To the "non-believers" and anyone who wants to argue

[tomndebb]

Mary Magdalene is an odd case where a specific pope in the 7th century simply stated in a sermon that three separate stories of women in the Gospels all reported on the same woman whom he identified as Mary Magdalene, setting off on odd tradition that lasted 1300 years until someone decided that there was no evidence for his claim and called a halt to the legend.

I have no idea why he chose to conflate the stories or why anyone followed his lead for so long. (Papal infallibility was not even an issue at the time and he made no “authorized” declaration. On the other hand, the identity of the women is not remotely a central tenet of the faith, so changing the story (in either direction) does not affect any “truths” held by the church.)

As to errors in central belief, I would say that it is the general understanding/belief that any apparent changes to core beliefs have only been improved understandings rather than contradictions. Any mistakes (such as the odd conflation of the three Marys) is an example of humans deciding to insert their individual beliefs into the process of story that are not core beliefs. With free will, humans have the ability to get aspects of the message wrong.

Now, pretty soon, someone is going to post about the suppression of the Gnostics or the Arians or the Monophysites and make an effort to show that those were equal competing beliefs that simply got suppressed through politics. From an outside observer’s perspective, one can make the case for those sorts of claims. From inside the chuirch, they are examples of how the Spirit “corrected” the church away from those errors.

---

I am out of town for the next day, so you’re going to get to trash this presentation in peace for a while.

[blowero]

What about the gospel authors? Do you believe that all 4 of them were disciples of Christ, as is the “traditional” belief? If not, don’t you think that influences the “core” belief? It certainly seems like more than a nitpicky, irrelevant detail.

I am out of town for the next day, so you’re going to get to trash this presentation in peace for a while.

You seem defensive. I’m really not trying to ridicule your beliefs; I was honestly curious as to your opinion. Do you not want to discuss it?

[Polycarp]

@blowero

What about the gospel authors? Do you believe that all 4 of them were disciples of Christ, as is the “traditional” belief?

“Disciples”? Yeah – it would not make sense to have your accounts of His life and teachings written by a non-believer, after all. Members of the Twelve/Apostles? I have no clue what “tradition” you reference, but I’ve never seen anything of the sort.

Taking the traditional ascriptions of authorship, Matthew and John were clearly members of the 12: Matthew Levi the tax collector; and John bar Zebedee, brother of James, one of the Boanerges, the Beloved Disciple.

Mark is equated to the John Mark in Acts, cousin to Barnabas, traditionally a disciple of Peter’s after the Paul/Barnabas mission expeditions ended. He supposedly received from Peter (possibly through his sermons) a firsthand account of Jesus, which he reduced to writing after Peter’s death. He later became first Bishop of Alexandria.

Luke is the physician friend and companion of Paul. His dedication indicates that he did the first century equivalent of critical analysis, reading extensively in first century Christian writings and interviewing surviving eyewitnesses, trying to sift out wheat from chaff in the stories about Jesus, and recording them with attention to who said or did what when.

Luke almost certainly never knew Jesus in the flesh. Mark was a youth at the time of Jesus’s ministry, and may possibly have been a starstruck hero worshipper of him; an early legend says that the boy mentioned in Mark as being at Gethsemane, who the guards sent to arrest Jesus attempted to seize but who threw off his tunic and fled unclad, was Mark himself, writing in his one small connection to the Jesus story. But as for being a significant part of Jesus’s entourage, Mark probably doesn’t count.

[blowero]

@Polycarp

“Disciples”? Yeah – it would not make sense to have your accounts of His life and teachings written by a non-believer, after all. Members of the Twelve/Apostles? I have no clue what “tradition” you reference, but I’ve never seen anything of the sort.

Well this is where my lack of expertise is obvious. I suppose I’m mixing up “disciple” with “apostle”. Now, I thought it was traditionally held that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all followers of Jesus who were relating first-hand experiences of Jesus’ life. I know a Christian friend of mine certainly believes that. And I thought that many scholars now say that no, they weren’t all first-hand accounts. Do I have that wrong?

Taking the traditional ascriptions of authorship, Matthew and John were clearly members of the 12: Matthew Levi the tax collector;

Yes, and the Straight Dopes article says:

The author of Matthew is traditionally held to be the tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, sometimes referred to as Levi. However, Matthew borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. It’s hard to believe someone who was in close contact with Jesus would have had to rely on secondary sources.

So I got the impression that at least some people believe that the traditional ascription is incorrect.

and John bar Zebedee, brother of James, one of the Boanerges, the Beloved Disciple.

I got the impression that there’s some question as to that as well:

The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is “the disciple that Jesus loved” mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.

William Barclay gives us an elegant answer. He states outright that even if John was not the direct author of the book, it was at least written under his authority. The book likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances from John’s fading memories, and it was they who described John as the disciple Jesus loved…

If I’m understanding the article right, it implies that the Gospel of John is second-hand at best.

Mark is equated to the John Mark in Acts, cousin to Barnabas, traditionally a disciple of Peter’s after the Paul/Barnabas mission expeditions ended. He supposedly received from Peter (possibly through his sermons) a firsthand account of Jesus, which he reduced to writing after Peter’s death. He later became first Bishop of Alexandria.

So definitely not first-hand.

…But as for being a significant part of Jesus’s entourage, Mark probably doesn’t count.

So then do I have this wrong? Were Mark and Luke not traditionally held to be contemporaries of Jesus who experienced him first-hand? Has the Church always held that they were second-hand sources?

[Polycarp]

This is in direct response to blowero’s post #124, though I can’t quote pieces of it and respond in traditional fashion.

My discussion above was directed at the traditional ascriptions of the four Gospels, because that was the question you’d raised. And as noted in it, only two of the Evangelists (=Gospel writers, in this context) were among the Twelve Apostles.

The most common usage of “Apostles” in referencing New Testament figures includes 15 people: the original Twelve, noting in passing that there are variations in the lists which are traditionally considered alternate names for individuals named therein, such as Nathaniel=Bartholomew and Thaddeus=Jude; Matthias, named by lot to replace Judas Iscariot; Paul; and Barnabas. The term “apostle” is used to reference anyone sent in witness to Jesus, and is applied in passing to several other people, including a couple of women. On the other hand, “disciples” customarily means anyone identified as following Jesus during His earthly ministry, and is explicitly used of Mary Magdalene, the Bethany siblings, the seventy sent out to preach, etc. Some Protestant churches, who seem to be uncomfortable with the word “apostle,” use “the Twelve Disciples” to reference the Twelve whom He called to a special role during His ministry and who seem to be the core of the church thereafter. But note the careful capitalization distinctions I’ve made between descriptor and title for both words.

We’ve discussed the Synoptic Problem, the question of why the first three Gospels are so similar in content, at length in other threads, and higher critics are generally agreed that the texts as we have them evince a lot of borrowing between the actual compilers. Hence it’s almost certain to scholars that the Gospel of Matthew as we have it is not the work as it left the pen of Matthew Levi, if he indeed had anything to do with it. Many scholars who buy into higher or source criticism are inclined to believe the ascriptions of Mark and Luke, though some of them question whether the two Evangelists were in fact the John Mark and Luke who were the companions of Paul on his missionary journeys.

Diogenes recently did a pretty good write-up of the issue of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, which I won’t attempt to report here. (If he or someone else who remembers it sees this thread and is so moved, I’d welcome his or another’s linking to it in a later post.) Suffice it to say that the book as it exists demonstrates a native familiarity with Greek not likely in a teenage Galilean fisherman called to discipleship and itinerant ministry, that there is a shadowy John the Elder distinct from bar Zebedee in early accounts, and that there is clear evidence of someone editing the work (Chapter 21 in particular seems to have been a later addition, as also does the famous story of the Woman Taken in Adultery).

But since you’d asked about tradition, I stuck to the traditional ascriptions – only two were Apostles among the Twelve. And those two are believed by serious scholars to have been the original inspirers and sources for the two Gospels ascribed to them, but not the authors of the two books as we have them today. And whether or not you apply “disciple” with a small “d” to the men Mark and Luke depends on how you use the term – Mark may or may not have been and Luke definitely was not a follower of Jesus during His earthly ministry, though both definitely were His followers during the early church period.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Polycarp

Diogenes recently did a pretty good write-up of the issue of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, which I won’t attempt to report here. (If he or someone else who remembers it sees this thread and is so moved, I’d welcome his or another’s linking to it in a later post.) Suffice it to say that the book as it exists demonstrates a native familiarity with Greek not likely in a teenage Galilean fisherman called to discipleship and itinerant ministry, that there is a shadowy John the Elder distinct from bar Zebedee in early accounts, and that there is clear evidence of someone editing the work (Chapter 21 in particular seems to have been a later addition, as also does the famous story of the Woman Taken in Adultery).

Just to fill in some details…the question of whether the "John the Elder (Gr. “Presbyter”) who lived in Ephesus (by early tradition, the community which produced GJohn) was the same as John the Apostle actually stems from an association with your screen namesake. Ireneaus claimed in Against Heresies that Polycarp and Papias had both been students of John the Apostle.

Against Heresies 5:33:4
And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him.

Iranaeus is also quoted by Eusebius as saying that as a child he (Iranaeus) had seen Polycarp speak.

*Letter to Florinus
[quoted in Eusebius’ History of the Church: 5:20:5-6]
*
For when I was a boy, I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp…I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.

However, Eusebius himself claimed that Iranaeus had made a mistake and confused two different Johns. Eusebius quoted Papias to that effect.

History of the Church 3:39:4
[Papias Wrote] “…If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”

(Bolding mine)

As you can see, Papias explicitly stated that his knowledge of John the Apostle was second hand and mentions him separately from the Presbyter.

What Eusebius implied (and what seems plausible) is that Irenaeus was relating his own childhood memories of Polycarp, that he had remembered Polycarp talking about a “John” and had either assumed at the time or later conflated in his memory that Polycarp was speaking of the Apostle when he was speaking of the Elder.

As for GJohn authorship, here’s a page from a self-identified"Liberal Christian" Bible critic which gives a good overview of some of the objections to apostolic authorship (although this critic, like me, seems to think that it could contain fragments of authentic anecdotal testimony).

[Polycarp]

When I was talking with Irenaeus over on Christian Forums, he struck me as young and wise for his age, but did seem to get a lot of details confused! And yes, there is one over there, and I’m Polycarp there too… but my point is that what is true today may very well have been true back then as well.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Polycarp

When I was talking with Irenaeus over on Christian Forums, he struck me as young and wise for his age, but did seem to get a lot of details confused! And yes, there is one over there, and I’m Polycarp there too… but my point is that what is true today may very well have been true back then as well.

I’m tempted to register as “Eusebius” just so I can create posts where the CF Eusebius quotes the CF Polycarp and Irenaeus. I imagine almost nobody would get it, though.

[Nic2004]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’m tempted to register as “Eusebius” just so I can create posts where the CF Eusebius quotes the CF Polycarp and Irenaeus. I imagine almost nobody would get it, though.

This is to Diogenes, Polycarp, Blowero, et al. Bravo! This has truely been a lively discussion but more importantly it has been a educated one that has remained friendly and not edgenerated into insults and the like. I too am a student of these things, both histoical and theological, and I am impressed with the knowledge you bring to the discussion.

[Nic2004]

@Nicodemus2004

This is to Diogenes, Polycarp, Blowero, et al. Bravo! This has truely been a lively discussion but more importantly it has been a educated one that has remained friendly and not edgenerated into insults and the like. I too am a student of these things, both histoical and theological, and I am impressed with the knowledge you bring to the discussion.

But what of TOMNDEBB and IAMOG and his original question of those influences that lead you (and myself) on the road to free-thinkers.

[tomndebb]

You seem defensive. I’m really not trying to ridicule your beliefs; I was honestly curious as to your opinion. Do you not want to discuss it?

Sorry. I was herding cats and children, setting up the goat, rat, cat, & cavy feed for the rent-a-farm-hand for Saturday morning, packing, and making sure I had directions to the cheap dog-friendly motel while trying to post. I just expected a few others to drop into the thread and beat it up, based on the last paragraph in my last post.

As to the authors of the gospels, I agree with Poly and Diogenes on the general subject. (I did not see any discrepancies, but if we all started sharing exhaustive opinions, we could probably find some details on which to disagree.)

There is another point that occurred to me in the midst of the tedium that is a drive across northern Ohio and Indiana:

You brought up the concept of relying on tradition as a sort of bedrock of Bible interpretation.

One thing to recall about my beliefs, (rooted in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions), is that we generally do not hold that our belief springs from Scripture, but, rather, that Scripture encapsulates the core truths (with a fair amount of expansion on that core) while our beliefs are rooted in the traditional faith of the community. The core truths are those that are found in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds along with the commands to love God and to love others and to carry that message to the world. Specifics regarding the details of how to acknowledge the core truths or to carry out the comands have not been carved in stone and we have wrangled over many of those issues from the earliest days of the Church. (Contrast Paul’s description in Galatians of the early debates about preaching to the Gentiles against the somewhat more sanitized version that occurs in the Acts of the Apostles.) Dietary laws and observance of the “Lord’s Day” were also debated and modified in the early days. We do not have a record of it (of which I am aware), but the attitudes toward imagery obviously shifted as Gentiles took over the previously Jewish faith with its abhorrence of idols.

[tomndebb]

@Nicodemus2004

But what of TOMNDEBB and IAMOG and his original question of those influences that lead you (and myself) on the road to free-thinkers.

Actually, I figure I think pretty freely even though I do maintain the beliefs that IAMOG derides. My point in hijacking the thread* was mostly to point out that IAMOG’s beliefs about what and why Christians or Jews believe are rooted in a pretty narrow understanding of just what Christains and Jews do believe. is question is OK as far as it goes, but his commentary tends to be aimed at a much smaller group than he would appear to wish to criticize.

• I really do not wish to hijack the thread. Unfortunately, my responses to IAMOG are of a nature to prompt more extensive discussion that do tend to lead away from the OP.

[Polycarp]

@Nicodemus2004

This is to Diogenes, Polycarp, Blowero, et al. Bravo! This has truely been a lively discussion but more importantly it has been a educated one that has remained friendly and not edgenerated into insults and the like. I too am a student of these things, both histoical and theological, and I am impressed with the knowledge you bring to the discussion.

Thanks! I think all of us try hard (including Tomndebb, who is in addition to being Moderator a longstanding part of these debates) to bring intelligent scholarship to the issues involved.

It’s cool having a Nicodemus among us – and I do note that you “came by night” (John 3:1-2) to post!

[David_Simmons]

@Nicodemus2004

This is to Diogenes, Polycarp, Blowero, et al. Bravo! This has truely been a lively discussion but more importantly it has been a educated one that has remained friendly and not edgenerated into insults and the like. I too am a student of these things, both histoical and theological, and I am impressed with the knowledge you bring to the discussion.

I too have had a better understanding. Mine is of the methods and goals of religious apologetics.

What I see is that the apologist’s Central Tenet, the core element, the sine qua non, is the faith (that passeth understanding) that a Supernatural Entity exists that created the universe and everything in it and this Entity takes an interest in the wellbeing of individual humans and humans in general.

Whenever a new scientific or other discovery is made that threatens this Central Tenet the discovery has to be accomodated somehow so as to remove the threat. This can’t be done by appealing directly to the Entity which is notably inscrutable, nor can it be done by studying the characteristics of the Entity which has properties that are widely held to be beyond human understanding.

So the apologist turns to the traditional lore to see if that can accomodate the new data. If it can’t then the traditional lore must be reinterpreted so as to remove the threat. This reinterpretation is done, in many cases, by studying the ancient and not-so-ancient texts. However, those texts were written by people who also couldn’t directly question the Entity or even understand it so they studied even more ancient text until finally we arrive at those who originated the ideas. And they also couldn’t understand the properties of the Entity. That’s a gap in my understanding of the origins, although H.L. Menken made a pretty good stab at it in Treatise On The Gods as did Homer W. Smith in Man And His Gods.

In any case, the tradition is modified and the Central Tenet is preserved no matter how much the original tradition might be violated.

[Nic2004]

@tomndebb

Actually, I figure I think pretty freely even though I do maintain the beliefs that IAMOG derides. My point in hijacking the thread* was mostly to point out that IAMOG’s beliefs about what and why Christians or Jews believe are rooted in a pretty narrow understanding of just what Christains and Jews do believe. is question is OK as far as it goes, but his commentary tends to be aimed at a much smaller group than he would appear to wish to criticize.

• I really do not wish to hijack the thread. Unfortunately, my responses to IAMOG are of a nature to prompt more extensive discussion that do tend to lead away from the OP.

To TOMNDEBB: I did not mean to suggest through my reference to “Freethinkers” that it excludes those theists of the discussion. In the past the name athesist has been heaped with a great many negative conitations, and often these have been from those considered orthodox. I consider the origin of the term orthodox as meaning “straight thinking”… as in thought directed by dogma. Therefore many secular thinkers have tended to shy away from the terms agnostic (unknowlegable), a thesitic (ungodly) or (my personal favorite) heretic: from the root word “choice”. I respect Tom’s knowledge and insight and input and I am better informed for it. To David Simmons, thanks for your words and I’m sorry I forgot to thank you in my first note. Your thoughts on the need to continually update and revise the positions held in the study of the Bible due to new information is, I think, a basic tenet to those who have a problem with dogma. To set down a static and unchanging view of the world may be in keeping with the Iron-Age writers of the original texts but does not fit well in to a world of science and discovery that is dynamic in it’s thinking. I begin to see some understanding of this in the main branches of Christianity these days and think it is a good thing. I await the thoughts of the great minds that will no doubt be able to expand my understanding in this.

[David_Simmons]

@Nicodemus2004

Your thoughts on the need to continually update and revise the positions held in the study of the Bible due to new information is, I think, a basic tenet to those who have a problem with dogma. To set down a static and unchanging view of the world may be in keeping with the Iron-Age writers of the original texts but does not fit well in to a world of science and discovery that is dynamic in it’s thinking. I begin to see some understanding of this in the main branches of Christianity these days and think it is a good thing. I await the thoughts of the great minds that will no doubt be able to expand my understanding in this.

My problem is that the only source for such updating and revising is the very texts whose viewpoints are in need of updating and revising. This seems to me to be awfully close meeting the conditions for C. Northcote Parkinson’s skepticism about the value and stability of a business whose executives’ only job is “reading each others minutes.”

[Nic2004]

@David Simmons

My problem is that the only source for such updating and revising is the very texts whose viewpoints are in need of updating and revising. This seems to me to be awfully close meeting the conditions for C. Northcote Parkinson’s skepticism about the value and stability of a business whose executives’ only job is “reading each others minutes.”

As to the basic tenets… a loving God and a message to love your fellow man I submit:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

King James Bible, Leviticus 20:13

Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who teaches my hands to wage war, and my fingers to do battle.

The Bible, Psalms 144:1

And I will dash them one against each other, the fathers and the sons, says the Lord. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.

The Bible, Jeremiah 13:14
There is also one about “…shall not suffer unto a witch.” and we all know where that one went. If your children are disrespectful they are to be taken outside the city wall and stoned. If a man and woman commit adultery SHE is to be stoned. Not to mention the times the first child of the entire population is to be killed despite their uninvolvement in the particular sin de jour. I think the modern tenets as they are presented are good one’s but object to the concept that Christianity is a requirement to do good things. I do not say this as a attack on those who hold the Bible in such high regard but as a airing of those areas I have a problem overlooking in order to make the rest seem more palatable.

[amaleota]

Here’s a website that might help you understand .

http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3098.html

I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus was a spiritual genius. I do not take the New Testament literally. However, I think the Old Testament is an accurate history. Jesus had no church and he did not collect money from his believers. He taught a moral code that is still viable today – for me and for many others. It’s free, it’s available, and it works. He taught us to love one another, to be kind and charitable. He taught many things that empower us to live satisfying lives in this this world and to help make the world a better place.

I believe in organized religion because through churches we can organize outreach programs that help others, such as the Chernobyl Project. We also help those in need with food and money, and we do it all year round.

Our church motto is “Open Hearts” “Open Doors” “Open Minds” – and we live it.

I worship because I believe there is a power that is greater than I and I need help from that power. I pray because prayer works for me and I have seen it work for others. I attend worship services becasue I believe that “Where one or more are gathered together, there will I be also.” Worship uplifts me and empowers me to help others and to cope with life’s ups and down.

I belive that God is everywhere, that He is everything. I believe that God is love.

I believe that one can live a full and satisfying life as a Christian and never attend church.

I belive that when Christianity becomes your vocation that making a living is a cinch.

I believe that I can study Buddhism and incorporate it into my Chritianity.

I also enjoy the fellowship that I receive at church services.

Well, I could go on and on, but I hope this helps.

[Nic2004]

First let me say I appreciate the relay and the link. As it happens I am fairly familiar with the UUA and respect the outlook they encourage there. It is probably the closest to my own thinking as a organized religious group can come. I have read of the ideas of Theodore Parker http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1764/parker.html and agree with much of his views.

“I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus was a spiritual genius. I do not take the New Testament literally. However, I think the Old Testament is an accurate history.”

I believe there was a Jesus and that he was a good, wise and liberal Rabbi. Teaching peace and love in an occupied nation while many around him joined in resistance groups may arguably proved wiser considering the way Rome nearly obliterated the Jewish people in the near future. However, I don’t think the OT is as historically accurate as you seem to think. While there is data relating to kings and territories, I think much of it has been fabricated or manipulated to fit into the ends of those telling the stories.

“I believe in organized religion because through churches we can organize outreach programs that help others, such as the Chernobyl Project. We also help those in need with food and money, and we do it all year round.”

I know that good works are done by churches but I also feel that amount spent of helping is puny compared to what’s taken in on a monthly basis. The many large and ornate buildings, property holdings, rare art works and gold trinkets hardly speak well for the efficient use of the money. Additionally, must one buy into a whole life-after-death scenario to do good works? Must Mother Teresa require the starving of India to give up their Hindu traditions and history in order to bring the help for children. Must the soup-kitchens require the homeless to hear endless preaching in order to get a meal and a place to sleep without freezing? Wouldn’t helping for the sake of helping be better?

“Worship uplifts me and empowers me to help others and to cope with life’s ups and down.”

I am happy for you and feel that this may well be one of the purely good and useful purposes in the existence of churches. I also feel that it isn’t necessary to buy the whole line in order to have fellowship and community. These things for their own sake is enough. I believe the Bible to useful as a source of parables and empowering fables but it’s the belief of those who take it as a literal history or document to enrich some and exclude others is the unfortunate result of eons of misapplication