesus in the Gospels. Apparently the "empty
tomb" story appeared first in Mark and was simply plagiarized by the other
four Gospel writers. And Mark ends by saying "the women told no one," and
hence the story of an empty tomb itself may have only been "told" later.
6. And there are obvious altered stories and altered phrases: Notice how
one "young man" at the tomb (in Mark) grows to become an "angel" or even
"two angels" in later Gospels; or notice how the Gospel of Luke alters
the message given by the angel at the tomb. In each case the reason for
such alterings is to make the story sound more convincing, i.e, to upgrade
from a "young man" to "two angels" -- to upgrade by adding earthquakes
(two of them in Matthew) -- upgrade by adding "the raising of the many"
(in Matthew) -- to adding appearances of Jesus in and around a big city
like Jerusalem (in Luke) instead of having Jesus "go before" them "to
Galilee" (in Mark and Matthew) and "be seen there."
7. We also have textual evidence that the Gospels were added to, from the
story about Jesus "sweating blood" in the garden and "being administered
to by angels" -- to the story of "the woman taken in adultery" -- neither
of which appear in the earliest known Gospels or early writings of the
Church Fathers. Moreover there were no less than three attempted
additions to the end of the ostensibly earliest Gospel (Mark), those three
additions depicted meetings and sayings of the post-resurrection Jesus.
And we have evidence from an early church father that the earliest copies
of Mark were not even in the chronological format of the Gospel of Mark
that we know today, but were originally jottings in non-chronological
order. The Mark we know today reads like a bunch of sayings strung
together by incidental passages, like, "Then he went there..." They
aren't a coherent biography but a collection of sayings strung together.
And the sayings of Jesus we possess from the Gospels require
interpretation, and are barely enough to fill a 16 page booklet.
8. We also have evidence that the early Christians who cited passages
from the O.T. as evidence of Jesus' Messiahship either did not fully
understand, or they ignored, the original context of those passages
(apparently creative use of the O.T. was all the rage back then, as
evidenced in pesher and in Essenic use of the O.T.)
9. Scholars have reasons to doubt that some of the letters of Peter and
Paul in the New Testament were probably not even written by Peter nor
Paul.
10. We also have evidence that Christians continued to add to the stories
of Jesus and the apostles, composing many more Gospels and Acts.
11. And we have evidence that Christians as late as the age of
Constantine continued to add passages to the New Testament, such additions
being proven via direct textual comparisons.
----------------------------------
The "Upgradings" are Embarrassingly Obvious
[recap] JORDAN: You are welcome to challenge those points if you bring
in something new.
>
[latest response, 12/02] ED: Something new? Hmmm. I am not going to
produce Jesus' physical remains, but whereas you feel their absence
strengthens your faith, I feel the absence of a dead body (and the fact
that the first century religious authorities did not seek to deprogram the
earliest Christians with "counter evidence," but instead simply persecuted
them) proves nothing. I do however think that the stories in the four
Gospels follow an "upgraded pattern," and that demonstrates the probable
growth of legends regarding Jesus of Nazareth. In my Habby letter I
detailed the upgradings as seen in successive Gospels and their
resurrection stories.
I'll end with a quotation from a footnote in Steven Lock's "Third Reply"
that points out that even some fellow Evangelicals question William Lane
Craig's "broad denial of legendary development..." at least in regards to
"the report that some women found Jesus' tomb empty." Of course I think
that Craig's "denials" are equally "broad" when it comes to the existence
of a host of additional questions that a face-value reading of the N.T.
raises.
Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment : A Debate Between William Lane Craig
and Gerd Lüdemann ISBN: 0830815694. See p. 46-47 for Craig's claim that
the majority of critical scholars concur with his "four established
facts." Michael Goulder disagrees with this at p.98, as does Roy Hoover at
p.129. Even [Evangelical] Christian Robert Gundry (Professor of New
Testament and Greek at Westmount College) cautions Craig to "trim the
debate" saying "Craig makes a similarly broad denial of legendary
development in regard to the report that some women found Jesus' tomb
empty. It would be wrong, however, to assume that a majority of the
scholars to whom Craig appeals agree with this denial."
[ Steven Locks from
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#maet
footnote 19 ]
Best, Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: Ed BabinskiSent: 15 January 2003 17:36Subject: Re: My response 12/02
Hi Jordan, and Happy New Year!
I hope things are going well.
I had not received a response since sending you my massive response below.
I'm just writing to see whether or not you rec'd it. Please just send me
a small note letting me know everything's O.K.
Best, Ed
<...snipped repeat of above email - (Steve)>
Leaving Christianity contents | email me