Lunchstand Post

This is the last and latest in my posts with Austin and Paul - I hope for more and I think Dave will probably post some of his comments as well! (I need to edit this a bit, but will have to get back to it later)
------------------
ChristianDave is right, Paul, this isn’t the place for a debate on biblical history here. It is worth volumes, as you know. I will continue that for our sakes on [this] site, and make short, quick responses [in this post].

So, without further ado: Paul says, “Jesus claimed to be the messiah (falsely, as it turned out) but the Gospels appear to contradictory about whether he thought he was God.”
First, saying “falsely, as it turned out” means that one must have a “proper” belief of who the Messiah is and actually have a belief in his coming – something by definition, you do not have, therefore take it to be that you are quoting Ehrman (who I think was quoting several Jewish scholars who WOULD have a belief in the Messiah. More on that later.) To hold that argument yourself, you must too hold that belief or you would have skipped sides from atheist (lower case, Austin, sorry to offend – I know some atheists who DO like it capitalized) to Jew.

Secondly, ChristianDave answered the rest adequately with response to having an understanding of the Trinity. As to the comment that the Trinity isn’t understood, yet it is still believed… So? I don’t understand my wife, but I still love, trust and believe in her. Not understanding something certainly cannot be good grounds for not believing in it. Besides, I don’t expect God to be fully understandable. I wouldn’t believe in a god that was – that is one of my criteria as a theologian for earmarking myths. They have a taste of the incredible but comprehensible. The Trinity turns out to be the opposite: incomprehensible yet somehow credible. If God really does exist, I certainly don’t expect Him to be anything as flat and banal as a human.

Regarding the scholars who doubt Christ’s own words and claim to the Messiah-ship, in particular to later mythical and religious embellishments, the popular Jesus Seminar publications have outlined several quotes of Christ in red that they are “sure” He said. Even taking those in Jewish context, First Century Palestine or now, those very few red letters still claim divine authority which put Him on level with God alone. Jesus wasn’t crucified for being a teacher or rebel (they would have just cut Him down in the streets), they crucified Him because He spoke blasphemy.

On to Bart Ehrman – briefly: I like his work immensely and in particularly his powers of debate and rhetoric. I do have a very long, several tens of pages, rebuttal to his arguments though. The long and short of it: He lost his faith in God because he found “mistakes” in the New Testament and cannot “prove” historically the veracity of Jesus’ miracles or resurrection. I find a fatal flaw here. That if all one’s faith in God lie in an inerrant book, the slightest printing mistake is likely to cause one to fall. What is counted as a “mistake” in today’s terms should not be counted as such in ancient terms. That’s a long point of contention, but the reason I believe Christ rose isn’t so much because of historical works, but because of those works in relation to other factors, theological, philosophical and socio-anthropological. The Christian books are the only source where everything else falls into place and can be understood, in what I believe to be, a right relation with one another. Bart’s faith fell around his shoulders when one point proved to be in another spot that he expected it to be. I would contend that his faith wasn’t that strong to begin with. Secondly, Ehrman claims the Bible must be a work of historical fiction (not his own words, but the gist of it) because it claims miracles and historically they cannot be proven – because of all the possibilities in the world, miracles are the least possible. Of course they are, that is why they are miracles! The whole point to the NT was to record the miracles – because people recognized them as such!

Enough on him for now and on to Austin's comments.

First, that 'my claim to Christianity is no more credible than slave driving Christians of the pre-war South': Perhaps. Christ would have something to say on that though, and I defer to Him. ‘My true disciples, mother and siblings are those that do the Will of my Father in heaven.’ And again, ‘[They] will know you are my disciples for your love of one another.’ In other words, if your life doesn’t produce good and works (or at least a close approximation) then its fairly safe to say that your faith is only nominal. ‘Some will come to Me on the Day of Judgment and say, ‘Did we not cast out demons in Your name?’ and I will say, ‘Depart, for I never knew you!’’ Scary, really. That is why I find no hope except at the Mercy of Him. One’s faith must be central.

Austin asks that I prove that most slave traders were atheists. Well, I cannot exactly do that. Historically speaking (thanks to Ehrman for lessons in what a historian can and cannot do). But I can give reference to at least one (and several more that he refers to) and his life as an atheist and slave trader – more importantly, the absolute change in his lifestyle when he converted from the notorious slaver to the famous Christian, John Newton who wrote “Amazing Grace.” His tract, “Thoughts Upon The African Slave Trade” may prove useful.

Someone else said that the God of the OT did in fact condone slavery. Lets look at that. Slavery goes as far back as the Code of Hammurabi around 1760 BC. It was referred to as an "established institution" and because of it's place in Mesopotamian cultures probably accounts to some extend for God allowing the Jew's to continue it – instituting laws in the meantime that, when men and women came to more "civilized" understandings of those laws and the base of those laws (as Jesus pointed out, to love God, and our neighbors), it would be abolished. But as to God condoning it? I dare you to find me a verse or oral tradition – that is hermeneutically sound, mind you – that declares God saying "I like slavery" or anything even close. In fact, God is very clear: Micah 6:8, "He has showed you, mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God." That sounds like a pretty "good" standard to me – one that doesn't allow for slavery.

Austin has also noted that the point in question was of perceived sexual orientation, not proven actions. I agree, that is why I said both that we probably do not know all the facts, (hopefully there was SOME proof, but not certainly) and that the school surely had a better way of dealing with the situation. I have never in these posts argued that what was done was the best solution.

As for Europe being full of atheists, yes, but they are bathed in, if not the religion, then the culture of Christianity. Charity is looked well upon, kindness and hope still clung to. I'm sorry Christians may get in your face. Atheists get in ours (as can be pointed out in your own article about the advertisement “You can be good without God.”) In Japan, charity is rare, suicide, divorce, spousal and child abuse, and child prostitution are some of the highest in the world. many of these people look for hope in money and corporations and at the first financial fall, suicide rates skyrocket.

The fact that preaching from Christians isn't taken well by you, doesn't mean that ALL people feel the same.

As to my "red herring" of love, I realize that you didn't bring up "real love" in a discussion on perceived sexuality – but surely you didn't think that was out of the realm of this conversation? You are discussing (perceived) sexuality at a Christian school, the fact must cross your mind that the Christian view of "love" has something to do with the school's decision? So mentioning "real love" proves not to be your "red herring" after all.

On your request to support my comment that preferences are not the same as choices, we are discussing ACTIONS – that is why, I assume we are all up in arms that school expelled PERCEIVED lesbians. Actions are what we choose to do. Preferences may be first, base “instincts” if you “prefer” to call them that. We are all angry the girls were expelled because we assume it is right to be able for one to choose for themselves and do their own thing without some authority breathing down their throat. What, seems to me as, the absolute moral value of freedom of choice. If any of us say that morals are all relative, they have, positively no basis to stand on in this debate and would be laughed off stage at any university – particularly mine.

Lastly, Austin said that my comment, "However God says that you will find Him if you search" is "simply an example of the fallacy of Begging the Question."
To this, in part, I must agree. It does "beg a question" but not one that is "out of the question." Here it is: If I am searching for God (honestly) then I do, in fact, show at least a hope of His existence. God is not a coin to be searched for, to be found if He is stuck in the corners of the couch or not depending on whether or not I dropped Him. He is like a lover who can hide from you knowing your real intentions. He isn't up for your games, (even though it seems He is up to His). Searching for God wouldn’t be a whole, heartfelt search if I didn’t expect to find SOMETHING. Anyone who searches for the Ultimate, Final, One True Reality, no matter of the background, will find the God of all Creation. Not all may get there before they die, and some may never hear the name Jesus on human lips, but when they hear it in heaven, they will certainly rejoice and cry, "This is He for whom I have searched! At last!"
I find that the only God that sheds light on all science, philosophy, life and even other religions is the God of the New Testament as revealed in Ye'shua, Jesus Christ.

I’m going to take Paul’s lead and make this my last. I have better ways to spend my lunchtime (like eating!) I will certainly keep reading your blog, Austin. It is fascinating and you are a very gifted writer. Fauxrs, atheist_Dave, ChristianDave and Paul, your posts have stimulated and challenged me and I look to seeing you around here and perhaps on my blog as well.

Please forgive spelling and grammar mistakes (haha, theological ones as well!) as I'm typing right out and usually find that little or no fore-thought gets me "owned" as Dave says.