1

I concur. The trilemma is often presented in an unsophisticated, "Betcha can't answer THIS" way, but it is at core an incisive summary of the basic problem: a claim creates a responsibility on those who hear it, and they cannot escape the consequences of their evaluation of that claim.

Cheers,
PGE

2

By D. James Kennedy
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, was a skeptic, a man so hostile to Christianity that he scissored from his Bible all references to miracles. He was, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation tells us, "a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural."

Or was he? While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.

Moreover, his "Notes on Religion," nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ," according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar and author of an enlightening essay on Jefferson's religious life.

So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.

Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.

But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."

Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.

Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Judging from the record, it looks like the wall some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached.

The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare.

3

There is a fourth option. It is that the Gospel accounts of the miracles of Jesus, his claims to divinity, and of his resurrection, are likely spurious. If this were so and yet the Gospel accounts that have to do with his mundance, non-miraculous acts are true, then we may treat him as a mere moral sage.

The Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument presupposes the veracity of the gospel accounts of his life and works. I take it that members of the Jesus seminar doubt just this. Here is what they say about the life and acts of Jesus:

In 1998 the Jesus Seminar published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. In summary: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary, and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. He was baptized by John the Baptist, who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic", though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul (see also Exorcism#Jesus). He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene.(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jesus-seminar)

This is all that they believe can be said with any assurance. On their view, the remainder of the gospel accounts is either not known true or known likely false. Of course I know that you will reject this view, Joe. My point is not that what they say is true. Rather it is that what they say must be shown false if the Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument is to go through.

4

Joe:

Most interesting issue for you to broach -- and brave of you, in the face of the likely torrent of dismissive rhetoric likely to surface even as I type up this comment.

But, you are right, tellingly right: As Christians we should reject the politically correct third way that allows non-Christians to escape the horns of the trilemma. The logic of the “liar, lunatic, Lord” argument forces a choice, one that Jesus himself requires every person to make. You can fall at his feet in adoration, dismiss him as a crank, or pity him as mentally deranged fool. You can even deny the evidence and historical consensus and claim that Jesus never existed. But what you can say is that he was merely a “good man” or a “wise teacher.”

The issue of course came up in a recent exchange with Mumon, and the basic point is that the trilemma exists in a context that FIRST addresses the historicity of Jesus and the challenge of the origin of the church in a Jewish culture in C1 Palestine, then its successful growth and spreading across the Mediterranean world of C1. [Even McDowell does that, BTW, so the straw man arguments over ETDAV should be set to one side, at the outset. BTW, in the Vol I, Vol II form from the 1970's, he takes on modern theology seriously, including a whole, telling essay by C S Lewis.]

[I have seen estimates that suggest that by the end of C1, there were hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Christians, in addition to of course something like 10 million Jews in the Roman world.]

Frank Mason of course already puts one of the two major "escape" arguments on the table: the NT is a fraud, and/or Jesus is a legend. unfortunately, he is evidently unaware that the JS massively begged the question, predetermining the outcome of their votes by the nature of their so-called pillars of scholarly wisdom. While they may have grabbed a lot of headlines, they, for excellent reason, are not taken seriously. [Have a look at Mark D Roberts' discussions online to see why.]

The problem with this JS-style position, in the end, is that there is too much, too early documentation for that to be so, and in fact that is why those who try to make that argument are guilty of selective hyperskepticism. Further to that, there is a bigger problem, aptly put by Morison 76 years ago now, as it is historically certain that the Christian Faith arose as a movement within Judaism in the 30s AD, then thrived and spread in the face of all odds, in a world where its message of a crucified and risen Messiah/Christ was a scandal to Jews and folly to Greeks to whom the body was often seen as the prison of the soul [thus the origin and appeal of C2 Gnosticism, now latterly glamourised by the ill-informed and specious claims in the DVC book and movie]:

“now the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading Missionary!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact . . . “ [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971), pp. 114 – 115.]

Kreeft's online summary [and Joe your link goes to an onward link . . .] is well worth the read, and would save a lot of unnecessary correction of ill-informed comments if it were first read before commenting to dismiss or deflect the force of the trilemma.

His notes on the two major escape attempts are well worth excerpting:

But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes . . . .

[Let's call this Option 4] The first escape is the attack of the Scripture “scholars” on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say “Christian community”—it sounds nicer).

In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creatorwith creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one. . . . . [nor does one create a hoax in order to become an object of scorn, fire and sword] . . . .

[Let's call this option 5] The second escape . . . is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or “adepts” who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said “God”, neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the “illusion” of individuality, as the mystics do . . . .

In short, the problem with “options 4 and 5” is that they may work in the PC atmosphere of the “progressive” C21 seminar room, but simply cannot fit in or work on the ground in C1 Palestine and the wider C1 Mediterranean world. And, that is where they would have to live to be viable historical explanations. Plainly, they are NOT. Neither is hyperskeptically begging the question of the possibility of phenomena beyond the reach of natural regularities as we commonly know them – i.e. miracles.

This more elaborate argument, which starts back in issues of worldviews and core concepts, will also be helpful.

Okay, trust these are helpful.

Grace to all

Gordon

PS TM and PGE, great to see you both commenting.

5

Mr Mason,

Jesus of Nazareth made no claims to divinity at all! The major Christian Church doctrines are not based on the New Testament but arose through the early church fathers' failure to grasp Hebrew modes of thought and expression, especially the New Testament use of the term 'son of God'.

Astounding as this claim my seem, it is possible to demonstrate exhaustively and conclusively that the doctrines of the Miraculous Incarnation, the Trinity, and the various 'divinity' teachings are totally false and have nothing whatever in common with the Jesus of Nazareth presented by the New Testament authors.

6

Generally I'm in agreement with the argument.
Yet it does have one flaw in that it pushes for a conclusion that presumes only one of three possibilities.

It's a b&w fallacy with 3 options instead of just 2. A critic of Christianity might say that Jesus was a combination of ill and misguided, or some other scenario. (IOW, there are in reality more than 3 options.)

For myself as a Christian, Lord is the choice that I made long ago. But for the one who is not a believer there are more than 2 choices.

Collin

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

7

True Collin but the argument does push one to make a choice. Those who want to see Jesus as the REALLY NICE GUY(tm) are likely to balk at having to declare him a lunatic or a liar.

However is this so much an argument but an appeal to emotion. No one likes to call someone they really don't know a lunatic or a liar. Other sceneros exist such as perhaps it was the Gospel writers that were lunatics or liars (or less harshly misinformed). That just pushes off the question of whose going to get the blame BUT if the appeal is one of emotion one can then continue on in their belief that Jesus was just a REALLY NICE GUY(tm) whose story was distorted by other, faceless, agents.

Logically for the argument to work you have to:

1. Prove there are only 3 choices, I don't think this is as hard as it seems. If you lump in the Gospel writers then the choices do group themselves into God, liars or lunatics.

2. Prove one over the other two. This, is where the real action would happen.

8

Boonton,

The problem here is two-fold.
First, the definitions of lunatic and liar are broadened to include the scope of all options between them. That appears disingenuous.
Second, it pushes for a conclusion. Seldom have I seen that as effective argumentation.

IOW, it may well be a useful argument in evangelism, but I still don't se it as academically sound.

Collin

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

9

Terry,

Harper's (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm) and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%27s_Bible) both disagree with your assertion that Jefferson had simply produced an abridged Bible for Native Americans that otherwise fit in with orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the content of Jefferson's Bible was that it excluded the Resurrection, according to wikipedia. Perhaps ditching some miracles such as turning water to wine or some healings might make sense if you feel you need an abridged Bible but ditching the Resurrection says you're trying to do something else besides typical Christian preaching.

Also interesting is the fact that Jefferson did not publish this Bible but only let it circulate among friends. Not exactly evidence that Jefferson was seeking to get a great evangelical tool in the hands of those ministering to the Indians!

On the other hand this does make sense if one considers Jefferson's non-supernatural view of Jesus as a philosopher whose core message became burdened with lots of folklore, mythology and other assorted nonsense. Jefferson figured by stripping out the supernatural elements he was getting at the real Jesus and he was also showing that Jesus's message survives despite, not because of the supernatural claims. In other words his emphasis was on Jesus as philosopher rather than Jesus as God.

Perhaps you could argue that Jefferson was trying not so much to reject the supernatural claims but to de-emphasize them. To present only the human part of Jesus to demonstrate, unlike the trilema assertion, that he was hardly a liar or lunatic but a gifted philosopher. (Indeed, Jesus DOES NOT spend most of the little 'airtime' he gets in the Bible berating people with claims of being God. While he does have real claims to deity status, he is rather softspoken about that aspect of him IMO. A skeptic might indeed wonder if they were added after the fact by overeager fans but if you subtract them I'm not so sure it really is easy to say Jesus was a lunatic. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is not insane nor a lie and many of its core messages have been 'discovered' by non-Christian wise men as well).

Indians might have indeed been Jefferson's intended audience for this at some point. They were unique in American society at that time in that they were not raised with the orthodox Christian belief that Jefferson had so many problems with. Add in the fact that Indians were often idealized with the 'noble savage' myth & perhaps Jefferson really did intend to do evangelical work with them...but not anything like what Joe or Terry would consider evangelicalism.

10

Unless Jefferson changed his opinions nearer his death (I hope he did), he seems to have been as lost as a ball in tall weeds. How sad for such a brilliant man.

Joe Carter:

You said: But what you can say is that he was merely a “good man” or a “wise teacher.”

Shouldn't that be: But what you can *not* say is that he was merely a “good man” or a “wise teacher.”?

11

Second, it pushes for a conclusion. Seldom have I seen that as effective argumentation.

IOW, it may well be a useful argument in evangelism, but I still don't se it as academically sound.

In that case "I don't know" or "there isn't enough evidence to select one option above the others" is an academically sound reply to the question. Emotionally, though, it is not as satisfying as 'knowing' Jesus was just a philosopher or Jesus was God...but then if you don't know that it's better for to be clear about it.

12

Joe: "...a fear of appearing unsophisticated."

You may be relieved to know that in my community this fear appears nonexistent. In fact, a lack of sophistication is often lauded as a virtue, and intellectuals and highly-educated people are often viewed with suspicion and hostility.

"If the first century Palestinian Jew really is God, then his actions become entirely plausible."

Only if you presuppose the existence of God as portrayed in the Bible. A deist would not necessarily believe or even accept as plausible accounts of nature's god acting in ways so unnatural.

"On the other hand, if he is not who he claims to be—or at least who the Gospel writers claim that the claims to be—then we have an obligation to dismiss him completely."

Must one discard valuable teaching because it is juxtaposed with the implausible? Are Washington's and Jefferson's contributions valueless because they were slaveholders? Do Nixon's lies erase the good he did? Shall we dismiss the work of brilliant writers because they are/were mad? I don't think we have any such obligation.

"The logic of the “liar, lunatic, Lord” argument forces a choice, one that Jesus himself requires every person to make."

Your statement is only true if the gospels are true, as Franklin Mason has pointed out. This is the weakness of the trilemma: it is founded upon scriptural inerrancy.

13

Must one discard valuable teaching because it is juxtaposed with the implausible? Are Washington's and Jefferson's contributions valueless because they were slaveholders? Do Nixon's lies erase the good he did? Shall we dismiss the work of brilliant writers because they are/were mad? I don't think we have any such obligation.

Indeed, we often take the scissors to the claims of historical figures all the time. For example, hisotorians usually take Julies Ceasar at his word that he fought the Gauls in what is France today. However they don't usually accept his claim that his family descended from the Roman god of Saturn.

14

Jefferson was a Deist, not a strict Christian. You are in effect doing something similar to criticizing a Mormon for not acting like a Baptist.

15

Rob Ryan said: "This is the weakness of the trilemma: it is founded upon scriptural inerrancy."

Actually, I think it only depends on scriptural reliability. If one shows that the gospels are honest attempts by honest men to tell what they saw and heard (or were taught), then it is hard to dismiss the mountain of evidence that Jesus claimed to be more than a man.

But I agree that use of the trilemma requires to establish the reliability of the gospels first.

16

Reliability is a continuous scale with inerrancy sitting on one extreme and complete fiction sitting on the other.

17

vynette:
"Jesus of Nazareth made no claims to divinity at all!"

John 10:30 "I and [my] Father are one."
John 5:23 "That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father."

Similarly, if I punch you in the head, and Joe says to me, "I forgive you", how would you feel? You would feel less forgiving than before! To forgive sins against God, you must be God. Read the Gospels. On several occasions, when Jesus forgives, the pharisees are enraged, and moved to kill Him. To claim to be God is blasphemy, punishable by death.

18

Boonton:
"Reliability is a continuous scale"...

The New Testament validates itself. pgepps has an excellent post in the forums on how the different books of the New Testament tell of the validity of the others.

19

The problem with the trilemma is that it starts from the assumption that the Gospels are, well, Gospel truth. To someone who doesn't share that assumption, the trilemma argument is nonsensical.

Frankly, I really don't think the "trilemma" is all that sophisticated, and it ignores two badly obvious possibilities: That Jesus was misrepresented (i.e., that the Gospel authors attributed statements to him that he didn't actually make); and that Jesus simply never existed at all.

Setting aside, for the moment, what the evidence is for those options, they are at least logically possible, and simply not accounted for in the trilemma.

So, for example, it's logically possible that Jesus never claimed to be divine, but that some Gospel author wrote that claim into the Gospels. This doesn't make Jesus a liar at all. Or a lunatic, for that matter. In this scenario, Jesus is none of the three. He's simply a great teacher whose exploits were exaggerated after his death. It wouldn't be unheard of.

20

At the time Jesus was preaching, he had competition. Lots of it. Anti-Roman messianic cults were rife in the region, and they shared a core theology of "end times" and "ressurection." Beyond that, we don't know very much except that modern Christianity is a hodge-podge of traditional beliefs that agglutinized over the centuries in order to co-opt existing belief systems whenever possible.

Yet another "choice" to be considered is: "No choice possible - insufficient information." That is, there is no dilemma between belief or disbelief because no coherent question can be structured to frame it. For example, to ask, "is Jesus the son of God?" one would have to clarify what is meant by "god" and by "son" in that context. As long as the basic terms under discussion are undefinable, such questions are essentially meaningless.

However, the Jeffersonian project was admirable, in that he sought to pare away the commentary because he (correctly) understood that it was unreliable. Quoted speech - the precise statements alleged to have been made by Jesus - could be analyzed and re-interpreted at the discretion of the reader.

21

The "I'm not prepared to respond because [...]" option is always available, of course. I don't think that excuses one from the responsibility to inquire, but I have to agree: "L, l, or l, think fast or admit I'm right, I win!" is the kind of argument that this should *not* be.

The point is that one cannot have (with no very sincere apologies to the Jesus Seminar and its flacks) any serious view of the Gospels which preserves *both* the "best moral teacher ever" or "prophet who spoke only truth" reading *and* the "not God, no miracles" reading. They are inseparably intertwined, and neither Jefferson nor the Seminar can effectively separate them.

re nedbrek's rejoinder: "I and my Father are one" is probably inadequate (cf. John 17, where Christ prays "that they all may be one, even as we are one." The unity in view is volitional, not metaphysical). However, there is no way to escape the Deity of Christ in any whole reading of the New Testament. Christ does make the claim (there's a thread on this in the forum, no?).

Cheers,
PGE

22

For those interested, here's the Forum thread:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18

Cheers!
PGE

23

vynette:
"Jesus of Nazareth made no claims to divinity at all!"

In fact a surface reading, of just the synoptics might give you that impression, but a closser reading of say, Mark 8 would lead you to no other conclusion. in fact there are many, many places in the synoptics that Jesus claims divinity, just pick up any decent Liberal, even very Liberal commentary and they will tell you as much.

The whole "son of man" thing was never used by the early church fathers as a divine title. In fact it still isn't, Strange too. But it was understood by the biblical writers, mostly jews (some hellenized i admit) as a divine title referent. but its a very interesting subject. Why an obsure title from daniel?

24

Nebrek and Matthew

"Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that THEY MAY BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE...Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believeth on me through their word, THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee that they also MAY BE IN US. And the glory which thous hast given me, I have given unto them, that they may be one as we are one. I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one..." (John 17:11, 20, 21-23, 26)

Jesus is speaking of an affinity of spirit - of love - binding his disciples, his believers, himself and the Father into one bondage. If the interpretation is made on the basis that Jesus IS the Father, then there is as much authority for saying the same thing of the disciples, for all were to be perfected into one. Has any suggestion ever been made that Peter is Philip or Philip is Matthew simply because they were one? It is just as illogical to suggest that Jesus is the Father, or joined to the Father in any other but the bondage of love.

As to the power to forgive sins, the most quoted text of Mark 2:9 should be read in conjunction with the parallel account of the same incident given in Matthew 9:8 where we learn that the people "...were afraid and glorified God, who had given such power unto men."

It must not be forgotten that the disciples were men who were authorised to forgive sin. It is splitting straws to say that they did it in the name of Jesus, for Jesus himself did it the name of the God who had 'anointed' him.(John 20:21-23).

The term 'son of man' is used 86 or so times in the Book of Ezekiel in reference to that prophet. The origin of the term appears to be Psalm 80:17 "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself."

The Psalms frequently refer to the "man of thy right hand" in passages that are generally held to be 'messianic'.

It is worth remembering that the Hebrew words mean 'son of Adam'.

Finally, "God is not a man that he should lie, neither the SON OF MAN that he should repent"(Num 23:19)

Quotes from KJV

25

The notion that Jesus doesn't claim divinity is ludicrous--as ludicrous as the notion that there is some other way to eternal life.

However, I will admit that if and when I have doubts about my faith, they often come when thinking about the fact that the Bible was written by men inspired by God. The central story of the Bible--that is the incarnation, death and resurrection--is not what's under attack in those moments of doubt. No man could make up a story like that. If that story isn't true, then Christians of all people are the most pitiable, as St. Paul said.

No, my doubts arise when thinking about the writings of St. Paul regarding homosexuality, women in the church, various other issues that are matters of contention within the church itself. Issues that are peripheral to the salvation story are not mountains I want to die on.

The attacks by vynette, Raven, Rob Ryan, Boonton, et. al. seem to suggest that there is an abundance of scholarship debunking the Gospel message. Yup, there is. But I suggest that there is much more scholarship that supports the veracity of the gospels. The Bible is the single most scrutinized book ever written. No other book has the continuity of scholarship and vetting over a period of what--4000 years? People have been trying to refute its message and its authenticity since those poor Roman guards woke up from a strange midday nap, found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. So Vynette et. al. are in good company. Many brilliant scholars and skeptics have tried to kill the story, with the same success.

It's interesting that those posters here who object to the trilemma do so on the basis that it doesn't offer enough choices. They are just so American, aren't they?

26

However they don't usually accept [Caesar's] claim that his family descended from the Roman god of Saturn.

Well, now I'm really disillusioned!

27

jd,

I am not debunking the gospel message at all. In fact, I hope I am one of its most fervent adherents.

What I am saying is that the New Testament DOES NOT SAY what the Christian Churches claim it does. It does not claim that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin. It does not claim that Jesus was 'divine'.

It is only Church doctrines that have imposed all this theological muddling and complexity on what was the simple message of the New Testament.

That simple message was that God had 'anointed' a man, 'born of the seed of David according to the flesh' to speak and act in his name, and to usher in the Kingdom of God on earth.

The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke were not written to announce a virgin-birth, but to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the awaited 'messiah' and that he was entitled by right of descent to sit on the throne of David. If this descent could not be thus proved, the gospel writers would not have been able to claim that Jesus was the 'messiah' or to describe him as the 'King of Israel'.

All this is demonstrable, actually provable, by recourse to the gospels themselves. There is no need to consult any other sources. It is all laid out for us.

I hope that my position is now clear.

28

Yes, vynette, your position is now clear.

Which is why I will not attach any wish for your well-being to this post.

"He who biddeth them godspeed is a partaker of their evil deeds" (I can read the KJV, too.)

Mark and avoid, people, mark and avoid.

PGE

29

All:

Interesting developments overnight. I will pick up on two points that require a tad of clarification.

1] TG: The problem with the trilemma is that it starts from the assumption that the Gospels are, well, Gospel truth.

--> in fact, TG here simply ignores the evident facts that have been adduced above: BEFORE getting to the trilemma, even McDowell [much less Kreeft, Lewis, etc] first addresses the historicity of Jesus and the authenticity and credibility of the NT -- broader than just the Gospels [the FIRST NT writings are probably the Pauline Epistles, exactly where we find the strongest, most explicit staements of Christology] as historical documents.

--> Cf on this the late, great Professor F F Bruce's classic discussion here, for a starter. [NB: 10 chapters worth of reading -- I was astonished to discover this online recently!]

--> It is in light of that credible historicity and the issues it raises that we then turn to the issue raised by the historically credible NT documents AND the associated origin and success of the Christian church.

--> In short, this all too commonly resorted to talking point fails, once one is even basically familiar with the relevant facts.

2] Vynette: I am not debunking the gospel message at all. In fact, I hope I am one of its most fervent adherents. What I am saying is that the New Testament DOES NOT SAY what the Christian Churches claim it does. It does not claim that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin. It does not claim that Jesus was 'divine'. It is only Church doctrines that have imposed all this theological muddling and complexity on what was the simple message of the New Testament. That simple message was that God had 'anointed' a man, 'born of the seed of David according to the flesh' to speak and act in his name, and to usher in the Kingdom of God on earth.

--> Onlookers: I suspect this is Mormon theology [or possibly certain versions of Islam] or the like that we are seeing, but that interesting speculation is not the key point.

--> I observe PGE's comment, but also think I should note for onlookers who may not know the relevant facts of the NT and C1, so they will not imagine that here is no answer to the questions implied by V's comments [1 Peter 3:15 - 16] Let me therefore address several claims briefly, within the context of biblical religion and thought:

a] THE CHURCH "DISTORTION" THESIS: The correlation between the NT and the creeds is a matter of inspection, not dismissive statements. We need to particularly reckon here with the implications of the point that within living memory of Jesus, the NT was written and the church was initiated – so there was simply not enough time for the material distrotions alleged to have occurred to develop. In that process it is wise to heed the warning of the Apostle Peter:

2PE 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

--> it is common in circles such as those I mentioned above to try to set a barrier between Christ ainity and an alleged distorted paulianity. This of course ignores that Paul was commissioned by Jesus through specific revelatory encounter [Ac 9, 22, 25 – 6] and that he lived, worked among and had his teachings approved by the Jerusalem circle of leaders, e.g. Ac 15 and Gal 1 – 2. Cf my remarks here, on the Islamic objections to Paul, and here on the broader issue of the coherence and credibility of the concept and teaching of the Trinity.

b] VIRGINAL CONCEPTION: Here, let Mt and Lk speak:

MT 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

MT 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

MT 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin [PARTHENOS -- and NB Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Septuagint] will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

MT 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. [Cf Lk 1:26 - 38.]

c] DEITY OF CHRIST: Here, the NT as a whole is quite explicit, most notably in Rom, Col and Heb:

RO 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord [KURIOU -- a standard Septuagint title of Deity]].

COL 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created [ the act of Deity]: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things[ eternal self-exitence], and in him all things hold together [the providential power of Deity]. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy [cf Phil 2:5 - 11 and Isa 45:18 - 23, nb this first is a C1 church hymn]. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him[that is we see here the incarnation of Deity, cf Jn 1:1 - 14], 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

HEB 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs . . . . HEB 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship [Cf. Matt 4:8 - 10, Rev 2:8 - 9] him."

d] JESUS' CLAIMS IN THE GOSPELS: Jesus in fact both implied and explicitly claimed deity. in addressing this in this way, I am of course building on the issue addressed to TG above -- there is good reason to believe the NT preserves the accurate record of Jesus, his life, ministry, teachings and church. A sampling:

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

MK 2:6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

MK 2:8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth [the only known place in the universe where sins are being forgiven] to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Jn 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. "

JN 8:39 "Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does" . . . .

JN 8:52 . . . the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

JN 8:54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

JN 8:57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

JN 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him . . . .

24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

JN 10:31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

JN 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." . . .

Sadly, the case is plain enough . . . let us pray for V and others like her, in light of Ac 11:18 and 2 Tim 2:24 - 6.

+++++++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes to the truth

Gordon

30

vynette reminds me of David Klinghoffer who wrote "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus." In fact, I had to go back and read the beginning of her post where she says: "I hope I am one of its most fervent adherents." Klinghoffer is an orthodox Jew and would not be a fervent adherent, and I guess therefore vynette is not Jewish. Mullings thinks it's Mormonism, but don't the Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ? Sounds more like Islam, Gordon. Anyway, my reaction to vynette is about the same as to Klinghoffer, absolute revulsion. Though with Klinghoffer it's tempered with some sad hopefulness since there is a kind of bond between Jews and Christians. Even though I know it happens all the time, vynette's absolute rejection of our Lord is shocking, especially in someone who claims to know the Gospels so well.

While I agree with PGEpps' sentiments, where exactly are you getting the words: "He who biddeth them godspeed is a partaker of their evil deeds"?

I think there are passages in the Bible that actually speak to us about someone like vynette. I John 2:22, 26; I John 4: 1-3; and especially the last part of this verse I John 5:16: "If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that."

Those last two sentences are scary stuff.

31

Gordon you're priceless. I always enjoy your well researched and thought out comments.
jd the quote is from 1 John 1:11 but starts "For he that" not "He who" in the KJV.

32

Seems sometimes the simplest, most unsophisticated option is the truth. The authors of the gospels were much closer to Jesus than I. Why should I think I know more than they at this point? True, I have to accept or reject their message, and then maybe the options are really only two. Accept as written, or invent your own version for whatever reason.

33

Rather than adhering to Islam, I would suggest that vynette is a Jehovah's Witness.

34

I second that, Daniel.

35

21st Century Fox presents...

The Return of the Witchfinder General

Starring: Eppusu-sensei in the title role, and a cameo appearance by Gordon M. as Torquemada. Vynette plays V. Our story opens in a smokey dungeon wherein the cries of the tortured are heartbreakingly pitieous.

Witchfinder: "Now speak up, thou spawn of Satan, thou - wherefore dost thou speak thine heretical assertions?"

V: "No heresy Master Witchfinder! I've simply used the mind God gave me and looked to his Holy Word for guidance."

Torque: "Thou liest, Hellborne. Why, Mark 2:6 and Romans 1:1 dispute thy demonic imputations in full. [reads them aloud] Truly, 'tis a moment's inattention to stray from the Godly path, yet the way back is often quite... painful."

Witchfinder: "Enough dissembling. Our little Philistine, now it is becometh thee to name names!"

V: "Truly, m'lord, I meant no disrespect to this most August of bodies, and only spoke my mind as I thought most honest and forthright."

Witchfinder: "So you say... [Thumbing through his well-worn copy of Malleus Maleficarum] But be it known that any such identified blasphemer must be marked and cast out from our midst, lest we be led astray from such Gnostic heresies." [picks up a branding iron in the shape of the letter 'H']

V: "No! Stay I tell thee - I only ask what questions any congregationist of free thought might!"

Torque: "This catechism I do not know. Mark the heretic forthwith!"

36

Raven,

I'm struck dumb...no, I'm not! I'll treasure your 'play'. I've been called many names, alternately cursed and prayed over, but this is the very first time that another 'blogger' has actually penetrated the theological fog to behold the essence of my stance. As for putting in the effort to convey it in such a meaningful and timeless fashion too...well...what can I say but thank you.

The author of John's gospel also understood the power that drama has to make issues timeless and explicit by presenting Jesus of Nazareth as the central sufferer in a dramatic tragedy.

Sorry for going on so much but I'm sort of 'gobsmacked'.

I guess I won't be commenting here again so 'fare thee well'.
Kind regards
Vynette

37

As pointed out on this thread, the Trilemma does depend upon the accuracy of the New Testament, but this does not nullify the argument because of support for another trilemma: as I suggest elsewhere, either the Biblical writers lied about Jesus' claims to divinity, gravely misunderstood Him, or told the truth. The task is to show why it is highly improbable that they lied or misunderstood. This is very much like Bill Craig's argument for the Resurrection.

38

All:

Sad isn't it that a gentle, fact-based correction that points out the plain, easily accessed NT statements that have been explicitly denied by one who claims to be following the religion expressed in those documents, is confused with the crimes of a power-mad torturer!

Raven: your resort to inappropriate and bigoted name-calling are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top. [This also reflects an underlying sadly self-blind hostility and projection of extremism that are sadly revealing about the gaps in the thinking of too many secularists -- and that after a century in which secularist schemes have slaughtered over 100 millions. I think you need to reflect on the Christian historian, Lord Acton's words: power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and nowhere will you ever find me advocating for absolute power in the hands of any fallen human being, cf. here. Cho man do betta dan dat!]

And BTW, R, it is PGE who spoke about marking one who refuses to be corrected by the facts in wrong teaching, citing the Apostles who said that after reasonable correctives have been refused, one should not waste further time and breath on foolish debate or squabbling. [There is nothing in the context of the NT remarks such as I cited that ever suggests Torquemada's proverbial torture chambers.]

Anyway, some notes on a few points:

1] Daniel and TM: Mormonism, Islam or Watchtower?

I am not sure on the specific error V has unfortunately been enmeshed in, and from her remark, it seems she has no intention to try to defend her claims, or – even more sadly -- to seriously assess the facts she has overlooked in coming to her position.

However, I do think that in Mormonism, there is a vast plurality of gods and potential gods each with their own little planet to rule. So far as I can make out the system [and I invite correction if this is grossly wrong], Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, the first two spirit children of Jehovah by his heavenly wives. In turn, Jehovah was a good Mormon on a planet about was it the star Kohlrab, who got his own planet to be the god of. So, Jesus counts as a son of God, not strictly Divine in the trinitarian sense -- a rather Gnosticish sort of thing, with a C19 flavour, complete with plagiarising of a novel – Walter Martin's parallel columns in his classic The Kingdom of the Cults are all too revealing.

Islam and the Watchtower in this regard are fairly close as in each Jesus is emphatically a mere man, a prophet. [In neither case do they seriously engage the NT or the implications of say Jesus' habitual reference to himself as the Son of Man, in light of the context of Dan 7:13 - 14 and the Jewish thought of the day.]

Let us pray that she, Raven and others caught up in such errors will wake up and repent before it is too late.

2] Mike O: thanks for the kind words.

3] Simon:

Interesting blog. Your 2nd Trilemma is also an interesting way to conceptualise the issue of NT reliability and accuracy of the church traditions.

Methinks, though, that there is a tendency to disregard the actual context in which the Trilemma was presented by even so lowly a figure as McDowell -- AFTER the issues of historical reliability and Jewish context had already been discussed. So we are seeing a strawman mischaracterisation, though perhaps understandable in light of the rhetorical power of the trilemma formulation and the temptation to present it out of context.

I also think that we need to think back to the context of the 1970's, so we can recognise that the sort of talking point TG trotted out above is in light of the initial impact of the McDowell case changed the climate of the debate. [As a student back then, I vividly recall the impact of sharing McDowell's summary on the historicity of Jesus late one Sunday afternoon with another student just outside the study room of my Hall of Residence. He had never before heard of any extra-biblical documentation on Jesus, and had therefore hitherto simply doubted Jesus' existence, and was surprised to read for himself in my copy of the original edition of Evidence, Vol I, what Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius et al had to say. To his credit, he immediately revised his opinion o the historicity of Jesus.]

It is a little unfair to both ignore the textual context of the trilemma argument, and the historical evolution of the debate since the argument was presented in popular form to great effect thirty years ago.

I note also that subsequently, the latest edition prunes the arguments, and adds a major section on the philosophical issues currently at stake. We might have wished for more in the 1999 revision, but let us be grateful for the major work of 30 years ago and its positive impact.

+++++++++++++

Grace be with us all

Gordon

39

Gordon

"He who biddeth them godspeed is a partaker of their evil deeds" (I can read the KJV, too.)

Mark and avoid, people, mark and avoid.

and

"Anyway, my reaction to vynette is about the same as to Klinghoffer, absolute revulsion."

and

"I think there are passages in the Bible that actually speak to us about someone like vynette. I John 2:22, 26; I John 4: 1-3; and especially the last part of this verse I John 5:16: "If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that."

Gordon, these comments could never be considered as "gentle, fact-based corrections". Raven has made an honest assessment of the 'bigotry' and 'name calling' demonstrated in these comments and has penetrated the appearances of things to behold the reality which we all must face. And that reality is - do we hold fast to our God-given reason, which just happens to concur with the New Testament record, or do we hold fast to doctrines that have been inculcated into us and our forebears since time immemorial? After all, doesn't it say "Come, let us reason together"?

Perhaps I assumed to much in thinking that my comments would not henceforth be welcome on this blog. Do not imagine for one moment that I am not prepared to stand up and scripturally support every statement I have made.

If you still wish to engage in debate with me, you can indicate just which statement I have made that you would like me to defend.

40

PS: on a point of reference:

2JN 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh [i.e. the incarnation, cf 1 Jn 4:1 - 2!], have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching [i.e. the authentic, historic, C1 apostolic tradition preserved in the NT] has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

PGE was alluding to v 11 in the KJV. I have cited NIV.

GEM

41

V:

Kindly note that I can only speak for myself. Look above and you will see that you are excerpting remarks by others, not me. Let PGE speak for himself, but kindly do not put his words into my mouth.

You will also observe that I have adduced specific evidence that what you have asserted is ill-founded and have invited serious dialogue under 2 Tim 2:24 - 26 as I understand it.

If you show yourself unwilling and unable to justify your extreme claims as made above regarding the church as a whole, it would then be plain that it is you who have indulged in irresponsible namecalling, and have invited the just rebuke that you have committed the error described in 2 Jn as just cited. In short, given what you have already said, absent evidence that you can either substantiate the charge adequately or are willing to be corrected, PGE is fully justified. [But on the record of the above, I think he was somewhat hasty. Please don't prove his judgement right.]

Finally, there is a world of difference between:

[a] pointing out issues, references and facts that correct an error, and on the other hand

[b] indulging in torture, forcing people to try to defend themselves from anonymous vague accusations and then burning at the stake, which is what Torquemada and his ilk reportedly and notoriously did -- as Raven in effect accused e of

I think any fair reading of the above will show that a more accurately describes what I did, not b.

Now, you are free and welcome to justify your claims if you can. but we are equally free to fact-check.

So far, on the evidence in hand, your claims have come up woefully short. Playing the victim card in a context where you have accused a great many people of the most grievous distortion and deception is not good enough. It is also a well-known rhetorical tactic of any one of a great many cults and skeptical movements that impresses the ill-informed but on the evidence of long experience does not stand serious scrutiny..

So, over to you: WHAT IS YOUR DECISIVE AND PLAIN EVIDENCE THAT THE CHURCH HORRENDOUSLY DISTORTED THE ORIGINAL RELIGION OF A JESUS WHO DID NOT CLAIM DEITY? (Failing such decisive evidence, it is you, sadly, who have unjustly and without provocation attacked others, and their strong response is well merited. Please, think again.)

And, finally, finally, please consider what you are doing: side-tracking a thread discussing a serious, major issue in apologetics. If you wish to show that Jesau did not claim divinity, address that at the proper level.

Thanks.

+++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

42

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Vynette, but I was simply being honest about how I feel when someone attacks what I hold to be the single most important thing in my life. Maybe revulsion was not the best word--how about anger, repulsion, disgust, sadness--whatever it was, it was very strong. You attack the foundation of my life and you expect what, exactly? Your attacks feel, literally, like a punch in the stomach.

You step into this forum, expressing great knowledge of Jesus and His gospels, but completely disregard and dismiss the central point of them. I point out passages in the Bible that speak directly about people who profess great knowledge of the truth and yet reject it. By my reading of the Bible you are someone in grave danger. That is my opinion based on Scripture. Gordon says we should pray for you. I quoted a verse that says maybe we shouldn't pray for someone like you. That verse is there as a warning to Christians whose God-given inclination is to feel compassion for the lost. Make no mistake. You are articulate, apparently well-educated, (in my experience unlike most Jehovah's Witnesses) and seemingly well-adjusted. But I think you are lost.

Now is that also name-calling and bigotry?

Please don't refer to Raven to support your positions. He has not demonstrated anything resembling name-calling or bigotry. He has simply done what he does best--exaggerate and ridicule in an entertaining and creative way. In fact, I'm almost certain that he posts at another blog as either Heckle or Jeckle.

43

I would like to make one more observation. There is a tendency of many critics of our faith--who don't believe as we do about the way to eternal life and the existence of heaven and hell--who are strangely offended when we say we believe they are going to spend eternity in hell. If they don't believe, why do they care what WE believe? Our beliefs about where they spend eternity certainly have no meaning for them, since it's not true for them, (right?;). Our beliefs about the afterlife have no impact on them in their present lives. Yet it's amazing how many non-Christians are offended if you tell them what your faith tells you about what the after life holds for non-believers.

44

Ahem: jd, I post widely across the blogosphere, particularly in venues that examine the philosophy of language and linguistics. For the past seven years I have used the Raven as my nomme de guerre, exclusively. Besides, Heckle and Jeckle were crows.

45

Interesting.

Vynette expresses his/her opinion and jd feels "anger, repulsion, disgust, sadness" and as if he's been "punched in the stomach." At the same time, jd is puzzled that anyone is offended by his opinion that they will burn in hell forever. Hmmmm.

46

Now that the heretic police have had their say I would like it if Vynette explored this statement a bit more:

What I am saying is that the New Testament DOES NOT SAY what the Christian Churches claim it does. It does not claim that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin. It does not claim that Jesus was 'divine'.

Gordon's July 25th post might be a good place to start. The Bible quotes do seem to say that Mary was a Virgin, hence Jesus's conception and birth would be miracles. Additionally while you don't define what you mean by divine there do seem to be passages inthe Bible where Jesus is saying he is something much more than just a man with a message.

I am curious as to how you come to your conclusions. Are you reading the quotes in a different way or do you feel that those passages are not legitimate for some reason?

47

Boonton,

My position is that the early Church fathers imposed onto these passages perceptions from their own Graeco-Roman world view. This world view was replete with mythological images of 'virgin births' and 'semi-divine heroes'. The doctrines built up around the person of Jesus of Nazareth are not drawn from the New Testament and do not reflect Hebrew Christianity.

Rather, they reflect an ignorance of Hebrew modes of thought and expression, particularly in the use of the term 'son of God'.

These doctrines actually distort the relationship between the 'creature' and the 'Creator' and what we, as creatures, owe to our Creator. It was this very relationship and duty that Jesus was 'anointed' to embody and demonstrate.

Gordon has asked me not to continue diverting this thread onto the topic of 'divinity' so I must honour his request.

All of the statements I have made can be challenged on my own blog if any desire to do so.

48

My position is that the early Church fathers imposed onto these passages perceptions from their own Graeco-Roman world view. This world view was replete with mythological images of 'virgin births' and 'semi-divine heroes'. The doctrines built up around the person of Jesus of Nazareth are not drawn from the New Testament and do not reflect Hebrew Christianity.

What is your evidence (as opposed to opinion) of this, especially since most of the early Church fathers were Jews, not Romans or Greeks? Paul, in particular lead the stoning of Stephen for heresy against the Jewish faith, not for heresy against Zeus or Jupiter.

49

A couple comments.

To vynette: Gordon is not in charge of this blog or the comments section. You have no obligation to honor his requests.

To unfengr: The term "church fathers" does not encompass Paul.

From wikipedia:

"The Church Fathers or Fathers of the Church are the early and influential theologians and writers in the Christian Church, particularly those of the first five centuries of Christian history. The term is used of writers and teachers of the Church, not necessarily saints. It is generally not meant to include the New Testament authors, though in the early Church some writing of Church Fathers were considered canonical.

"Those fathers who wrote in Latin are called the Latin (Church) Fathers, and those who wrote in Greek the Greek (Church) Fathers. Famous Latin Fathers include the Montanist Tertullian, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Jerome; famous Greek Fathers include St. Irenaeus of Lyons (whose work has survived only in Latin translation), Clement of Alexandria, the heterodox Origen, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, and the Three Cappadocian Fathers."

50

Onlookers:

We can, sadly, see further assertions and inferences threfrom, rather than substantiation or even linking to the case V has to make if she is to sustain the sort of very strong accusations she has made in the above.

Time for a little more fact-checking and analysis; which will reveal how far this is now side-tracked from the force of the trilemma, but in the end it eventually applies as the concept of Greek or other pagan legends imposed on an original hebraic faith is one way to try to try to subvert it.

I will therefore note on:

1] V: My position is that the early Church fathers imposed onto these passages perceptions from their own Graeco-Roman world view. This world view was replete with mythological images of 'virgin births' and 'semi-divine heroes'.

--> The obvious first take on this is that the first writing church fathers which we have records of -- Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp --come from the period ~ 95 - 10 AD, and they CITE and allude to the C1 NT as authoritative, in aggregate. In Barnett's summary, they credibly so use 25 of the 27 NT books in recognisable form in their discussion, missing out only two of the very shortest. That is, the sub apostolic church fathers CITE habitually the NT [and the OT too] as their authority, over against especially the pagans. (ONLOOKERS SHOULD NOTE THAT IN THE ABOVE, IT IS THE NT THAT I HAVE CITED, NOT CHURCH FATHERS' SPECULATIONS.)

--> Second, we can easily enough cite from the earliest surviving court documents of cases against the Christians, the trial summary of Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia 111 - 113 AD. The following excerpt from Pliny's letter to Trajan is revealing:

An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons [accused of being Christians]. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. [i.e. not cannibalism -- the distortion of the Lord's super then current as a malicious accusation, cf. also Tertullian's Apology on other prevalent false accusations of debauchery] Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition . . . . the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.[Cf. also some notes here.]

--> This devil's-eye view is telling:

(a) Christ worshipped in regular services through antiphonal hymns, conjoined to abandonment of the pagan temples and their services to the point that the latter were in effect largely abandoned: strong proof that this new faith was strongly in opposition tot he pagan system of thought and life. [Interesting, too, to see the pagan, topsy-turvy view on "repentance" and "reformation"!]

(b) refusal to curse Jesus and worship pagan gods or the Emperor [including, especially, refusing to confess "Caesar is Lord"] as a notorious test of such commitment.

(c) regular worship meetings and in them an emphasis on high moral character, financial integrity and behaviour in accordance with the principles of righteousness as outlined in OT and NT. [Cf. Rom 13:1 - 10]

(d) church offices including the daiconate, here in the form of two women who were slaves -- scandalous to the Romans [who would view this as a subversion of the "proper" social order]

(e) perception that Christianity was a POLITICAL threat, i.e. an inference from the Christian confession JESUS IS LORD joined to refusal to confess Caesar as Lord in a context of worshipping him, plus subversive orgsanisational structures -- e.g. female slave deacons as leaders!

--> This pattern is instantly recognisable, and shows that by the turn of C2, the faith once for all delivered to the saints was long since established [i.e. the reported declensions from the faith date to from about the turn of the 70s AD, implying a movement there from about the 50's to 69's, which dovetails neatly with 1 Peter, addressed in part to precisely JEWISH Christians scattered abroad in Bithynia] on the fringes of the Roman world.

--> Secondly, the pattern of worship addressed to Jesus as Son of God and risen Lord identified in the NT as cited above is actually here corroborated by a Roman official in trial documents, and dated as from the turn of the 70's at least [112 - 40 = 72]. This is of course decades before the era of the church fathers, and reflects precisely the apostolic era.

--> Further, the texts already cited are fairly explicit and direct on their credibly C1 view of Jesus. This in particular includes the most militantly hebraic and anti- Greek syncretism NT document, i.e. cf the cite from the opening passage from Hebrews above. [Further reading: cf. Nash's work, The Gospel and the Greeks, written to correct the outdated but still popular views on a mythical hellenised Christianity.]

2] The doctrines built up around the person of Jesus of Nazareth are not drawn from the New Testament and do not reflect Hebrew Christianity.

--> First, I have explicitly cited the NT on the subject, at fair length, and these texts do affirm the deity of Christ, and come from Hebrew Christian leaders of the C1 church: Matthew, Paul, Peter etc.

--> Note, too, the claim that Jesus was a VIRGIN-born Saviour is in the gospel of Matthew, through citing the Septuagint [parthenos, indubitably explicitly VIRGIN] form of Isaiah. The pagan stories alluded to are the very opposite: gods having sex with pretty girls who then in the natural course gave birth -- and certainly not by virginal conception! -- to demigods and heroes. Jesus is exactly NOT a parallel to say a Heracles. [NB: it is the MUSLIMS who make that conflation, not he NT.]

--> If you wish to assert that the NT as we have it is grossly and materially distorted or fraudulent, kindly provide authentic copies of the undistorted materials and credibly explain the pattern of citations, manuscripts and the like we have from turn of C2 on, not to mention the testimony at trial just summarised.

--> In particular, to credibly base your claims, you will need to show on evidence, not just assert, that the concept of Jesus' deity was a later innovation in the church coming from the Gentiles, not an original position. In so doing, you will need to show how there came to be such a loud silence among those church leaders deriving from tthe Apostles in a direct chain of contact -- such as Polycarp and his pupil Irenaeus -- on the subversion of the "original" Christianity. [Remember, when Jerome did serious scholarship and created a new, more accurate translation into Latin, there was a loud hue and cry over the older translations into Latin, much like the modern KJV-only movement. Similarly, when Uthman suppressed variants of the Quran, backed up by precisely what the early Christians did not have, state power, traces and even copies of variants survived down to today.]

3] Rather, they reflect an ignorance of Hebrew modes of thought and expression, particularly in the use of the term 'son of God'.

--> H'mm. Let's go back to the cite above, from John 10:

JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

JN 10:31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

JN 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." . . .

--> That is plain enough on the import of "Son of God" as Jesus used it. Recall, Jn is the text in the Rylands fragment from ~ 125 AD, preserving in fragmentary form a record of Jesus' trial before Pilate:

JN 18:31 Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," [an allusion tot he blasphemy charge rooted in Jesus' confession to be the Son of God and usage of Daniel 7:13 - 14, which gives the significance of Son of Man] the Jews objected. 32 This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

JN 18:33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" . . . .

JN 18:37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

JN 18:38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.

--> Of course the trumped up charge of subversion against Caesar by claiming to be king in the usual worldly , was then backed up with the threat to report Pilate to his sponsor and "friend." This issued in the crucifixion. Crucifixion, in turn was precisely a strong proof to the hebraic mindset of that time that Jesus was accursed of God: cursed is he who hangs on a tree. Crucifixion was in the pagan mind the most ignoble of deaths – that is precisely why it was used, to demonstrate to all and sundry in public what inexorable horrors happened to those who dared defy the powers that ruled the day [think of the 6,000 crosses lining the Appian Way when Spartacus was defeated] – and a resurrection of the dead was ridiculous. For, they hoped rather to escape the soul's prison

--> This is precisely the sort of thing that is reflected in say the C2 Gospel of Judas which is part of precisely the hellenised heretical “Christianity” that we do have historical record of: the “real” Jesus uses Judas to escape the prison of his body, and sits laughing on a tree as that body suffers and is publicly shamed. Thus, in that topsy-turvy heretical work, Judas is elevated from traitor to the truest disciple of all.

--> in short, the Christian Faith int eh NT is precisely derived from the hebraic tradition, through the claim that Jesus is the messiah that completes the religion of Israel as suffering servant, Saviour and risen Lord. It is alienated from the hebraic thought of the day for elevating a crucified messiah, and fromt eh Greek thought of the day for exclusively worhiping a crucified and risen God. In short, Christian faith is non-pareil. Thus we see Paul's observation in:

1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. . . . . 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

--> Let us supplement a bit from Philippians and Isaiah:

PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

PHP 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

PHP 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

PHP 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

PHP 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,

PHP 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

PHP 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
_______________

ISA 45:18 For this is what the LORD says--
he who created the heavens,
he is God . . .
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other . . .

ISA 45:20 "Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.

ISA 45:21 Declare what is to be, present it--
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

ISA 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

ISA 45:23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.

ISA 45:24 They will say of me, `In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.' "
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.

--> The former of course is just exactly one of those early Christian hymns of the sort Pliny discussed, cited by Paul in one of his epistles. The latter is its source text. The implications are plain enough: from C1, Christians [including hebraic Apostles] freely attrributed to Jesus texts speaking of YHWH, the only God and Saviour, before whom the nations would bow the knee. This leads us precisely back tot he doctrine of Incarnation of God the Son, as Saviour that lies at the core of the NT.

--> So, plainly, Jesus was viewed in a way that only God who took on the tent of human flesh and dwelt among us could be. Onlookers: I think it is a fairer summary to say that the Triune concept of God was driven by the evidence in hand in the church's experience of Jesus before and after the crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension, and the scriptures, as I have discussed in more details here.

+++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

PS: UCF -- thanks. Ex -- I nowhere attempted to claim any administrative power in this thread, only to plead for keeping on track. I also note that Paul was indeed not a Father, but rather an APOSTLE and the greatest Christian missionary-theologian-philosopher-rhetor of all time.

51

PPD: Correction -- the perils of working from a memory. I forgot that it was 25 years in the Pliny cite. This puts us to the 80s - 90s for declension, and thence to the prevcious decades for he origins of Christianity in Bithynia, which fits with the ~ 60 AD letter of 1 Peter. Forgive this error, kindly.

52

"Also interesting is the fact that Jefferson did not publish this Bible but only let it circulate among friends. Not exactly evidence that Jefferson was seeking to get a great evangelical tool in the hands of those ministering to the Indians!"

Kennedy, as usual, is full of it. Jefferson's Bible had nothing to do with evangelizing the Indians, but rather had everything to do with his skepticism regarding which parts of the Bible were legitimate and which parts weren't.

And it wasn't just Jefferson who felt this way. If you read their correspondence John Adams was as much of an anti-Trinitarian/anti-Calvinist Christian as was Jefferson. Indeed, it appears that almost all of the key-Whig Founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin) believed the same way on these issues. They were all likely theological Unitarians who thought Jesus was a great moral teacher and not God (Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin unquestionably were; Madison almost certainly was; and Washington likely was. Although Washington was the most silent on the specific details of his creed).

53

"Kennedy, as usual, is full of it. Jefferson's Bible had nothing to do with evangelizing the Indians, but rather had everything to do with his skepticism regarding which parts of the Bible were legitimate and which parts weren't."

Jon Rowe, as usual, talks as if we should take his word for it. Do you have any proof for any of the stuff you say?

54

JD:

You've got to be more specific when you ask me for proof? Proof of what claim?

If you've read my blogs you would see, I've meticulously researched the primary sources, and that for almost every claim I make I document such sources. Generally I don't even trust the words of scholars whom I respect themselves, but feel a need to go to the actual words (or deeds) of the Founders themselves.

55

Gordon,

My position continues to be misunderstood.

"If you wish to assert that the NT as we have it is grossly and materially distorted or fraudulent..."

I do not assert this. I have never asserted this.

"Secondly, the pattern of worship addressed to Jesus as Son of God and risen Lord identified in the NT as cited above is actually here corroborated by a Roman official in trial documents, and dated as from the turn of the 70's at least [112 - 40 = 72].
This is of course decades before the era of the church fathers, and reflects precisely the apostolic era."

I do not question that Jesus was addressed and referred to as the 'Son of God' in the New Testament.

"JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe.
The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one."

Your quotes from John 10 actually reinforce John's presentation of Jesus as God's Word of Eternal Life made flesh.

In John 17, Jesus himself expands upon what he meant when he said "I and the Father are one":

"Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that THEY MAY BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE...
Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believeth on me through their word,
THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee that they also MAY BE IN US.
And the glory which thous hast given me, I have given unto them, that they may be one as we are one.
I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one..." (John 17:11, 20, 21-23, 26)

Jesus is speaking of an affinity of spirit - of love - binding his disciples, his believers, himself and the Father into one bondage.
If the interpretation is made on the basis that Jesus IS the Father, then there is as much authority for saying the same thing of the disciples, for all were to be perfected into one.

"JN 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

You have ommitted the next verses which clearly explain the usage of the term 'God' and 'son of God' in this passage.

Jesus castigates the Jews for not understanding their own scriptures - for not understanding that those 'unto whom the word of God came' were themselves 'Gods'. On his reasoning, Moses and the prophets were also 'Gods'.

"34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

These passages may be taken to exemplify what the early church fathers failed to grasp - that 'sonship' of God is not restricted to Jesus, that it is of an 'ethical', not 'biological' nature, and that Jesus was 'anointed' with plenipotentiary powers to speak and act in the NAME of the Father.

Gordon, all of the scripture passages you have cited in your post can be readily understood by application of the standards outlined above, by application of the standards set by Jesus himself.

56

Vynette explains this very much in the sense that I read the text. By the way, Gordon, were you aware that vynette maintains a religious weblog and is a published author on these topics?

57

If anyone wants to read a good takedown of the notion that the "Jefferson Bible" was constructed for educating the Indians, I suggest this article by a 17-year-old high school senior, who, I understand is a homeschooled conservative Christian.

It seems as though * surpise surprise * David Barton has had a hand in perpetrating this myth. Almost all of the spurious claims advanced by the "Christian Nation" crowd lead back to Barton.

This bright young highschool senior seems to have surpassed Barton in level of scholarship skills.

It's a shame that Barton is known as the "lesson planner" for the Christian homeschool crowd. There are a lot of bright minds there and they clearly deserve better.

58

Note that in the Gospel Jesus used the word small g god, which often meant magistrate, angel, or judge in Hebrew. He was explaining to the Jews who wanted to kill him, in effect -- look you hippocrates, even the psalms uses the term gods in reference to men, so don't don't get so upset. Surely it was in order for the Messiah himself to make claims to divinity given that even the non-divine held that sobriquet in a figurative sense. But readers note, that the Psalm 82 continues the verse, " But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes." In other words, even though you have a lofty title, you are only just men.

The following verses should put to rest the question of Christ's divinity.

God the Father said:

"Understand that I am he:before me there was not God formed , neither shall there be after me. I, even I am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43 10-11)

I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
(Isaiah 44:6)

Jesus said,

"I am that I am."

I am the Alpha and Omega the begining and the ending.

I am the begining and the ending. I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore. (Revelation 1:17)

59

Correction:

"Understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed , neither shall there be after me. I, even I am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43 10-11)

60

V writes;

Jesus castigates the Jews for not understanding their own scriptures

This is a very telling point. You are correct that Jesus does castigate the Jews for not understanding their own scriptures.

There are two points here. One I believe we agree on but would like to confirm and t