RE: Essay about errancy

I guess my issue with this boils down to: physically, did many dead
people come alive and walk around Jerusalem or did they not? It's either
historically accurate or it is not. Just the same, either Jesus came
back from the dead physically and literally, or he did not. Ravi
Zacharias is right: It's either/or, not both/and.

=20

Does anyone know of any historical documentation about this incredible
event? If not, I am left wondering why anything in these accounts should
be taken as a physical fact, such as the resurrection of one man, if the
resurrection of many men is not literal and physical.

=20

I find all this arguing about the purpose and interpretation of
scripture interesting, but ultimately unproductive to the investigative
question of: what evidence have historians found to corroborate the
resurrection of many saints seen by many in Jerusalem? Furthermore, what
is there to differentiate the miraculous accounts of Matthew and other
gospels from miraculous tales found in other ancient literature?

=20

No one really answered my question about the analogy to 9-11. I still
think it a valid analogy. If two accounts about 9-11 are written in 30
years, and one of them says many men came back from the rubble and were
seen by inhabitants in Manhattan, while the other does not, but only
mentions one man, and people who supposedly saw the events did not write
about it 50 days later, what is more reasonable to believe: that the
account with many men seen in Manhattan contains deliberate falsehood or
theological embellishment, or that it factually details a literal event,
the likes of which nothing prior to it in the history of human
civilization has ever been seen nor ever happened since. Often times I
read from Christians that the resurrection of Jesus was the most
important literal event in the history of the universe, that it was the
most spectacular thing to have ever happened. I still believe that if
many saints came from their graves and were seen by many that far
surpasses the magnificence of one man rising from the dead.

=20

Then, I read on here and places like Glenn Miller's Christian Think Tank
web site that maybe we can allow for embellishment for a specific
theological purpose. If that is the case, then what is the scientific
rationale for holding on to a literal belief in the empty tomb? I just
don't see it, and I do have eyes to see, and they're busy reading all
sides and weighing the evidence using a standard of evidence that all of
you on this list use in your scientific work. I believe it is fully
rational to continue to pound out questions to those who believe that
not only one man rose from the dead, but that he raised others from the
dead, walked on water, multiplied food, bore the sins of humanity, and
was accompanied by many risen saints.=20

=20

The rest of my response is a general observation I have over the past 14
months or so of reading Christian apologist literature as well as
secularist rebuttals and reading posts on lists like these.=20

=20

First, I'd also like to point out in response to this statement:

=20

Dick Fischer wrote:

Rather than making inerrancy the issue, decide for yourself whether or
not the total evidence is so incredible that you are willing to pass on
a free gift of salvation just because a possibility exists that some
error may have crept in someplace. Lets's get that problem solved
first. Do you want to risk eternal life on this issue?

=20

This is a false dilemma that already supposes the truth of eternal
life's accessibility. If indeed Matthew's author wrote what he wrote
about the saints not to testify to a literal event, then we cannot
logically claim this to be an error. We must classify it as a deliberate
falsehood. There is no reasonable alternative. Whether or not he
intended it to serve a "theological" purpose or not it remains a
falsehood by a modern standard of evidence. I say this because I am
being asked to believe that while this can possibly refer to not a
literal event and still be valid in the context of the document, yet at
the same time I'm being asked to literally believe that when the women
go to the tomb and see a "young man" in the tomb instead of Jesus that I
should literally believe in this event and the resurrection of Jesus. We
cannot have our cake and eat it too.=20

=20

Please at least admit this to me, that when you argue for the literal
belief that Jesus Christ came back from the dead and is the savior of
mankind, you are arguing using a modern standard of evidence. You are
not attempting to argue theologically about this particular event.
Ancient Pagans who invaded and colonized other cultures argued
theologically the things which we today would never in a million years
believe physically. You may be arguing theologically in other parts, but
when you argue that Christ came back from the dead, you are doing so
with the intent of believing that a man was physically and literally
dead and then came back to life. To this I can only say that many
stories and traditions have theological meanings and purposes, all of
which may be completely and logically reconcilable within their
respective frameworks, but to take one account from these frameworks and
raise it as a literal totem the way the resurrection of Jesus is raised
and then use modern scientific inquiry to prove it, would be beyond
belief. It would be like me saying that all of history must be
interpreted based upon Mohammed receiving revelation from Allah. Am I
wrong in making this comparison? Interpreting the entire universe from
the point of the resurrection of Christ is analogous to interpreting all
of history from the point of Mohammed's revelation, yes or no? I can
already anticipate a response and I will say please do not say Islam has
been proven false or this or that about the predictions in the Old
Testament, just answer me this:=20

=20

Is it equally as difficult to take a modern standard of inquiry and
apply it to an account written in a book by what modern men would call
superstitious, unscientific people, and then interpret the entire
universe based upon that account? You may insert the resurrection or
Mohammed's revelation into your mind at this point. But, I believe the
answer remains the same and the answer is yes. During the Christmas
break, I pasted a link to an article by George Murphy I believe about
chiasmic cosmology and Christ's death on the cross into my blog
(http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=3DUV2003&tab=3Dweblogs&uid=3D5079367=
0)
and since then have been thinking, wait just a minute now, does that
_really_ hold water?=20

=20

Think about this another way:

=20

             In the past, people argued using a standard of evidence akin
to, "I am more powerful than you, when I say Yahweh is God, I mean it.
If you disbelieve, Yahweh will command me to murder you and your
children and your women who are not virgins." This is the truth about
the past. When Yahwehists defeated others, they then could attribute
their God with absolute power.

=20

             And today, people argue a similar way, with 9-11 bearing the
semantic content of, "Allah has ordained that our way of living is
correct and the USA is the great infidel satan. Therefore, we will do
all that is necessary to destroy the USA. Should we defeat them, Allah's
name will be praised and Allah's rules will be enshrined across the
world of the west."

=20

             Is there anyone reading this message who would say to me
that these extremist Muslims believe that Allah is not real? Would
anyone who also believes in the Bible say to me that Yahweh is real, but
Allah is not real? Would anyone also deny that should the Muslim
fanatics defeat the west that Allah would become more important and more
prominent and even more of a literal God than he is in the middle east
inside the minds of Islamic fundamentalists? Now, following this, would
Allah's increased importance and recognition by Western society and
Muslim apologists do absolutely anything to create a literal Allah
should he truly and factually not exist? Of course it would not.
However, I guarantee you that such victory would be claimed and
attributed to the work of Allah and would be worked into the religious
mythology and history of Islamic fundamentalists. Would anyone reading
this disagree with me that Yahwehists who brutalized and butchered their
way around the Middle East in the name of "Yahweh" would have done
anything less than this while at the same time attempting to write
histories that reconcile with prior accounts of Yahweh's work? And, when
anything didn't go right, they would attribute it to disobedience of
Yahweh. Is anything different from this done by modern fundamentalists?

=20

So, I have since been researching historicity and other literature and
cosmological ideas that may have influenced the bible

Moving on, with regard to this "young man" in the tomb and the naked
young man who loses his garment that appears in Mark after the arrest of
Jesus, there are some interesting theories coming out of comparative
studies of the gospel books and Homer's works. Here are two references:

=20

Both of these are very interesting and despite what I read in rebuttal
to them, I cannot so easily dismiss them. I have placed an order for
MacDonald's book and look forward to reading it for myself:

=20

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_and_Elpenor.html

=20

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/mcdonald.html

=20

If after having read those you still do not have legitimate doubts as I
do, I would again just ask you to consider a two-part question like
this:

=20

1. What is the likelihood of a man literally casting demons out of
another man and sending them into pigs? (Same for walking on water,
calming storms, raising dead, multiplying food)
2. Would you believe such an account if it were told to you today
about someone in your neighborhood?=20

=20

If you answer no to question number 2, then you must ask yourself, "Why
do I believe that it happened 2,000 years ago?" And, furthermore, why do
you disbelieve that a character named Elpenor in Homer's works actually
had a soul that descended down into a place called Hades, but believe
fully that Jesus is actively saving souls from a place called hell? Why
do you disbelieve that Odysseus encountered all the things he
encountered? If the writers of the gospels were influenced by literature
and poetic narrative of the day that were fictional, why do you believe
that the writers of the gospels were testifying to factual history? And,
why do you literally believe that a man named Eutychus was brought back
to life by Paul? If you do not literally believe that Paul brought this
man back to life, then what else do you not literally believe about the
accounts in the Bible? And, after reviewing these things in your mind
using a standard of evidence that you would apply to any scientific
endeavor of today, why do you literally believe that Jesus Christ was
resurrected from the dead, an event that is simply no more
scientifically spectacular than many dead saints being raised from the
dead or one dead man being raised by Paul?=20

=20

Some might say, well something had to happen for such an incredible
revolution to have occurred. Of course something happened, probably many
things. At the very bare minimum we must all agree that men believed
something, wrote about it, tried to get others to believe it, and on and
on. The same continues to this day, even in scientific fields of work. I
remember a little while ago when the human genome project unveiled its
findings and scientists from here attended conferences about it. We have
now been told that the genome does not carry all the definitive
"blueprints" for life. Maybe it lies in the proteome?=20

=20

In the same way that something happened to usher in Christianity,
something happened to usher in Islam. Can any of us categorically deny
that Mohammed literally received revelation from Allah? Or, must we say
Mohammed beLIEved he received revelation from a non-existent god named
Allah?

=20

Back to science, what lead to the genome project? It was the concerted
effort of men and women who believed something was to be gained by its
completion. If you look carefully at it, you will see a degree of faith
placed in this genome project not unlike degrees of faith placed in
religious creeds and beliefs. "Trust us, this is the big one!" What
makes us as 21st century humans so much different from 1st century
people? Nothing, except we have gained more knowledge and largely
through scientific inquiry. It is this same scientific inquiry that
leads us to unbelief in the literalism of Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, but
why not Christianity? Why do so many on this list persist in believing
in Christianity while having cast aside some of its adherents past
staunchly held dogmatism of creationism, predestination, etc. Casting
aside some of these beliefs would relegate many you as complete
apostates many years ago if not today by some. You persist in your
careers of science while attempting to use these skills to corroborate
the claims of men who did not operate by science. All the while, you use
the very same reasoning skills to disbelieve in other religious claims
which bare no small resemblance to the miraculous and fantastic that
Christianity does. I would not argue that Christianity does not bare
truth, but only that that truth is part of a far larger absolute truth
of all things, the locus of which does not necessarily rest in the
resurrection of Christ, especially if as many scholars now believe it
didn't even happen! I'm not sure I agree with that at this point, but
moving on:

=20

Satan and demons did not cause human genome researchers to be wrong
about the initial belief that the genome would uncover all the secrets
of life. Likewise, I disbelieve that Satan and demons caused other
religions to bear resemblance to Christianity.=20

=20

If we must hold all claims to physical truth equally before the laws of
scientific inquiry today, then must we not apply that same standard to
each and every holy text of yesteryear? When we disbelieve in Hindu
miracles, Odysseus's journeys, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's extreme claims,
the Raelians, and Heaven's Gate's Cult because of the very same standard
of evidence that we do believe in modern scientific investigations, what
are we left with but emotional appeals, false dilemmas, appeals to
authorities of antiquity, who we willingly admit did not operate by our
modern standard, and the traditions of men?

=20

Thanks!

-Josh

=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Blinne [mailto:e-lists@blinne.org]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:53 PM
To: George Murphy
Cc: Gough, Joshua; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Essay about errancy

=20

George Murphy wrote:

Rich Blinne wrote:
  =20

        On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:01:12 -0500, "Gough, Joshua"
<xzg3@cdc.gov> <mailto:xzg3@cdc.gov> said:
        =20
           =20

                According to Biblical scholars, the book of Mark was
written first 1.
                Notice how similar the account is in both books. Notice
that in
                Matthew, there is a line about tombs opening and many
saints coming out
                of these tombs after Christ's resurrection and then
being seen by many
                in Jerusalem. After seeing these miracles, the centurion
cries out that
                this was the Son of God. However, look at Mark's earlier
account. It
                says that when the centurion saw his cry and saw how he
died he said he
                was the Son of God. There is no mention of him being
terrified. The
                words are changed a little bit as well.
                     =20

        1. The Bible scholars you are referencing used their belief of
errant
           Gospels as a basis for the dating. Thus, you cannot use the
alleged
           date of Mark in your argument because you would be begging
the
           question. Bible scholars who don't hold to Q theory usually
date
           Matthew first.
           =20

=20
        This is false. Marcan priority is not dependent upon belief in
"errant gospels"=20
but results from careful verse by verse comparison of Mt & Lk with Mk.
In turn, the=20
idea that Mt & Lk used Mk as a source does not require one to belief
that the former are=20
either uninspired or "errant." & while belief in Matthean priority is
very old, there=20
are really no firm grounds for it.

=20
Received on Mon Feb 9 01:07:40 2004