Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:11:17 -0500 "Gough, Joshua" <xzg3@cdc.gov> writes:
> Hello, I've been lurking on this list for some time, but follow some
> of
> the threads with interest. I've gathered that there is no shortage
> of
> controversy on just about every possible subject discussed! This
> comment
> below confuses me. If Jesus were God as well as human, then why
> would he
> believe something that is not true, regardless of what was written
> in
> scripture? And if he didn't believe it, why would he perpetuate it?
>
> I've been in conversations lately with people who say the Christ
> story
> is all just that, a story that builds upon previous stories, like
> Lord
> of the Rings and The Matrix are stories that in fact use messianic
> elements of the Christ story, but are themselves admittedly stories.
> I
> don't really have the type of knowledge to refute that. Then, I see
> all
> the controversies about literalism, authorship, doctrines, tithing,
> abuses, etc...It's all very complex. While I cannot deny that
> reading
> the words of scripture and Jesus have had a profound affect on me,
> what
> is there that differentiates this from the affects that reading and
> following other sound advice would bring? I think his words are the
> soundest advice and wisest I've ever read, but how am I to know
> whether
> he was real, was God, etc, and not just as others say a fantasy
> creation. If people call into question authorship of verses,
> literalism
> of accounts, etc, how am I to defend a supposedly now outmoded
> belief in
> a literal resurrection, upon which the entire faith truly rests?
> Lunatic, Liar, Lord, or well-written mythical hero?
>
> Still seeking,
> Josh
>
Josh,
One can imagine that legends could grow up around a charismatic leader,
given time. But it appears that Mark and I Timothy circulated before A.D.
68, and that Matthew is equally early. See Garsten Peter Thiede and
Matthew D'Ancona, /The Jesus Papyrus/ (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson,
1996). Further, something drastic happened to change Peter, who in fear
swore he did not know Jesus, into a fearless preacher a few weeks later,
along with a group hiding in terror who then proclaimed their faith and
were willing do die for it. This does not fit the notion that a legend
grew up over time. Further, every one of these early witnesses were Jews,
strict monotheists. What could make them acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth,
whom they knew personally, as deity? What, short of encountering the
risen Christ, could make such a change?
Dave
Received on Fri Dec 19 15:22:57 2003