More Active Posts
Front Page
Hitchens: Romney’s Mormonism fair game
 |
 299 Comments |
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Video |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Some commentors on the thread “What would Jesus buy” are rejoicing because it appears that I have failed to answer their arguments. I have been repeatedly blocked from posting my latest comment and my interlocutors are rejoicing at my apparent disappearance. Given that the topic of this post is “fair game,” I will see if I can get through here to let them know that someone is not playing fair.
VYNETTE,
So let’s play fair. I’m interested in how you explain what Jesus said in John 8:58 - “before Abraham was born, I am” and in John 10:30 - “I and the Father are one” and the subsequent reaction of the Jews - picking up stones in order to stone him for claiming to be God.
How do you know Jesus said those things?
The Gospel of John was written no earlier than AD 90 … two or three generations after the events in presents. That’s more than enough time for legends to develop and theological conclusions to come to color the memory of what actually happened.
STEVEG,
How do you know it was written no earlier than AD 90?
Objective evidence since I know MUSING is lurking:
John 5:2 uses present tense to describe the pool at Bethesda and its colonnades that were destroyed in AD 70.
What’s your objective evidence for it being written no earlier than AD 90?
Anyone care to comment on Hitchen’s criticism of Romney?
The beliefs of the Mormon Church are what Romney stands for. As Romney wants to be President of this country, it would be necessary that he answer any questions asked about his affiliation with LDS………..
and this is why -
The comment Hitchens makes, (please excuse me if there is a word missing,) in essence says “Elder’s are divinely inspired which would override whatever a member would do, in this case, the President of the US, IF, Romney were elected President, he would then be obedient/subservient to the Mormon Church.
The Mormon Church is not run by Romney, it is run by their elders, and those who are members submit and yield to their rules and decisions.
I thought Hitchens asked some legitimate questions. The racism question is important, but easy to answer, since the Morman church recognized the problem and changed its policy.
A far more interesting question to me is Mormonism itself, which is at least as bizarre as Scientology, Islam and other extreme cults started by lone figures who claimed special revelation. Romney says he is a Christian, but he is not in the biblical sense. Vynette, who denies the deity of Christ (as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses) is in the same boat. However, Mormonism is a Henotheistic, i.e. polytheistic but worshiping only one.
Is any of this important in terms of electing a president? Perhaps, except that Mormons are some of the most loyal and patriotic Americans. I have worked with Mormons who were very family oriented and of impeccable character. So perhaps just at the Israelis trust the upstanding Druze with their national security, Americans could overlook the bizarre and choose a faithful Mormon. It is wierd to think such thoughts, but the Democratic alternatives are far worse.
It is interesting though, that the last Mormon to run for president was Joseph Smith. He was jailed for trying to silence a hostile press. So far the press has been biding time. If Romney were nominated to the ticket though, then the anti-Mormon/Republican meat grinder would gear up for deviled ham.
Saved by Grace, you said “So let’s play fair.” I heartily endorse this sentiment and was wondering why I can post here and not on the
“What Jesus would buy” thread.
I have a response to Xion which I want to post so can someone tell me why I can’t do it! I am going to post my response on my own blog if I can’t do it here…
I’ll no doubt be accused of hijacking and thrown off this thread if I respond to your questions but my options are becoming rather limited on this blog so…
John 8:56-58 is believed to be evidence for the “pre-existence” of Jesus - “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it
and was glad. So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
Before we study these verses let us briefly look at their context. As we read through Chapter 8, we observe a gradually-building crescendo of outrage which reaches its high point when Jesus brands some of his interlocutors as children of the devil, therefore liars and murderers. From that point forward, Jesus’ first utterance that could be construed as blasphemy is seized upon as an excuse for stoning.
Verse 56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”
There are similar statements about Jesus in John 5:46 -
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”
in John 12:41 -
“These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spoke of him.”
in 1 Peter 1:20 -
“who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake.”
and in Heb. 11:13 -
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar,”
These texts all attest that Jesus was “foreknown.” But these texts about the foreknown Jesus are not one whit different in substance from the following texts about the foreknown “brethren” -
“…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…” (Eph. 1:4-5)
“And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:28-29)
“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13):
“…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having
foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…” (Eph. 1:4-5)
the foreknown “witnesses” -
“Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10:40-41)
the foreknown “works” -
“…They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” (Heb. 4:3)
or the foreknown “kingdom” -
“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:34)
Foreknowledge does not equate to pre-existence. If it did, then witnesses, brethren, God’s rest, the Kingdom, the redeemed, and many others, would also be ‘pre-existent.’
Having compared all these texts, we can see that the correct interpretation of John 8:56 is that Jesus was foreknown, not pre-existent.
We can now turn to verse 58 - “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
Verse 58 is often cited as evidence that Jesus is the YHVH of the Old Testament. It is claimed that every time Jesus used the words “I am,” he was identifying with the “I am” of the burning bush incident in Exodus 3.
This is a complex subject involving Hebrew language tenses and linguistic forms. I can certainly go into great detail if you wish. For now, however, I’ll just say two things:
Firstly, as an Aramaic and Hebrew speaker, Jesus could not have said the words translated into English as “I am.”
Secondly, even if he did repeat the exact words used in the burning bush, the Jews would not have tried to stone him for it because it was not YHVH who uttered them:
“This Moses whom they refused, saying, who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.” (Acts 7:35).
The religious establishment continually placed before Jesus loaded questions designed to entrap. They conveniently misunderstood what he was saying on many occasions, a ploy designed to lay the groundwork for a charge of blasphemy. Just as Jesus castigated the religious leaders of his day for not understanding or deliberately misunderstanding his words, the present religious establishment perpetuates that same misunderstanding which led to the crucifixion e.g. thinking Jesus was claiming to be God, misunderstanding his self-designation as son of God, etcetera. We know that the establishment feigned indignation at Jesus’ use of this latter term because the whole Israelite people was regarded as the “son of God” at that time. Even Adam was regarded as a son of God by creation. (Luke 3:38) In his final confrontations with the religious establishment, it was Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah which was the real cause of outrage, the pricking goad.
I think I have said enough for one day. If I can still post on this thread tomorrow, I’ll address John 10:30.
Xion
Every Mormon believes what Joseph Smith said, they don’t question him, and that would include anyone running for US President. How can any thinking person believe this? Such as:
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Gospel Through the Ages, page 15
If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon Doctrine, page 670
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, Mormon Doctrine page 516
SavedByGrace at #4:
There is of course no proof of either an early or a late date for the writing of the Fourth Gospel, but I believe the later date has much stronger evidentiary support.
1. By the time the gospel was written, Peter had died (John 21:19), which happened around A.D, 65-67, according to tradition. The knowledge of Peter’s death and how he died was common knowledge that John is able to refer to without detailing, so it had not just recently happened.
2. Early church fathers, most notably Iraneus and Eusebius, confirm that John’s gospel was the last of the four to be written.
3. They also record that he wrote in Ephesus, where he settled after the AD 70 conquest of Jerusalem.
4. Iraneus said that John wrote Revelation near the end of Domitan’s reign, which was in AD 98. That does not speak directly to the date of the gospel, but it does suggest that John’s productive writing was coming late in his life.
The reference to the pool in the present tense is not a problem for the late-date idea, because the pool was, in fact, not destroyed. It still exists today. John says, in present tense, that it is there, and, in past tense, that people “used to” go there for the water’s healing power. This, then, becomes another point of support for dating the gospel later than AD 70.
I’ll concede a lot of kooky and utterly unbiblical Mormon fundamental beliefs.
And your point is?
Most folks whom I know are backing Romney are not LDS.
It boils down to some simple questions:
Is this man electable?
Will he deliver as USA CEO? Will he judiciously use our armed forces to advance our nation’s ideals and thwart those of our enemies, while avoiding foreign entanglemts as the Founders counseled???
Can he say what he’ll do? Will he do what he says? (Sign or veto bills in line with my or your politics). Can he provide the consistently conservative and election-winning “vision thing” so lacking among current R politicians in the Exec and Legis. branches of the Fed gov?
I will support a candidate who can give me a “yes” to ea question
(Sorry about the hijacking of this thread)
STEVEG,
1 - The knowledge of Peter’s death would have spread quickly among Christians because of his importance. This just gives an early bound for the date of John’s gospel.
2 - John’s was the last to be written but this says nothing of the date - only that it was written after the others which were before AD 70.
3 - John wrote in Ephesus but there is no proof that he settled there after AD 70 - he could have moved there when the problems with Nero began in the late 60s.
4 - Again, this proves nothing of the date of his gospel.
The reference to the pool in the present tense is important because the pool was destroyed by the Romans - you say it exists because its destroyed remains were found by archaeologists.
The evidence of Peter’s death and the pool puts the date between about 66 AD and 70 AD. And the reason you prefer the later date is so that you can try to create doubt about his writing.
savedbygrace post 4,
but of course you do not have proof that John was written even close to the time of Jesus.
One of course can use present tense as one wishes (although a detailed linguistic analysis of these verses might prove interesting).
So lets ask the question th is way: what is the earliest copy of JOhn that you have?
What is the earliest non-biblical reference to the Gospel of John which you have?
I raise the last point becuase it opens arguably a fascinating question regarding Matthew which perhaps allows us to explore the early Gospels in more detail.
VYNETTE,
“Firstly, as an Aramaic and Hebrew speaker, Jesus could not have said the words translated into English as “I am.””
As a Hebrew speaker, God used those words in Exodus 3:14. Your comment doesn’t make sense.
“Secondly, … Jews would not have tried to stone him for it because it was not YHVH who uttered them”
The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the bush but it was God who spoke to Moses - read Exodus 3 again. Are you arguing that the angel said the angel’s name is “I am”. Again this comment doesn’t make sense.
Also, your comments are leading to what must be your conclusion about John’s gospel - that he made it up. Is this where you’re going?
savedbygrace post 12,
actually this post is very useful.
What is clear is that you have presetned no arguments for a date of John before perhaps 60 CE.
The question which always fascinates me is why there are no Gospels from near the period of Jesus’ death?
This was considered a critical situation by the followers of Jesus and yet no existant materials on Jesus’ life are on the scene today from this period?
Now if my memory serves me right Vynette, argue for an Hebrew verion of Matthew which is very early.
There apparently are references to this Gospel in:
Origen: Commentary on Matthew
Eusebius: Theophania
Jerome: Commentary on Matthew
so we have suggestions that such a book existed and can partially reconstruct it.
There is some suggeston that this Gospel is possibly related to the Gospel of the Ebionites.
That there is reasonable evidence for an early verion of Matthew that it not presently available AND we have relatively late dates for the traditional Gospels provides an interesting fabric on which to then review the early history of the Christian Church.
savewdvbygrace post 14,
actually the relatively late dates for all our traditional Gospels opens the question of whether these documents were written to sustain a specific theological perspective.
What is known is that:
1) eyewitness testimony is problematic
2) memory plays tricks the longer the duration of time between when the event took place and when it is recorded
As such the relatively late dates of the traditional Gospels would argue against their faithfulness to the original events.
Responding to #12.
If the Gospel of John was written as early as you suggest, why is there no known reference to it before the early second century?
If Jesus really did speak of himself in flowing, clear declarations of his divinity, why did Matthew, Mark, Luke and the sources they worked from seem to be unaware of them?
savedbygrace post 12,
now it would appear that you are arguing that John has been unchanged since it was originally written. Otherwise your point:
“The reference to the pool in the present tense is important because the pool was destroyed by the Romans - you say it exists because its destroyed remains were found by archaeologists.”
says nothing about the age of the final version of John which we are now using.
So we know that John 8:3-11 are not in our earliest versions of John:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Further, this means we have historical records showing that our version of John has changed measureably and meaningfully during recorded time.
So it sould seem you are left with arguing the age and validity of John verse by verse if you are to insist on a specific age, or more criticaly an early age, for John.
In short, John would not appear to be our most trustworthy of Gospels from the perspective of literary integrity over time.
savebygrace post 12,
now Mark is also interesting in that Mark 16:9-20 do not appear to be in our earliest manuscripts:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016;&version=31;
What is interesting here is that the resurrection story appears to change measureably with and without these verses.
Of course it was also alleged during the early chruch that Mark’s recitation of events, while the events were argued to be true, the chronolgy of events was argued to be wrong:
Papias
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs3.html
So in Mark we have known and measured modification AND we have early testimony that Mark as traditionally presented has been modified AND that the order of events as described was incorrect.
savedbygrace post 12,
and for good measure we have already introduced evidence suggesting that Matthew was modified over time.
We do seem to have Luke for which we do not have concrete evidence for modification over time.
Shall we use Luke as our primary reference here then?
But of course Luke appears to be a rewriting of earlier materials.
To which I now note that we have evidence that there were earlier materials, but we do not have the arlier materials.
Very curious.
savedbygrace post 12,
so we can one by one show that there are challenges top considering ANYT of the gospels to be an accurate and unmodifed account of the actual events regarding Jesus.
Which leaves the interesting question then, of what we perhaps can say with a degree of rigor regarding what we can know of Jesus.
I will leave Titus as a given: we do know that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was most probably crucified b y Pontius Pilate.
But lets battle these points out first before we go to what I suggest we can perhaps rigorously know.
vynette,
do you have any references to your comments about the Hebrew Bible in Capernum (I think I got this point of yours right).
I would dearly love to track this down.
Thanks!
savedbygrace post 12,
now it is perhaps useful to contrast the Gospel constancy with Dr. Dave’s comments about Isaiah.
In the case of Isaiah we have what appears to be a copy from perhaps 350 BCE which is relatively unchanged to the present.
In the case of the gospels, for John and Mark at least, we have substantiated material showing measureably and impactful modification durig historic times.
It has been suggested, Ehrman for example, that the difference here was due to the relative professionalism of the Judaic vs. the early Christian scribes.
I leave the details to further research and discussion, however, it is useful to note this apparnet significant difference between certain Old Testament and New Testament texts.
Romney says he is a Christian, but he is not in the biblical sense. Vynette, who denies the deity of Christ (as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses) is in the same boat.
This is an important point. I want us to appreciate when you see quotations from America’s key Founders [Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc.] suggesting they may have understood themselves “Christian” in some sense, they were as far removed from your orthodox Trinitarian Christianity as are Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the beliefs of Vynette.
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812
“If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.
“It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed.”
– John Adams to Francis van der Kemp, October 23, 1816, Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
I posted this last week or so, a quote from Justice Alito’s commencement address at my old law school last June:
“I hope that all of you … will be on guard against the revival of the old and very dangerous lie that there are people of certain religions who are not fit to hold office or not fit to hold citizenship in the United States because they cannot be counted upon to exercise independent judgment and to be true Americans.”
I wasn’t there at commencement and I do not have access to the whole speech, so I don’t know exactly what particular religion Justice Alito had in mind or if it was a generic remark encompassing all religions. Perhaps he had Muslims in mind. I don’t know. But I think it’s a good quote, so I’m sharing it again.
Can’t say I’m voting for Romney as Sawgunner has said, don’t know, but I’m with him on the rest of his post. I doubt we’d be having these conversations if Romney were a Buddhist. It is because of what to most of us are non-biblical beliefs about God and Jesus. These beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not Romney is capable of running the country as President. Do we as individuals have the right to say we won’t vote for him because of it — yes. But let’s be honest about it. I personally would have to really know a Muslim candidate before I would vote for him/her. The family would have to be assimilated into this culture. First generation Muslim, first generation American wouldn’t do it for me. I don’t have those problems with Mr. Romney. We know his family through his father and his own record. Romney has lived a mainstream life, a decent life and that counts.
We are Christians who live in a secular society. Let’s remember that.
I personally would have to really know a Muslim candidate before I would vote for him/her. The family would have to be assimilated into this culture. First generation Muslim, first generation American wouldn’t do it for me.
How about someone who is a theologically liberal, but politically conservative Muslim?
Thank you for re-posting the Alito quote, NJ Lawyer. I missed it the first go-round. I appreciate learning more about the disposition of our newest Supreme Court justice.
To be honest, Jon Rowe, at this point in time, I would have problems voting for a Muslim even if he/she were fiscally conservative and theologically liberal (I assume you mean the person would not be wanting to impose sharia on us). I suppose I would be wondering if there was an underlying agenda. It is my humble opinion that our Constitution can be subverted (just imagine our “rules” in Saudi Arabia). Is this necessarily a fair view? Maybe not, but I would only vote for a Muslim for a national office if I truly knew the person and had a lot of information about him/her. I would scrutinize this person inside out, left and right. I’ve only spent real time in law school with one Muslim, and despite her willingness to date non-Muslims, when asked, she would never tell us if she would buck her parents and decide who she would marry for herself. She always clammed up. But that doesn’t mean that a Muslim shouldn’t run. Those waters have to be tested, and honestly, I accept that my fellow Americans have already elected a Muslim. Nothing bad has happened because of that member of Congress.
I have but one vote. My feelings about voting for a Muslim are no different from the feelings people here have about Romney. I don’t hold Mormonism against Romney because of the way he has led his life. As you know, I do hold decisions Mrs. Clinton has made in her life against her. As a Christian, I should probably be giving her credit for staying in her marriage, but as a citizen, I think it was a calculated decision, and I think if she couldn’t figure out that clown Bill, she won’t do well with Ahamadinejad.
Travis, I can only say good things about Sam Alito. I truly have no “bad” stories about him from the years I knew him, never even heard a complaint about him from law clerks (and yes, people gossip in courthouses). The worst I can say about him is that one year his daughter wanted to go to Disney World so much that they found crayoned reservations under her bed. My judge knew an high executive of Disney through a former law clerk, and he had arranged for a special tour for my judge because of his age so he could avoid lines. We offered to make a similar call for then Judge Alito, but he refused to take advantage of VIP service. That, too, says something about him.
Thanks for the answer. Even in my question I held open the notion that the Muslim could be a social conservative but theologically liberal for a Muslim. Any Muslim who genuinely believes in religious liberty for non-Muslims and says his or her faith is compatible with the Declaration would be a theologically liberal Muslim even if a social conservative.
Mormons don’t have a problem in this regard because they believe the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are divinely inspired in the same sense that the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Mormon are (something no orthodox Christian ought to believe). Their faith is not at all incompatible with democratic republicanism. And strangely enough, part of the Mormon heresy is that it takes a-biblical Enlightenment theory that influenced America’s Founding and incorporates it into their theology.
I still cannot post my response to Xion on the “What would Jesus buy” thread.
Saved by grace, you said: “As a Hebrew speaker, God used those words (I am) in Exodus 3:14. Your comment doesn’t make sense.”
‘I am’ is a translation of the Greek ‘ego eimi’ which, in turn, is based on the Hebrew ‘ani hou’ (I, he).
The simple copulative forms of present tense “to be” are not written into Hebrew texts but merely implied e.g. I (am) sick; she (is) pretty; we (are) happy. The appropriate form, in this case AM, has been simply added, first to the Greek and then to the English, to conform with linguistic demands. The original words which Jesus uttered were simply “I, he” or, as we would say, “it’s me!”
Therefore, in Hebrew, the words “I AM” could not have been uttered by anyone, neither Moses, Jesus, an angel, or God himself.
Without going into laborious detail about Hebrew tenses and linguistic forms, the Hebrew words actually spoken at the burning bush were Ehyeh [1st person singular imperfect form of the verb “to be”] Asher [relative pronoun] Ehyeh [1st person singular imperfect form of the verb “to be”]. The verbs here are in the ‘imperfect’ meaning that the action may have begun in the past but will be completed in the future, or will continue in the future.
The English words which perfectly capture the essence of the Hebrew burning bush words are actually found in Rev: 1:8 -
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev. 1:8)
Saved by grace, you said: “Also, your comments are leading to what must be your conclusion about John’s gospel - that he made it up. Is this where you’re going?”
It mystifies me how any of my statements could possibly lead you to wonder this? On the contrary, John’s gospel represents a clear, analytical appraisal of Jesus’ life and work viewed in relationship to its impact upon accepted thought and contemporary values.
Musing, do you mean Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men where he said in Chapter 3:
“Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle first of all the Evangelists, composed a gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it…”
Jerome went on to add, significantly, “…it is to be remarked that, wherever the Evangelist makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scriptures, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators (LXX) but of the Hebrew.”
The situation was summed up neatly by the historian Edward Gibbon when he said that these Hebrew versions were “..most unaccountably lost…and we may accuse the diligence or fidelity of the primitive churches, who have preferred the unauthorised version of some nameless Greek.” (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 2, page 284)
However, and this may be of interest to other commentors, we do not have to rely on ancient witnesses to the existence of Matthew’s Hebrew original - Papias, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius or Jerome - because as Claude Tresmontant, Father Jean Carmignac, and many other eminent scholars have convincingly demonstrated from INTERNAL evidence, the gospels of the New Testament were written originally in Hebrew, or compiled from Hebrew notes, before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Paul’s letters were also in circulation well before the destruction.
The writings of these scholars have been dismissed or ignored by the majority of their peers for two simple reasons:
(1) it is considered rather simple-minded to believe in prophecy, to believe that Jesus actually predicted the destruction of the Temple, and yet these same scholars will credulously and confidently assert the “deity” of Jesus of Nazareth;
(2) many eminent past and present reputations are at stake.
John Rowe, you said: “Romney says he is a Christian, but he is not in the biblical sense. Vynette, who denies the deity of Christ (as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses) is in the same boat.”
All of my statements can be defended biblically, therefore they are “biblical.” They are just not “orthodox.”
NJL - “My judge knew an high executive of Disney through a former law clerk, and he had arranged for a special tour for my judge because of his age so he could avoid lines. We offered to make a similar call for then Judge Alito, but he refused to take advantage of VIP service. That, too, says something about him.”
It sure does, what a dolt! Those lines at DisneyWorld are obscene - especially Space Mountain. A seasoned judge like Scalia would be all over that bribe (err, I mean perk) for his family!
(I’m just kidding, of course)
I’d be interested on his position on whether Disney should re-release Song of the South.
Rumors are that Song of the South has been greenlit for DVD release later next year. Perhaps a WMB thread looms next year?
Ooops - pardon me!. It appears as if I’ve gone of on several tangents. Proper online discussion etiquette compels me to return you to the main subject of the thread.
It’s a tricky segue from Disney’s Song of the South back to Mormononism, but I’ll give it a go.
- Mr. Romney once described Boston’s Big Dig project as a “tar baby”.
Hey, that was too easy! Please allow me one more?
- “The Other Side of Heaven” is a Disney DVD release about Mormon missionaries.
Vynette,
From my studies of Founding era Unitarianism there were some who like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, following Priestly, elevated natural religion over revelation and had no problem editing things from the Bible, and others like Joseph Story, John Marshall, Jared Sparks, and William Ellering Channing who believed the Bible infallible and argued these doctrines from Scripture alone. Whether such Unitarianism, even the “Biblical” strain, may properly be called “Christian” is as debatable as whether Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnessism are properly categorized as such.
I had an interesting conversation btw, with a JW. I take their literature at my door because I am a student of religion. I really can’t talk with them because my dog goes nuts trying to meet and greet strangers at the door. They probably thought me a potential convert. But yesterday I told them I am a student of religion and we could have interesting conversations about how Trinitarians think you guys are Arian heretics, that JWs follow the minority view of Arius who lost out in the vote in the Council of Nicea in the early Church. I don’t think he expected to hear that.
Jon Rowe, I don’t see how a “true” Muslim can accept our form of government. It is secular in nature, and we get along provided we don’t really “touch” religion — whether to impose it or not. I think Christians accept that concept, and because of that, gave in on some very important rights when we didn’t stand up for our free exercise rights. Now that we are willing to fight for them again in the courts and the ballot box, I feel encouraged. Our anti-free exercise people who find any religious comment offensive are the ones who fight against a theocracy that simply does not exist.
I don’t know if a Muslim can believe in religious liberty for non-Muslims. A Christian can because we believe that the Father draws a person to him, that one has to make a choice — not that the choice comes at the end of a sword. There is that famous painting of Christ standing at the door — “Behold I stand at the door and knock” — we have to affirmatively let him in, there is no latch on his side of the door.
I’d like to think that the Muslims who have been here for awhile understand how this all works, that they can separate their religious beliefs from politics, but since I don’t feel they’ve assimilated enough, I probably won’t vote for one and put that to the test.
I don’t believe the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution were “divinely” inspired. Those who wrote them used a lot of sources and experience to guide them, though they probably had a good deal of Biblical knowledge, whether they believed in Christ or not, whether they acknowledged its influence or not. I don’t believe when Christ rules his Kingdom that it will be anything like our government. (Hallelujah!) But the US serves a purpose in God’s plan.
Being a first generation American, having grown up in a church that has congregations in other countries, I separate church and politics very easily. I can only assume that the Mormon Prophet was influenced by his American upbringing and fused his politics with his revelations, distorting his Christian beliefs. But in America, you can do that. Maybe it’s a plus for Romney if he really believes our form of government was divinely inspired. Maybe that would help him fight the bin Ladens of the world. What say you?
I agree with you on everything except whether a true Muslim can accept our form of government. Though if you are right, then I believe the best bet we have is encouraging the Islamic faith to liberalize or change its doctrines to be compatible with liberal democracy, even if the end result means transforming Islam into something that is inauthentic.
MUSING,
Too many posts for me to respond to especially on Sunday. I agree that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew and I believe it was the first. You ask the question why don’t we have any gospels written around the time of Jesus. I’ll stick my neck out and give you what I think is a reasonable explanation and you can hack at this all you want. First, they were a little busy proclaiming the gospel rather than writing it down which is why Mark wrote a gospel for Peter based on his sermons and Luke wrote a gospel for Paul during his missionary travels and took the time to interview people and do some research. Second, I believe we do have an early gospel in the Hebrew version of Matthew but for some reason we don’t have any copies of it. Third, there is a quote of Luke’s gospel and the OT that Paul refers to as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 which means Luke was already considered scripture in the 60s.
I won’t play your objective evidence game because it all comes down to what seems reasonable based on the documents we have. To me, and I emphasize to me, it seems reasonable that the gospels were not changed significantly and that they faithfully recorded what occurred during the time of Jesus (you are arguing for significant change based on several verses in Mark and in John). It is also reasonable to me that they recorded the events out of order for theological reasons because they didn’t have the western mindset of needing to record everything chronologically. And it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that they would make up these stories and then willingly accept persecution to the point of death if they knew what they wrote was false. And it seems unreasonable to me that the Jews would have allowed these stories to propagate, in Jerusalem no less, when all they had to do was produce the body of Christ if he didn’t rise from the dead.
I have a funny feeling that if every gospel were exactly the same than we would be hearing cries of conspiracy. It comes down to reasonable faith based on the evidence we have.
Jon Rowe, we have to hope the Muslims will figure it out or that they stay home. I’d take inauthentic Islam which learns to live with other religions or no religion, but only time will tell. I don’t think the answer will be known in my lifetime. I honestly cannot say which way I see it going, which is why I won’t vote for one.
SavedbyGrace, I was happy to read that you will not play Musing’s game. He has no proof just has he has no faith. Either Christ resurrected or he didn’t. I’ve written before: something profound happened to the disciples. You don’t scatter as they did after the crucifixion and then pull together again without seeing Christ alive. You never see people like Musing answering questions like “why didn’t Peter go back to fishing, or Matthew to tax collecting?” We know why. We know why Paul, the outspoken critic of the Christians sent by the Temple to put them down, became Christ’s defender to his own death. He saw something when he was caught up. Musing never asks “what did he see?” You don’t have to prove anything, SavedbyGrace. Musing has a decision to make, up or down, yes or no: Is Jesus Lord or not? It’s that simple.
VYNETTE,
Post #30
1 - “‘I am’ is a translation of the Greek ‘ego eimi’ which, in turn, is based on the Hebrew ‘ani hou’ (I, he).”
It is based on the Hebrew “EHYEH ASHER EHYEH” not ANI HOU. Again, your comment doesn’t make sense.
2 - “The simple copulative forms of present tense “to be” are not written into Hebrew texts”
It is in Exodus 3:14. HAYAH is the verb “to be” and EHYEH is the 1st person singular imperfect of HAYAH as you stated yourself.
3 - “The original words which Jesus uttered were simply “I, he” or, as we would say, “it’s me!””
God did not tell Moses that his name is “I that I”. In order to translate this into another language there must be a verb form of “to be” involved - “I am”. And the Greek translation in the Septuagint was rendered by Hebrew scholars who I believe would know more about which Greek words to use that any of us would.
And the reason I would conclude that you think John made this up is because you said the Jews would not have wanted to stone Jesus over this statement but that’s what John says actually happened.
How could any thinking person believe that men dressed as quakers lived on the moon, and they were almost 1000 years old? The Mormons did, and maybe some still do.
I wonder how the Mormons felt the day the astronauts landed in 1969? Romney left school in 1966 (19 years old) for a two and half mission in France. Obviously the Mormon Church (LDS) believed at that time there were men dressed as Quaker’s living on the moon.
When the astrounats landed on the moon they didn’t find anyone. So much for this prophecy. Can you imagine if we hadn’t landed on the moon as of yet, they would still believe it, and wouldn’t that include Romney? As a devout Mormon he has to believe all the things which are taught.
Think about it this way - - - - if Romney can believe these sorts of things, then what else can he believe?
I feel sorry for these two young Mormon Missionaries. Note I don’t believe in theology of either side. But the African American orthodox Christian comes off as an obnoxious bully; it’s more about his will to power than winning a debate of ideas. At the end he says he does the same thing with Black Israelites. And if you’ve ever seen them spread their posion, I have no problem with bullying them. Even if you think they are misguided these boys seem nice and, in my opinion, come off better personality wise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPyvJacwUI
vynette post 30,
ah yes you are right it was Caesarea.
and thanls for your comment.
and right now I am working from second hand material on the Hebrew Matthew, and each time you post I get better and better data.
But: where is there a copy of the document from Cesarea?
In any event thanks for posting.
savedbygrace post 35,
and of course the evidence we have is that the texts have changed over time.
And we are left to establish effectively verse by verse which verses we consider authentic and original.
You can of course choose to believe that the text has not been modified.
The objective evidence, however, suggests that this is not true.
But we see a similar argument regarding evolution and creationism in this blog.
And I suggest we are seeing an example of what random name has referred to as believers and himself living in parallel universes.
I suggest we see the phenomenon of individuals for whom belief trumps the objective data.
And these compare to those for whom the objective data will trump belief.
Of course it is plausible that no one fits these pigeon holes nicely, and people will in all probability have areas in which they operate in each of the modes, buty it does seem based on these postings, that people seem to prefer to operate form one mode or another.
And in these discussions here we repeatedly see the same drum beat repeated regarding the conflict of belief and objective data.
Now it is a matter of personal decision how each individual manages this conflict, and I will not presume to suggest that any individual should approach it one way or another.
I do say unequivocally, however, that if you are operating from a belief first model, then you also can not say, in areas where you are operating from this model, that you are being objective.
Now what I find fascinating is that the majority, but not all, who term themselves believers seem to find it necessary to argue that they are being objective. I find it fascinating that if you insist that belief trumps the objective data, that one would then feel uncomfortable in recognizing that one is not being objective.
MUSING,
“of course the evidence we have is that the texts have changed over time.”
You forget to characterize that the amount of difference in the copies is insignificant.
“And we are left to establish effectively verse by verse which verses we consider authentic and original.”
Scholars with PhDs have done this work already. There are very few variants that are of any significance to the events or theology. The two passages in Mark and John are highlighted or footnoted to point out the difference.
This is not similar to the creation/evolution debate especially if you are going to start claiming that the NT has evolved over time.
Now a third interesting issue appears to be emerging as the discussions continue: we are seeing more and more non-traditional Christians posting in this blog.
So we are perhaps beginning to see a tripartite separation: traditonal Christians, non-traditional Christians, and various forms of non-believers. And one can argue that one is beginning to see the emergence of certain forms of three way conversatrions on certain topics.
I suggest that in terms of the content of this blog, that this will broaden the kind and types of discussions: we will see fewer of the classic conservative-Christian vs. non-believer harrangues.
I believe it will also be good for the traditional Christians: the typical traditional Christian form leaves out the many other voices of Christianity which have echoed faith through the years. In short, it is simply a diversity question, anmd ion general, diversity is good.
I will be happy to argue the last point if you disagree.
savedbygrace post 43,
your point that:
“You forget to characterize that the amount of difference in the copies is insignificant.”
But of course I already addressed that specifically by noting John 8:3-11 and Mark 16:9-20.
I leave it to the reader to decide if these differences are insignificant.
I have noted that the ommission of John 8:3-11 leaves out what I believe to be the only explicit comment and action Jesus makes on capital punishment. It is also a Gospel story which is heard to resonant in many different contexts. If these verses are not valid verses in John you are asserting it makes no difference?
And of course, as I noted, the omission of Mark 16:9-20 leaves a very different version of the ressurection than if these verses are present. Without them the tomb is empty, and the woman are afraid. But we never see a risen Christ. and you assert that this is an insignficant change in the texts?
I suggest that it is convenient to argue that the ommissions are insignificant. Others can judge whether your subjective statement is valid.
savedbygrace post 44,
you noted:
“Scholars with PhDs have done this work already. There are very few variants that are of any significance to the events or theology. The two passages in Mark and John are highlighted or footnoted to point out the difference.”
but do the PhDs agree? I suggest not.
And in this case, as you noted in post 35, this is a subject of belief not proof. We have no proof.
I’ve learned a lot about the Mormons here today. You have all been studying them far more than I have. The only thing I know about them is what I read about their “underwear.” That’s enough for me. That said, Romney has never done anything strange publicly or politically or personally, nor has Orrin Hatch, that I know of. If you know of anything, please share.
What do you think Romney would be able to pull off in Washington?
MUSING,
“Without them the tomb is empty, and the woman are afraid. But we never see a risen Christ”
But we have an empty tomb which is not insignificant and we have the angel telling them that Christ is risen and we have the other gospels. This is one of the reasons some try to argue that Mark is the earliest in order to claim the appearances were added later. Like you said - judge for yourself.
“this is a subject of belief not proof. We have no proof.”
But I thought you were claiming you have proof? I’m claiming I have reasonable evidence - not proof.
savedbygrace post 48,
no I am claiming that we have proof for modiofication of the text of John and Mark over time, that is objectvie fact, since we have modified copies of the text for John and Mark dating from various periods.
When we start reviewing each verse for authenticity we have no proof, since:
1) we do not have the original texts
2) the original texts are written well after the events
So when you tell me that PhD’s have studied this and know which verse is authentic and which is not, that must, since there is no evidence, be a belief.
When I say that Mark and John have been modified over time and provide the specific verses, that is fact: we have the manuscripts to review to confirm it.
savedbygrace post 48,
but of course I have already addressed each Gospel one by one and shown that there is objective reason for us to question whether the text as written is:
1) the original text
2) accurately relates the events as they occurred
So because the tomb is empty does not necessarily lead to a risen Christ as we traditionaly think of it.
And again, savedbygrace, your interpretation of the texts, and the validity of the texts must rest on your faith and your faith alone. The objectvie data does not support your position for the general case.
P.S. I tend to think that Mark’s discussion here of the angel is a bit metaphoric. But remember, Mark’s events are subject to reasonable question based on early writings of people apparently famiuliar with Mark and the original materials.
savedbygrace post 35,
now your comment:
“Second, I believe we do have an early gospel in the Hebrew version of Matthew but for some reason we don’t have any copies of it.”
is one that I am very partial to. It addresses the Matthew first model while being consistent with what we know of as our present version of Matthew.
There is also strong evidence from varuous writting that it was different from Matthew as we know it.
I would be delighted to view this document (assuming I mastered Aramaic written in Hebrew letters which appears to be one interpretation of this Gospel).
Given the standard scientific process, I would hypothesis that it would omit chapters 1 and 2 and start with the John the Baptist narrative. I suggest this based on two issues:
1) it would match Mark which is the other early Gospel
2) it would be consistent with John the Baptist being a serious theological challenge to Jesus from a messianic Judaism perspective
Maybe vynette is right, the early Hebrew Matthew is in Cesaera and we can confirm this and numerous other points.
SBG at #48: But we have an empty tomb which is not insignificant and we have the angel telling them that Christ is risen and we have the other gospels.
Actually, in Mark you have a “young man dressed in white,” not identified as an angel. Tales grow in the telling.
MUSING,
“the only explicit comment and action Jesus makes on capital punishment.”
People still debate capital punishment even with these verses in John. Also, this is not in the basic creeds of the church. And it doesn’t change any other theology in the NT.
“because the tomb is empty does not necessarily lead to a risen Christ as we traditionaly think of it.”
What else does it lead to? A stolen body? Unreasonable. The wrong tomb? Unreasonable. Made up story? Unreasonable.
“There is also strong evidence from various writing that it was different from Matthew as we know it.”
What evidence? Because some copies of John and Mark are maybe less than 2% different?
SBG, if you take all of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in the four gospels, the overall picture is impressive. Tombs opened and the dead walked. The skies darkened. Jesus appeared to many, over a long period of time.
My question for you: If all that happened, why was there anyone who did not believe?
The fact that the disciples went on to continue spreading the word is impressive, and yes, it does show that something transformative happened to them. But the signs reported in the gospels were so dramatic, and so public, it seems incredible that any person in the region would remain unconvinced. And yet, it was still only a relatively small group that were. The Jews had some explanations for the empty tomb, but didn’t seem to feel any need to explain the walking dead or the reappearance of the resurrected Jesus … which surely people would be asking about, had that happened, don’t you think?
MUSING,
One of my NT profs in seminary proposed a hypothesis that Mark is actually after Matthew and Luke and was an attempt to unify the stories - one written for the Jews and one written for the Gentiles - and had as much internal and external evidence for that as we have for Mark being first or second. There is very little objective proof for any of this which is why we have to look for what is most reasonable based on what we have.
The empty tomb doesn’t lead to a risen Christ?
The empty tomb doesn’t not lead to a risen Christ either.
The young man in white could have been an angel, maybe not. Remember what happened on the road to Emmaus? They knew Christ, but didn’t realize who was with them until they broke bread.
You like to nitpick nonsense, but you never answer the question: is Christ who he says he is? Come now, Musing, SteveG. What say you? Yes or no?
savedbygrace post 55,
one can speculate on priority all one wants, and of course there is no evidence. So we are left with the following:
1) we know they have changed over time
2) we don’t know what has changed over time
Now I suggest all is not lost: we can still make some decent observations based on objective data regarding what appear to be most plausibly understood by the early Christians as “true” about Jesus.
Even this will, however, have to be taken with some degree of skepticism: it will be at best what the early Christians thought of as true, not what was true.
I suggest it can be a fun voyage, and I suspect you have already traveled some or most of it.
savedbygrace post 53,
I suggest the following:
1) the body was indeed stolen
- we can discuss more if you like BUT if Mark ends a Mark 16:8, we are only speculating and discussing our beliefs, not facts
2) people may discuss capital punishment all they want, but the verses are clear and amusingly, despite their potentiually dubious origin, consistent with what xion calls an holographic interpretation of the Gospels.
There is osme critical thought which suggests that while it was not in the earliest versions of John, the early copiers either thought it was or thought it should have been in John.
3) I provided references which appear to provide comparison of the Hebrew Matthew with our present Matthew. Ehrman “Lost Scriptures” provides a collected version of thie book based on the commentaries in other writings. It does appear based on these writings to be different from todays Matthew. This book should perhpas also be considered in context with the Gospel of the Ebionites for which there seems possibly to be some relationship.
MUSING,
“the body was indeed stolen”
This has been argued ad nauseam and is unreasonable based on external and internal evidence. Do you bring anything new to the table?
No, Musing does not have anything new, nor will he declare himself.
NJ Lawyer …. see, that’s not the simple yes-or-no question you think it is. Is Christ who he says he is? We first have to know what he said … and I do not accept that he necessarily made the statements the gospels report.
I’m sure that sounds like a dodge, but it isn’t. If I come to you and say, “Outkast said he is the best pastry chef in all of Italy. Do you believe he is who he says he is?” then your first response is going to be, “Did he really say that?”
SAVEDBYGRACE, you are right!
NJLAWYER, you are right!
There isn’t much to say when he/she feels like filling up a post with anything that hits the keyboard! LOL
No, Musing does not have anything new, nor will he declare himself.
This typical reaction to musing’s posts reminds me of the Monty Python “argument” sketch.
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven’t.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t
A: I did!
M: You didn’t!
A: I’m telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
And so on.
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
Didn’t the Incas believe that the Great Corn God touched a corn cob and the first humans popped off? How is that less credible than Mormanism?
I love that Monty Python sketch. It’s one of my favorites.
As far as Mormonism, I studied this in seminary and almost every doctrine uses similar language to Christianity but the actual meaning is not the same. Ever wonder why they changed the words “Jesus Christ” to much larger letters in the name of the church. And most Mormons don’t know much about the more extreme beliefs. It can be easily shown that it is not Christianity. And I actually agree with Hitchens that it is fair to ask about his affiliation with an organization that openly discriminated against African-Americans just as it was fair to ask Robert Byrd about his membership in the KKK.
Rdean - 64
None of the Incas who believe that way are running for President.
Saved by grace, you have overlooked two important points. I said that the “SIMPLE copulative forms” of the verb “to be” were not written into the Hebrew texts. EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is an extremely COMPLEX form, the meaning of which is still debated by Torah scholars today. I also said that Jesus was speaking the Hebrew words “ani hou” (I, he). He could not have spoken the words translated into English “I am” because “am” was not spoken in Hebrew but merely understood. This idea that Jesus’ everyday words were somehow different to those used by others such as Paul - by the grace of God ‘I am’ what I am - (Greek ‘ego eimi’) and were instead based on EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is simply a baseless assertion by orthodox creedal apologists.
Incidentally, ‘Ehyeh’ being an imperfect tense, is more correctly translated as “I will be” (Judges 6:16 and Hos.1:9)
Musing, you are very welcome. You asked: “But: where is there a copy of the document from Cesarea?”
Unfortunately, I think most copies have been destroyed. All we can hope for is that a wandering goat stumbles upon another cache in
the Dead Sea area. I can give you some reasons for a deliberate purge but perhaps not here…on some other thread if the subject comes up. I always get the blame for hijacking a thread.
Vynette
Not YOU? LOL
You have managed to accomplish nothing by your inability to stay on the correct thread. However I’m sure your excuse ‘out-weighs’ anyone else’s rights to comment on the ‘CORRECT’ topic.
NJLawyer AT #56.
I’d like to answer your question but first I have to know what you think he said about who he was.
Vynette - 69
Are you unable to answer without someone else giving you a ‘heads up’?
Give it a try!