How many wrong beliefs did Jesus have?
In a recent blog post I discussed the question of theistic evolution and the beliefs of first century Jews about the creation narrative. There I argued that the inconsistency between the beliefs of those individuals, even of Jesus himself, and evolution is not an insuperable problem to an evolutionary account of human origins. As I put it, “Jesus had all sorts of false beliefs in the kenosis of the incarnation. Why couldn’t this be one of them?”
Wilbur replied as follows: “that’s a pretty big and vague statement. what were these so many beliefs that jesus was wrong about? other than the messianic complex, which must be what he had if he was so wrong about everything.”
Here’s a simple example. It starts with my daughter rather than Jesus, but before you consider that too presumptuous hear me out.
When my daughter was in grade two her teacher taught her that Canada is the largest country in the world by land mass. She believed it. After all, her teacher was a trusted authority and the evidence of the map in the classroom didn’t automatically falsify it. But when she got home I told her that this was in fact false. Canada is about the same size as Siberia, and since Siberia is a part of Russia, it follows that Russia is larger than Canada.
Did my daughter do anything wrong or blameworthy in her initial commitment to believe her teacher? Of course not. On the contrary, she did everything right. And yet she still came up with a false belief.
Now think about the average Jewish boy sitting in school in a Nazareth classroom around AD 4. Do you think he might have come to believe a few truth claims from his teacher which, given the false beliefs of science and history at the time, coupled with the inherent limitations and fallibility of any human teacher, might have in fact been false? Of course. Even while incurring no epistemic blame those many children in the classroom would have gained false beliefs.
Now let’s place little Jesus in that classroom. If all the other children came to hold false beliefs in a non-culpable way from their teacher, why not Jesus as well?
Someone might say “Because he’s God and knew everything.” But in Luke 2 Jesus is twice described as growing in wisdom. That certainly entails, among other things, the gaining of true beliefs over time which means he didn’t know everything always. Even if you claim that there was a point in the earthly sojourn of Jesus where he became omniscient and thus came to know that the proposition “Randal Rauser blogs about me on November 17 2011″ is true, there was also a time where he clearly didn’t know this. So Jesus had many false beliefs.
Or maybe you might want to posit Jesus having an innate truth detector. On this modified view he may not have always known the truth but he could always tell when a proposition is true and when it is false. Maybe he could smell truth the way a bloodhound smells pretty much everything else. (Or, better yet, he could discern the truth from falsity the way a banker can tell real money from counterfeit.)
That’s a rather curious sense to have if you’re talking about propositions rather than money or some other physical object with literal physical characteristics. How does “Canada is larger than Russia” strike one inherently as false while “Russia is larger than Canada” just seems right?
This forces us back to another possibility. Perhaps somebody else (the Holy Spirit perhaps; or if you can live with a Nestorian-leaning christology then perhaps the divine Logos) whispered in Jesus’ ear (subconsciously) every time he was hearing something true (Psst: True.)
But why go through these tortured machinations? Why not just admit that Jesus was a product of his time and thus could have non-culpably held to some false beliefs including false beliefs about science, politics, history, and human origins? Jesus can still be the savior of the world, even if he believed Canada is larger than Russia. In fact, he could still have been the savior of the whole world even if he had never even heard of Canada. Don’t get me wrong. I think Canada’s a decent country. I just don’t think the reconcilation of the world to God is dependent on Jesus’ earthly knowledge of it two millennia ago.
125 Comments
4 Trackbacks
-
[...] Lowdown on God’s Showdown. I learned about this essay in a comment exchange he and I had on this post at Randal Rauser’s [...]
-
[...] dialogue began in the comment exchange for the post How many wrong beliefs did Jesus have? at Randal Rauser’s blog. I’m picking up the dialogue at the point [...]
-
[...] The question of the knowledge (and ignorance) of Jess exploded back onto the blog this week when Andy Derksen commented the following in my article “How many wrong beliefs did Jesus have?” [...]
-
[...] How many wrong beliefs did Jesus have? is a post by Randal Rauser. My answer to this question is an unequivocal “No.” I responded at several points in the comments. I like Randal, but I think his speculation is ill-conceived and counterproductive. Share this:FacebookTwitterMorePrintEmailDiggLinkedInRedditStumbleUponTumblr [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Walter says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 12:03am
But why go through these tortured machinations?
I would ask the same of all Trinitarians. Seems far more plausible to me that Jesus was just a man, whether you believe he resurrected or not.
Pf says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 3:01am
Amen. There is only one logical answer that doesn’t require a contorted and paradoxical set of hermeneutics. Jesus was a man like every other man that ever existed on the face of the earth. He understood what other men of his time did. He got some things right and a lot of things wrong.
wilbur says:
Friday, November 25, 2011 at 9:15pm
how about some actual concrete examples to support your proposition? you make a bold statement, then back it up with a story about your daughter’s teacher? and a hypothetical example of a typical boy in a first century classroom? these in no way substantiate your claims about Jesus. the most you can say is that he was growing in wisdom. i think that means he was growing in the understanding of how God meant for him to live out the plan. why would it mean ‘he became more knowledgeable in the wrong-headed thinking of his day.’ sorry, your ‘simple’ example about your daughter does not substantiate your claim; your daughter is not jesus, nor was jesus any typical jewish boy living in nazareth.
wilbur says:
Friday, November 25, 2011 at 9:21pm
oh, the ONE explanation! good thing we’re not getting into narrowminded dogma. your rather arrogant assumption would have to negate three quarters of what jesus did–performing miracles, resurrecting, etc.–things that ordinary men don’t typically do. nevermind about forgiving sins, which even the pharisees acknowledged only God can do. doesn’t it seem complicated to have to chop and dice the gospels like that, even if you completely disregard paul?
Morrison says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:11pm
Scientific theories are provisional, and subject to change.
The mainstream theories of even one hundred years ago are different from today, even as to the beginning of the universe, and will undoubtedly be different one hundred years from now.
Assuming, of course, the WMDs that Science has provided have not done us in.
From the “big bang” to the cell, which is not simply a blob of “protoplasm” as Darwin believed, and possiblly even to “the speed of light” as is now being discussed, its all up for grabs.
One thing remains the same, and that is the claim that existence, life, mind, and reason itself are the result of mindless processes remains indemonstrable.
Robert says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:23pm
Hello Morrison, from across the cultural gap.
star2 says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 8:54am
Jesus was taught by the Father and spoke what the Father told Him to speak (John 8:28, John 12:49-50). Jesus was not taught by man.
Jesus had it right about the creation. It is man that has it wrong.
star2 says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 2:48pm
I don’t agree with you Randal that Jesus had it wrong about science and origins. He knew more about it than anyone of His day because He understood the OT perfectly, and the OT got it right.
The Bible has many science statements that were not known at the time those statements were written. It took sometimes hundreds of years or even several thousands years before those statements were validated by scientists. Here are some examples of accurate science statements in the Bible.
1) Water through out universe
The Word of God says that there is water through out the universe (Jer 10:12-13, written somewhere between 627 – 585 BC).
Jeremiah 10:12-13 – “12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. 13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.”
About 2600 yrs later scientists discover that there is water throughout the universe.
Water Discovered throughout Universe, Surprising Scientists (4/8/1998)….[ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5a8oAAAAIBAJ&sjid=US4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6585,2466284&dq=water+in+the+universe&hl=en
Source: http://www.u24u.com/What_s_New/TheUniverse/the_universe.html
Dr. Kotwicki 1991
Water appears to be one of the most abundant molecules in the Universe. It dominates the environment of the Earth and is a main constituent of numerous planets, moons and comets. On a far greater scale it possibly contributes to the so-called "missing mass" of the Universe and may initiate the birth of stars inside the giant molecular clouds
Water Fact File for the Universe
The Bottom Line:
Suffice to say, lots of water!
2) Number of stars cannot be counted
Jer 33:22 [627 BC - 585 BC] states that the number of stars cannot be numbered. The scientists of his day believed that there were only approximately 3000 to 6000 stars in the universe. It wasn’t until the invention of powerful telescopes, like the Hubble Telescope (appr 1988) did man begin to know that there were a whole lot more stars than they originally thought and scientists today admit they cannot number the stars.
3) Earth is suspended in space and there is an empty space over the north
Job 26:7 [950 BC or earlier] describes the suspension of Earth in space and there is empty space over the earth’s north. The North Star today is Polaris. In the last half of the 20th century, nearly 3000 yrs later, NASA has discovered that, unlike any other star, there is an empty space behind the North Star that is greater than any other heavenly body.
4) Gravitational Properties of Pleiades and Orion
God asked Job “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31, written 950 BC or earlier). In the last century, nearly 3000 yrs later, astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound. They have also discovered that the stars in the belt of Orion are free agents that are not gravitationally bound!
5) Circulation of the atmosphere
Ecclesiastes 1:6 [935 BC] describes the circulation of the atmosphere and this wasn’t discovered until the early part of the 20th century which is nearly 3000 yrs later.
6) Air has weight
Job 28:25 [950 BC or earlier] says that air has weight and this wasn’t proven until 1643 AD by Mathematian Evangelisa Torricelli.
7) Life in the blood
Lev 17:11 [1450 BC - 1410 BC] states that the life of the flesh is in the blood. It wasn’t until 1616 AD, 3000 yrs later, that William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life.
Prov 12:4, 14:30, 15:30, 16:24, 17:22 , written by King Solomon [950 BC - 700 BC], states that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. This was discovered by scientists in the last half of the 20th century AD which is nearly 3000 yrs after it was written by King Solomon.
9) Description of hydrolic cycle
Psalm 135:7 [about 1000 BC] and Jer 10:13 [627 BC - 585 BC], Job 36:27-29 [950 BC or earlier] gives a reasonable description of the hydrological cycle (the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospeheric circulation, condensation with electrical charges, and precipitation).
Centuries after the Book of Job was written, Aristotle (384-322 BC) demonstrated only a vague understanding of this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.
It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago. The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job “Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16).
10) Hydrovents and ocean floor has mountains and valleys
Job 38:16 [950 BC or earlier] describes hydrothermal vents that were discovered by the Roman geographer Strabo who lived from 63 BC to 21 AD.
Job 38:16 [950 BC or earlier] says that the ocean floor has mountains and valleys. This wasn’t discovered until somewhere between 1873 AD – 1876 AD by the Challenger expedition. This expedition was the first scientific exploration of the ocean floor.
11) Earth is circular/spherical
The Bible says in Isaiah 40:22 [written between 740 BC - 680 BC] that the shape of the earth is a circle. This description is from God’s perspective who sits above the earth. Ask any astronaut who has been in space and he/she will tell you that the earth looks like a circle when viewed from space. It also describes the heavens as a curtain which is made out of a fabric. Einstein refered to the space-time continuum as fabric in his general relativity theory in the first half of the 20th century, over 2600 yrs later.
12) Things wear out (entropy)
Psalm 102:25-26 [about 1000 BC], Isaiah 51:6 [740 BC - 680 BC] describes entrophy which wasn’t formulated until 1850 AD by Rudolf Clausius.
13) Innumerable sea creatures
Psalm 104:25 [written about 1000 BC] states that the sea has innumerable sea creatures. Approxiametly 3000 yrs later scientists have declared in the early part of 2011 in Science that there are innumberable sea creatures.
There are many more science statements in the Bible. The scientists of the time frame that these statements were made did not know these truths and the writers of the Bible likewise did not know these truths. So how did they get it right? The God who created the Heavens and the Earth inspired them to write it and His account of the creation starting with Genesis 1 and 2 and all His statements about creation in His Word is how He did it.
Jesus had it right about the creation. It is man that has it wrong.
Jag Levak says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:11pm
“He understood the OT perfectly, and the OT got it right.”
The tricky part is figuring out the correct interpretation. Was there a literal world-wide flood? Were there no rainbows before the flood? Did the sun halt and even reverse in the sky, or go down at noon? Is the Babel story the real reason for varied languages? What does the bible mean when it says the earth is fixed and immovable? Was there a star that parked itself over a particular stable? Can stars fall from the sky? Is Genesis really describing a process of evolution and descent with modification? And does it really count as a scientific hit if some contorted interpretation is contrived which is made compatible with the findings of science after the fact?
randal says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:23pm
Star 2, the discovery of H20 molecules in the universe is not the same thing as the hard firmanent that the Hebrews believed was holding a vast ocean above the flat earth. You’re simply ignoring the Hebrew worldview in your attempt to justify ancient biblical science to contemporary science. Ironically doing so undermines the authority of the very scriptures you profess.
star2 says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 4:37am
Psalm 148:3-6
3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.
Jeremiah 51:15-17
15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
16 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens; and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth: he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
17 Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
Source: http://www.universetoday.com/90117/black-hole-secrets-water-vapor-gives-clues-to-star-formation/
Black Hole Secrets… Water Vapor Gives Clues To Star Formation
by Tammy Plotner on October 20, 2011
A eye-opening discovery has been made by an international team of scientists….They have discovered a black hole in the early Universe located about 12 billion light years away that’s surrounded by a nearly impenetrable disk of gas and dust. The halo isn’t the surprise, however… but the presence of star formation in dense water vapor is.
…. the team was searching for the signs of water vapor around a quasar – a distant galaxy which gathers its luminosity from the growth of a black hole which weighs in at hundreds of millions times more mass than Sol.
“Water in cosmic clouds is normally frozen to ice, but the ice can be evaporated by the strong radiation of the quasar or of young stars. Therefore we decided to search for water vapor in this object.” says van der Werf. “It is located so far away that we are looking back in time, to an era where the Universe was only 10% of its present age. This is one of the first searches ever conducted to find water in the early Universe.”
A shocking revelation? Not really. Water vapor has been discovered before. In this instance, however, the water amounted to about 1,000 trillion times the volume found on Earth. What’s more… it’s forming stars. It’s a dense disk, so thick that light barely escapes, and star propagation is rapid.
“This discovery opens new possibilities for studying galaxies in the early Universe, using water molecules that probe regions closest to the central black hole, that are otherwise difficult to explore.”
Ed Babinski says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 10:40am
Hi star2,
There are no nuggets of modern scientific knowledge in the Bible far ahead of ancient beliefs about nature and the world.
Your attempts to harmonize Scripture with Science prove that you have read little concerning ancient Near Eastern cosmologies that include talk of “primeval waters,” and that help explain the meaning of the “hanging” earth in Job.
ON PRIMEVAL WATERS
Egyptian tales of creation begin with divinities of water, darkness, formlessness and emptiness, as well as air and wind. A host of Egyptian creation myths depicted primeval waters being divided, and a primeval hill (the earth) emerging out of those waters. So the earth was understood to be dry land encompassed above, below, and at the furthest horizon by primeval waters.
In general, Mesopotamian and Egyptian tales of creation involved the same basic “elements,” that is, darkness and light, wind and water, and a separation of heaven from earth. For instance, a Sumerian myth depicts a single mountain rising out of a primeval sea and an air-god dividing the mountain in two to form heaven and earth, lifting heaven on high. In a Hittite version of the separation of heaven and earth, a saw, or divine cleaver, does the dividing. And in Babylonian and Hebrew versions waters are divided.
The Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, begins with primeval waters in the form of two deities, male and female, “their waters comingling.” Later in the story, Marduk leads the fight against Tiamat, the female water-deity, depicted as a raging monster. He subdues her and splits her open like a fish for drying (or an opened clamshell) making heaven out of her (as a cover above the watery deep below—for the earth has not yet been made). Marduk stretches out her skin and assigns watchmen, ordering them not to let Tiamat’s waters escape, thus allaying ancient fears that creation might be washed away by the waters above. Such a scene may be compared with Genesis 1, where primeval waters are divided by a firmament with the upper waters positioned above the firmament. A Babylonian tablet fragment even mentions a Tiamat eliti and a Tiamat sapliti, that is an Upper Tiamat (or ocean) and a Lower Tiamat (or ocean), that correspond to the waters above and below the firmament in Genesis 1:7.21
How were the heavens shaped? Horowitz in Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, explains, “Mesopotamians believed that the heavens were extremely broad and high . . . a number of texts make it clear that the heavens extend over the entire earth’s surface.” An ancient Near Eastern poem contains the phrase, “Wherever the earth is laid, and the heavens are stretched out.” Compare this to Hebrew proclamations concerning how the Lord has stretched out the heavens above the earth: Psalm 33:14, 144:5; Isaiah 40:22, 45:12. It may run counter to today’s astronomical wisdom to marvel at the mere fact that the heavens cover the earth below, but to flat-earth-minded ancients, the creation of heaven and its maintenance above the earth, stretched out and covering the entire earth below was indeed an architectural marvel.
A verse in the book of Job states God “hangs” the earth “over nothing,” “on nothing,” “on nothing whatsoever,” or “without anything” (Job 26:7). Those who believe the Bible contains hidden nuggets of modern astronomical wisdom sometimes point to this verse as an illustration of the principle of gravity. But there is nothing in this verse about the shape of the earth, about the earth’s position relative to an object in, say, outer space, or about the earth moving.
As pointed out by Lamoureux in Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, the Hebrew word talah, which is translated “suspends” or “hangs,” appears in contexts of hanging up an object like a utensil on a peg (Isaiah 22:24), weapons on a wall (Ezekiel 27:10), or a lyre on a tree (Psalm 137:2). It does not refer to hovering in empty space, but to hanging something from some perch. Job 26:7 simply states that the earth is not hanging from anything in the three-tier cosmos of heaven above, earth below, and the deep/Sheol under the earth. The primary point of the verse is that “He” (Yahweh) is displaying his might by hanging the earth miraculously, securely, safely in the midst of such a three-tier cosmos.
Take a closer look at the entire verse, Job 26:7 (NASB), and note that it reads:
He stretched out the north [Hebrew saphon] over empty space [Hebrew, tohu], and hangs the earth on nothing [Hebrew beli-mah].
The verse contains two parts that parallel one another. The first part features the word saphon, which was originally the name of a mountain in “the north” where the Canaanites believed their gods assembled—a cosmic mountain connected with heaven or the sky. The “north/heaven” is stretched over tohu, which is the same word that appears in Genesis 1:2 and describes the “formless, pre-created stuff” that would later become the earth. In other parts of the Bible tohu is used to express “confusion, unreality, wasteland, desolation,” something a bit grittier than just “empty space.” In fact, tohu is translated as “chaos” in this verse in both The New Jewish Publication Society translation of the Hebrew Bible and in The Book of Job: The Cambridge Bible Commentary.
The second part of the verse says God hangs the earth beli-mah, a compound word that appears only once in the Bible, so linguists do not know its range of use, or its meaning in different contexts. According to Smith in The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (p. 58) beli-mah means literally “without-what,” and since it appears in parallel with tohu most likely refers to a type of “emptiness” that is “quite literally a terra incognita [unknown land].” Other translations for beli-mah include “nothing,” “nothingness,” “without anything,” and “what (not).” Used as a parallel for tohu in this verse, beli-mah’s “nothingness,” “emptiness,” may be referring to the primeval, watery deep and shadowy land of death/destruction, all of which lay beneath the earth in biblical cosmology.
The context of Job 26:7 agrees with such an interpretation, since Job says that God sees right down to the watery depths and the lands of death (Sheol) and destruction (Abaddon) over which (it was believed) lay the expanse of the earth:
“The departed spirits tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Naked is Sheol before Him, and Abaddon has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing. . . . He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. The pillars of heaven tremble and are amazed at His rebuke. He quieted the sea with His power, and by His understanding He shattered Rahab. By His breath the heavens are cleared; His hand has pierced the fleeing serpent” Job 26:5–7, 10–13 (NASB).
Further support for such an understanding of Job 26:7 can be found in God’s point-by-point reply to Job in chapter 38:
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? . . . Who set its measurements? . . . Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone? . . . I placed boundaries on [the sea] and set a bolt and doors, and I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; and here shall your proud waves stop.’ . . . Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you understood the expanse of the earth?” Job 38:4–6, 10–11, 16–18 (NASB).
Lastly, as a side note, there’s at least one Mesopotamian hymn of creation that stands out among Mesopotamian literature in a way similar to how Job 26:7 stands out among Hebrew literature. I am speaking of The Samas Hymn, which states, “You (Samas, the sun god) climb to the mountains surveying the earth. You suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands [the earth]” [W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), ll. 21–22].
OR, AS AN EVANGELICAL WRITER NOTES
Some have pointed out the single verse that seems to mitigate this notion of a solid foundation of pillars, Job 26:6-7:
“Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering. He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.”
They suggest that this is a revelation of the earth in space before ancient man even knew about the spatial location of the earth in a galaxy. But the reason I do not believe this is because of the context of the verse. Within that chapter Job affirms the three-tiered universe of waters of the Abyss below him (v. 5) and under that Sheol (v. 6), with pillars holding up the heavens (v.
11). Later in the same book, God himself speaks about the earth laid on foundations (38:4), sinking its bases
and cornerstone like a building (38:5-6). Ancient peoples generally believed the earth was heavy and needed support, so in context, Job 26 appears to be saying that the earth is held above the waters of the abyss and Sheol, via its foundations, but there is nothing under those pillars but God himself holding it all up. This is not the suggestion of a planet hanging in space.
FURTHER READING ON WHY THERE IS NO “MODERN SCIENCE” IN THE BIBLE
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology by John H. Walton (published Sept. 2011) http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/157506216X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper_2.pdf
Biblical Creation and Storytelling: Cosmogony, Combat and Covenant http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper.pdf
Stephen C. Meyers, A Biblical Cosmology (master’s thesis at Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989), http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_toc.htm;
Stephen C. Meyers, “The Bible and Science: Do the Bible and Science Agree?” http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm
Drew says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 3:10pm
Randal, if we believe Jesus is God, in what sense is he “all knowing”? Thanks
Erlend says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 4:27pm
Wont it depend on how far you take the kenosis of Philippians 2:5-11, and then whether you think omniscience to be an integral facet of deity, or whether is it part of its advantages? Given that Jesus had to grow in wisdom doesn’t this suggest the later? How this then works with the concept of divine inspiration, well who knows. Although I think Pete Enns gave it a good go…
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:58pm
Randal,
Isn’t is enough to say that Jesus, like His contemporaries, held pre-scientific views of creation since science as a field of study was yet to be developed?
It seems illogical to label such beliefs “false” when there were no “true” beliefs available for anyone to choose.
Before I took algebra I had a pre-algebraic view of life – not a false view of algebraic equations.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 10:56pm
But there always were correct and incorrect beliefs about scientific facts, even before science was developed as a means to test them. The earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun no differently pre-science than post-science. So if the people of Jesus’ time generally believed that the sun revolved around the earth, they were wrong, not pre-scientific. And if Jesus believed that as well, then either a) there were some limitations to his omniscience that need to be reconciled with your beliefs about his divinity, or b) he was just a mere mortal like the rest of us.
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 12:22am
Jerry, your first sentence is illogical on its face. You’re trying to superimpose a modern mindset on ancients minds, and it just doesn’t work. There couldn’t have been “scientific facts” to know before there was “science” to know them. A scientific fact could have been true before there was science to know it, but the discussion here is about what people knew, not what was true.
Besides, even my modern weatherman tells me sunrise will occur at such-and-such a time tomorrow morning. Does this mean he has “false beliefs” about science and thinks that the sun actually “rises”? To try to make the Bible teach science is like trying to take a geography book and make it teach math.
Lastly, and irrespective of all previous discussion in this post, I believe that Jesus was divine but living as a human being. As such He was not omniscient while on earth. Omniscience only returned to Him in the glories that came to Him after His resurrection and ascension. Therefore, possessing limited knowledge while He was on earth in no way eliminates His divine identity.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:55am
Mike, my first sentence was not the least bit illogical, unless we reduce it to semantics, which was never my intent. And when the semantic objections are stripped away, I don’t think we disagree, since you said essentially the same thing (“A scientific fact could have been true before there was science to know it”). That’s all I really meant.
If you believed in your pre-algebraic state that x – x = 2, you’d be wrong. But you couldn’t possibly hold such a belief without some knowledge of algebra. However, it does not require science (in the sense we mean it here) to look up in the sky a few times during the day and conclude that the earth is stationary while the sun moves across the sky. And that would be a wrong conclusion.
The discussion is not so much about what people knew, but about what they got wrong. It’s about “wrong beliefs”, whether Jesus held any, and what the implications of that are on theology. Isn’t it?
The weatherman analogy is semantics again. Of course the sun doesn’t actually rise, and we pretty much all use the term sunrise. And besides star2, who’s trying to make the bible teach science? (That said, though, a book supposedly inspired by the omniscient creator of the universe in order to communicate with us would, in my view, contain absolutely zero incorrect science.)
In any case, your last paragraph resolves our discussion, because you do indeed have a reconciliation between Jesus’s limited, or even incorrect, knowledge and his divinity.
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 11:58am
Yes, Jerry, it does resolve our discussion…except for the “or even incorrect” phrase that you threw in. I don’t buy that He was incorrect about anything (for the reasons I stated).
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 5:29pm
Hmmm… maybe it doesn’t then. Are you saying that if an ordinary first century human being looked up in the sky and concluded that the sun revolved around the earth, he wouldn’t be wrong because science had not yet been established?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 6:29pm
Again, you’re engaging in anachronisms. You’re assuming a first century human being looking up in the sky would conclude something scientific. He might wonder at what he saw. He might even speculate. But he’d have no basis for claiming to know the mechanics of the relationship between earth and sun. Rather, he’d know that his thinking on such a point was at most speculation – not knowledge. Thus there’d be no science here for him to know…falsely or correctly. What he would know is that God was behind it all. That was true then. And it’s true now. And it will be true 2,000 years from now when grade school students will be amused at some of the scientific theories we currently hold to be true.
Jerry Rivard says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:03pm
Our beliefs about human nature and what is appropriate to call “knowledge” are worlds apart, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. One thing we do agree on is that 2000 years from now (if we don’t blow ourselves up first), some of the scientific theories we currently hold will be amusing in light of what will be known then.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 4:54pm
“It seems illogical to label such beliefs “false” when there were no “true” beliefs available for anyone to choose.”
There were false beliefs to choose from. People in the first century widely accepted a three-storied universe. That is false. The universe doesn’t have three stories. So your algebra analogy doesn’t work.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 5:07pm
The three-storied view of the world by ancients 1) was not a scientific description, and 2) as proof of this, is still used by modern man.
The Hebrews categorized the world they saw into three tiers: heaven above, earth here, and ocean below. It was a cosmology based on appearance. They viewed the spiritual dimension as corresponding to it: heaven above, earth here, Sheol (Hades) below. Since they lived in a pre-scientific age, it is anachronistic to infer that their view conflicts with that of science.
Modern man still uses this three-tiered view of the universe in everyday speech. (We “look up to the heavens” and “delve into the deep”).
Just because I could draw x’s and y’s before I took algebra does not mean I was making algebraic errors when I wrote them.
I am perplexed, Randal, at why you want to insist that Jesus – or any other Bible-believing ancient – held wrong beliefs about cosmology. A practical cosmology is not at odds with a scientific one. They coexist.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 7:48pm
“The three-storied view of the world by ancients 1) was not a scientific description, and 2) as proof of this, is still used by modern man.”
You’re doubly wrong Mike. It reflected an ancient science. And “modern man” doesn’t accept this view of the world anymore. Thus, to the extent where he uses terms like “the sun is setting” it is understood to be a metaphorical convention, not a literal description of the sun’s movement.
“I am perplexed, Randal, at why you want to insist that Jesus – or any other Bible-believing ancient – held wrong beliefs about cosmology.”
I am equally perplexed at why you’d want to insist otherwise. If I may borrow from Galileo, Jesus came to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 7:54pm
Jesus came to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
That’s exactly my point. It’s you who are, in effect, trying to say otherwise.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 8:27pm
Now I’m truly mystified.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 10:12pm
Randal, what mystifies you?
randal says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:49pm
Mike, the statute of limitations expires at two months. It takes too much effort to get back into the conversation and give a full response.
MGT2 says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 8:14pm
The only thing I have seen so far is a bold claim with nothing biblical or otherwise to support it. I cannot see how one is justified to declare that Jesus held all kinds of wrong beliefs by observing the psychological development of normal humans. There is nothing in the kenosis to justify that conclusion.
There is so much more to consider, and the stakes are so much higher for the integrity of scripture that a claim like this must be ironclad.
Consider the issue of sin within the context of a normally developing human psychology: the normally developing human sins. There is nothing tortured about the fact that normally developing children knowingly do wrong things, such as to act selfishly, or to steal, or to lie. They commit sins. If we accept the logic used to say Jesus held wrong beliefs because he was like any normal child, should we also accept, no, declare that he must also have committed sins as a child? But as far as sin goes, the Bible declares that Jesus never sinned, neither was any “guile’ found in him.
The claim that Jesus must have held wrong beliefs because he was a child is a misunderstanding of the kenosis and what it means to be “in every respect like us.”
Erlend says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 8:23pm
You mean apart from the passage in Luke 2.25 where it tell us Jesus had to learn things?
As for Jesus sinning, I think your analogy is confusing two seperate issues. Being divine Jesus (as God) was repulsed by sin. To use an analogy I remember Randal used a puppy will eat crap because it likes it, we won’t because we are, by nature, repulsed by it. We don’t have to be taught not to, its just nature.
MGT2 says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 11:46pm
There is nothing remarkable about Jesus learning things. Remember, as God he never had to learn obedience, but as the God-man he did. As God he could not be tempted to sin, but as the God-man he could. As God he could not experience human emotions, but as the God-man he could. These are things that he learned and of which the Bible testifies. But we cannot discount that when it comes to knowledge about things in general, the Bible teaches that he knows all things, and that he knows the end from the beginning.
Jesus had to learn things that as God alone he would not have an experiential knowledge of. But general knowledge, as the Bible clearly teaches, is is not in that class.
To make the claim that he believed wrong things, you have to show when he discovered that he was God. You have to show that there was a point when he was not God; not Divine. Was there a time when he wrongly believed that someone else and not himself was the messiah? That the Messiah was yet to be incarnated?
I am astonished at the notion that a child cannot understand and be fully dependent upon the Holy Spirit. Are you saying that God could not do that?
Yes, all of that comes into play by claiming that Jesus believed wrong things!
Robert says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 12:14am
Jesus was wrong about the second coming. Does that count?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 12:24am
Robert,
He wasn’t wrong about it. We’ve been wrong when we’ve said it didn’t happen.
For more, see: http://wp.me/pKqSA-u
randal says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 4:56pm
“I cannot see how one is justified to declare that Jesus held all kinds of wrong beliefs by observing the psychological development of normal humans.”
I presented good reasons that Jesus would have had false beliefs. If you think that in his humanity Jesus must have been omniscient then it seems you are reading an a priori theological dogma into the text that the text does not support. After all, the gospels portray Jesus as uniquely insightful, not omniscient.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 2:57am
Randal,
Your claim goes way beyond the question of Jesus’ omniscience. You are stating affirmatively and without doubt that He definitely held false beliefs. Why is that not epistemic hubris?
Given the biblical claim that He knows all things, and that he also claims to be God as well as was testified as such by others, why is it unacceptable to weigh those instances where the bible also says He learns and grows in knowledge in light of that fact?
Is it possible that He could NOT have held any false beliefs?
Does it follow naturally and logically that since he did not know some things, he definitely held false beliefs?
Is not knowing some things equivalent to holding false beliefs?
Does having a common psychology mean that He MUST hold false beliefs, even in milieu?
Why is it preferable to lean hard on the claim He DEFINITELY held false beliefs, rather than the possibility that the incarnate son of God, Himself God, would not have held false beliefs?
randal says:
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 3:43am
“Given the biblical claim that He knows all things, and that he also claims to be God as well as was testified as such by others, why is it unacceptable to weigh those instances where the bible also says He learns and grows in knowledge in light of that fact?”
I am unaware of any biblical claim that affirms that Jesus the child knew all true propositions and believed no false ones.
(1) Jesus had a normal cognitive development.
(2) A normal cognitive development includes the acquisition of some false beliefs.
(3) Therefore, Jesus acquired some false beliefs.
It seems you demur from (1). Why? Do you think it is sinful to have a false belief? Do you think Jesus couldn’t be the redeemer of the world if he believed his mom when she shared some errant ancient Judean folk wisdom?
wilbur says:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 5:11pm
you say
I presented good reasons that Jesus would have had false beliefs.
the operative word there being would. evidence is not what one thinks ‘would’ be the case, evidence is what is shown to actually ‘be’ the case. you are using conjecture rather than facts.
randal says:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 8:48pm
Wilbur, your epistemology needs some work. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? If so, then why?
plko says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 10:24pm
In John 1:1 through at least 14. I believe it informs us that Jesus was there in the beginning.
Ed Babinski says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 8:53am
Randal,
Jesus also held views of hell that were typical for inter-testamental times and the first century. Nothing new there. And that means that they too are questionable.
So what can we take at face value among Jesus’ teachings? What can we make dogmas out of? How can you tell what “the truth” is?
As for some of Jesus’ teachings, like “take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or drink,” and, “store not up money on earth,” and, “give to all who ask, asking nothing in return.” How wise are they?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 9:26am
Apparently, wiser than you realize, Ed.
Ed Babinski says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 11:22am
Hi Mike, The sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7) teaches an ideal view, a perfectionist view of ethics: don’t be concerned over what you eat or drink or clothes you wear, don’t worry about tomorrow, don’t save money, give to all who ask asking nothing in return (nothing in return), don’t even look on a woman with lust, love your enemies, etc. And the sermon ends with these threatening words:
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father…Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man. . . And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man.
- Matthew 7:21-24,26
Note the emphasis above on hearing and “doing” these commands of Jesus, including:
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
- Matthew 5:42
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not to be returned. . . But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
- Luke 6:30,35
Maybe if the world’s final judgment and reign of divine justice was near I could see such perfectionist ethics being practical. But the fact is that the world’s final judgment and reign of divine justice does not appear to be any nearer today than it was in Jesus’ day.
To cite Ingersoll:
That generation [of Jesus' day] was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat…Filled with the thought of coming change, he [Jesus] insisted that there was but one important thing, and that was for each man to save his soul. He should care little for wife or child or property, in the shadow of the coming disaster…He endeavored, as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead bury the dead, and follow him. We know now – if we know anything that Jesus was mistaken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near, he said, “Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed.” It was in view of the destruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of his rainment. [The parable even has an appropriately apocalyptic ending: "The grass of the field that is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace!" Mat 6:30] Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge.
New Testament theologian, Robert M. Price, agrees with Ingersoll that Jesus’ plea for “moral perfectionism” directly resulted from his mistaken belief that God’s judgment day was imminent:
Jesus’ eschatology accounts for the radical perfectionism of the application of his values, e.g., “Love your enemies… bless those who curse you… if struck on one cheek, turn the other… lay not up for yourself treasure on earth [do not save money!]… Whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either [leaving you naked, since those two items summed up the clothing worn by ancient Near Easterners]… give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back [!], etc.” I can’t buy Luther’s way out, i.e., that Jesus was showing us how we can’t obey these values, in order to prepare us for the gospel of justification by faith! Sorry, Luther! The text repeatedly says, “Do this to reach the kingdom, do this or be punished.” I am thinking foremost of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is depicted as saying:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets … Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits … Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire [apocalyptic speech]. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.” Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house [apocalyptic speech]; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. [Matt. 7: 12-27]
Most perfectionists are neurotics: was Jesus? Not if he predicated perfectionism as the only way to live due to the nearness of God’s judgment day! Then it would seem feasible!
FURTHER READING
The Lowdown on God’s Showdown
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article86.html
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:35pm
Ed, thanks for your thoughtful response.
As for your essay to which you linked, I read it and commented on it at
http://wp.me/p1eZz8-BQ
As for your characterization of Jesus’ teaching, and particularly the Sermon on the Mount, as perfectionistic, I think you’ve gone too far. Jesus Himself said in that very sermon, “You shall be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Therefore, should we seek to be perfected? Yes. Should we be perfectionistic? No. The former is ideal and lovely, the latter is unsavory and annoying.
I commend the teachings of Jesus to you. and I assure you that they contain more wisdom than you think they lack.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:22pm
This discussion is instructive.
Here the assumption is made that because Jesus became flesh he must be guilty of all the foibles of human beings. This is clearly not what the bible teaches.
There is clearly no support for claiming that Jesus lacked the knowledge that a Divine Being would have. Those who do are making the kenosis out to mean what it does not.
There are those who like to claim he was wrong about certain things such as the second coming, but they do not demonstrate any serious Biblical scholarship. That is evidenced here.
This claim is based purely upon a hypothetical – a very poor basis for the formulation of a doctrine. And it is inadvisable to present it as fact.
Erlend says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:35pm
MTGT2-
Again the kenosis does offer us a way to understand why Jesus can be fully divine, yet how he grows in wisdom. This meant Jesus could make errors, and be ignorant of certain things. This is plainly based on scripture. Aside from Philippians 2:5-11, Luke 2:40 tells us Jesus had to grow in wisdom, Mark 13:32 tells us that Jesus didn’t know the time of the coming again, Luke 8:45 Jesus didn’t know who had touched him, John 11:34 Jesus didn’t know where Lazarus was buried. Yet in those issues related to his mission he was guided firmly by the spirit. As for whether this is just some odd notion that philosophers of religion make then consider these (all well-known and respected) theologians comments:
Donald MacLeod ““The other line of integration between the omniscience of the divine nature and the ignorance of the human is that just as Christ had to fulfill the office of Mediator within the limitations of a human body, so he had to fulfill it within the limitations of a human mind.”
Millard Erickson:
“Perhaps we could say that he [Christ] had such knowledge as was necessary for him to accomplish his mission; in other matters he was as ignorant as we”
Tomas Oden: “During his earthly ministry, the communication of divine power to the human Jesus was administered by the Holy Spirit, upon whom he constantly relied. Jesus taught, acted, and suffered what the Spirit enabled, directed, and permitted.”
(quotes taken from the Parchment and Pen blog http://tinyurl.com/6eyt2rc)
MGT2 says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 2:05pm
Erlend,
What is far fetched about Jesus being filled with the Holy Spirit even as a child? It is the experience of humans being so endowed. What is wrong with me saying that Jesus never held any wrong beliefs because he was filled with the Spirit from earliest childhood? There is solid Biblical support for that.
So while he operated within the confines of the human mind, it was not a mind conformed to this world, but a mind in harmony with the Holy Spirit. We are called to have our minds so transformed (Rom. 12). We are called to have the mind that Christ had (Phil. 2).
That is not hypothetical.
Erlend says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 2:23pm
Thanks again for the reply MGT2,
You said: “What is far fetched about Jesus being filled with the Holy Spirit even as a child? It is the experience of humans being so endowed. What is wrong with me saying that Jesus never held any wrong beliefs because he was filled with the Spirit from earliest childhood? There is solid Biblical support for that.”
There is nothing wrong with saying the spirit was with Jesus since birth. In fact, I argued that the spirit guided him. We have no beef on this point. My argument is you are falsely extending this point to touch upon something it has no bearing upon- Jesus’ knowledge. Being filled with the spirit might fit us for our role in God and lead us to live a life of increasing purity, and in Jesus this was complete, but this says nothing about us being always factually correct. I mean read what you posted:
“So while he operated within the confines of the human mind, it was not a mind conformed to this world, but a mind in harmony with the Holy Spirit. We are called to have our minds so transformed (Rom. 12). We are called to have the mind that Christ had (Phil. 2).”
The dynamic it offers is EXACTLY what I argued for Jesus; just as the indwelling of the spirit in us is to fit us for our mission, it doesn’t ean that we will instinctively know the correct theorum of quantam physics! So the same with Jesus, the indwelling of the spirit but tell us a lot about his purity and that he was thoroughly equipped for his mission, but it is a gross confusion to link this with the idea of having complete knowledge. Hence why there are numerous verses which show Jesus didn’t know everything, in fact he was lacking in wisdom according to Luke given that it was something he states he had to learn. There is no contradiction, and more importantly it is a Biblical teaching- hence this position’s articulation from systematic theologians and Biblical scholars. Its all there in scripture…
MGT2 says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 3:32pm
But it is not a false extension to his knowledge because belief is based upon knowledge of one sort or the other.
But my contention is with the assumption that because it was possible, then it definitely is a fact that Jesus believed wrong things. And this without any Biblical warrant. There is this leap from pure hypothetical. It was possible in human form for Jesus to sin like any other man, but he did not.
It would be better to say that if it can be proven that Jesus depended solely on his human intuitions at any point, then he could possibly have believed wrong things. But this not what scripture teaches.
Walter says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:24pm
The big elephant in the room is that we simply don’t know if we even have accurate quotations of Jesus to begin with. His alleged words come from anonymously written documents of unknown provenance that were not directly quoted by Church fathers until the middle of the second century.
Erlend says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 1:47pm
Walter,
Its heavily, heavily, simplistic to just claim the Gospels were anonymous and leave it at that. In fact given that there is firm evidence for the reliability of the Gospel attributions (e.g. see the careful recent work of Hengel and Stanton, as well as several recent journal articles by numerous authors) its highly misleading statement to leave on its own.
The provenance of the synoptics puts them firmly in a 1st century C.E. Judean context. Its, well, just too long a list to begin citing sources on this, but if you want to see a recent lecture which offers a very persuasive argument by looking at just one strand of evidence for the gospel’s provenance then listen to P. J. Williams recent’ talk: http://vimeo.com/21393890
Robert says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 2:04pm
Walter, Thank you for pointing this out. Anything we think Jesus of Nazareth said is at least second hand information from men with an unknown track record.
Nor do we know how many months or years passed before they wrote these quotes down. Finally, we don’t know how much early churchs were successful in canonizing only stories that were accurate.
(Yes, I am aware of [most?] apologetics in this area. Textual criticism has been wildly successful at reconstruction of the original text; I am not persuaded that we have good reasons to trust the original even if perfectly reconstructed.)
pete says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 3:57am
Robert,
You might be a little off on how “the church” canonized scripture.
It was a 200 + year process of placing a collective stamp on what was widely and corporately deemed to be apostolic, authoritative, and orthodox.
This was done devoid of the power structure of a post-Constantinian hierarchy (cf. Muratorian Canon of 170-180 A.D.)
The initial reaction was to the heretical canon of Marcion of Sinope (the Gospel of Luke, Pauline epistles, and all excised of any Jewish reference).
This stripped down New Testament was a reflection of his Proto-Gnosticism (Yahweh was a jerk and couldn’t possibly be Jesus’ daddy)
Irenaeus of Lyons, and others, responded very quickly and strongly (see “Against Heresies” by Irenaeus), who gives a great account of the origin of the gospels.
This would have been 2nd century, however, a collective filtering of the early patristic writings would give us over 90% direct quotation from the Canonical New Testament.
This is a highly academic field of study that can’t simply be brushed off the way that you allege.
I’m sure you can appreciate the study of evolutionary biology, and would take a similar stance if one was to brush off this field of science with simplistic dismissal.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 10:17am
pete, further to your point, David Trobisch argues from extant copies of the New Testament texts that a complete Greek New Testament existed as early as 150 AD.
More here: http://wp.me/p1eZz8-aG
pete says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:56am
thanks Mike, Ill check him out
Walter says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 12:43pm
You’re missing the point. Even if we can reconstruct the autographs with say 97% accuracy, we cannot know that the autographs themselves were accurate in their depictions of Jesus. Whether Jesus held false beliefs or said stupid things, we can never truly know.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 1:26pm
You may be on to something, Walter. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have been very adept at anticipating which of Jesus’ statements would strike educated people of the 21st century as a false belief or a stupid thing, and made sure such mistakes landed on the cutting room floor as the final editions of gospels were being being prepared for release to the public.
In fact, now that you make me think about it, Jesus’s disciples were actually smarter than He was – making me all the more curious at why they ever followed Him in the first place, much less devoted their time to making sure He didn’t look dumb to all of us smartypants.
Thanks for bringing us back to the point.
Robert says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 1:29pm
Sarcasm? It’s hard to know on the Internet.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 1:49pm
Completely.
I’ll abandon it now to say straightforwardly that the New Testament documents are the most well-attested among all the documents of antiquity. To say that we cannot rely upon them as faithful accounts of what Jesus of Nazareth said and did is to go beyond common sense and engage in fanciful thinking.
Jesus is Lord and His kingdom is forever!
Brap Gronk says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 2:34pm
If someone (or a group of people) in attendance at Randal’s talk on Colton Burpo yesterday decided to write down a transcript of that talk today, how accurate do we think that transcript would be? What if they waited a week before writing it down? A month? A year?
If you consider that unfair, assume the author or authors were told before the talk began that they would be asked to write a transcript at some point after the talk.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 2:56pm
Given our media culture today, I doubt if we could remember as much as those who came from an oral culture like that of 1st Century Jews, where the ability to recall what one had heard was essential to the learning process.
And, no disrespect to Randal, I doubt if he’d be as memorable as the One we’re considering. Nor do I think that Randal practices the sort of picturesque, repetitive, and poetic speech patterns practiced by ancient speakers intent on having their words remembered by people without tape recorders or steno pads. Neither do I imagine that the drama of Randal’s life is such that it would arouse the heightened emotions in us which tend to inscribe memories more deeply in human minds.
Even so, I’ll bet if we started repeating anecdotes from Randal’s speech not long after we’d heard it (remember that the twelve were sent out on occasion to teach by Jesus even before He was crucified, and after His crucifixion they had 40 more days with Him of intense Bible study) as if our lives depended on it, and we had each other to reinforce our memories, and we were teaching others these anecdotes who would even repeat them back to us for verification every day for years – I’ll bet when the repeatedly rehearsed narratives were finally transcribed we’d have several accounts that, while by no means identical, were sufficiently similar to make clear that we were all bearing witness to the same person and the same events.
Walter says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 2:48pm
Mike, you are starting from a predetermined conclusion that Jesus was an infallible God-man whose biographies were supernaturally inspired thus ensuring that they were free from any error. Then you are working backwards to attempt to make the evidence fit your faith-based presuppositions.
We do not know for certain who wrote ANY of the gospels. The traditional attributions were based on guesses by second-century Church fathers. We don’t *know* how accurate these accounts are at chronicling what the man said and did. And the canonical gospels simply do not record what the man was doing for most of the thirty years or so before his death. To say that the man never held a false belief is nothing but faith-based reasoning that is the product of centuries of religious dogma.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 3:26pm
Walter, it is you who are starting from a pre-determined conclusion. I was raised Roman Catholic, attended parochial school, and was an altar boy. I abandoned it all as a teenager and embraced agnosticism. I continued on that path well into adulthood. I only began reading the Bible during my late 20′s and did so as an exercise in literature, not faith. In fact, one of my purposes in reading was to gather data so that I could refute those who attempted to preach Jesus to me. What I read in the Bible changed my mind.
As for omission of thirty of His thirty-three years, you have forgotten that the apostles are bearing witness to what they saw and heard – which was essentially the last three years of His life. It’s not as if they were claiming to have been on the same little league baseball team with Him.
And as for faith-based reasoning, it is you who are practicing it, for without citation of evidence you insist that He must have held false beliefs. In fact, you sound completely agnostic about evidence of any kind about Him. What’s left for you but your assumptions?
Nonetheless, you and I agree about the Trinity (the topic of your first comment on this post). Christ is God and the Trinity is a false conception of Him: http://wp.me/pKqSA-1lm
Walter says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 4:05pm
And as for faith-based reasoning, it is you who are practicing it, for without citation of evidence you insist that He must have held false beliefs.
It is my assumption that Jesus existed as an actual historic person and that he was not a mythical construct. It is my assumption that Jesus was simply a man, and all men have false beliefs. I have no direct evidence of this since he died quite a few centuries before my birth.
In fact, you sound completely agnostic about evidence of any kind about Him. What’s left for you but your assumptions?
If by agnostic you mean that I do not share your dogmatic certitude about Jesus, then you are correct. The limited historical evidence we have does not give us much to go by, and I do not like filling in the gaps of our knowledge with theological speculations based on centuries of received traditions handed down by dubious authority. I prefer to draw my own conclusions.
Nonetheless, you and I agree about the Trinity (the topic of your first comment on this post). Christ is God and the Trinity is a false conception of Him.
We may agree that the Trinity is a nonsensical construct, but I do not share your Sabellian conviction that Jesus was God. My viewpoint is that Jesus was purely human.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 4:18pm
Walter, thanks for the summary. I think we generally understand each other. Let me just tidy up the loose ends.
“Dogmatic certitude” is a pejorative term. You sound no less sure of your view than I do of mine.
If I believe that Jesus is Lord but that the Trinity falsely represents Him, I am obviously not “filling in the gaps of [my] knowledge with theological speculations based on centuries of received traditions handed down by dubious authority.”
Lastly, I reject the Sabellian conception as well.
Walter says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 4:43pm
“Dogmatic certitude” is a pejorative term. You sound no less sure of your view than I do of mine.
I am quite certain of my limited ability to know exactly what happened thousands of years ago.
Historical evidence suggests to me that Jesus existed as a man living a couple of millennia ago. I observe that all people today seem to hold at least some false beliefs, therefore I infer that Jesus also held false beliefs. To demonstrate otherwise would require an extraordinary amount and kind of evidence that is simply unavailable to us. This lack of extraordinary evidence leads me to be agnostic about Jesus but favoring the view that he was a man much like any other. I am open-minded to the extent that Jesus *might* have been an infallible God-man, but I consider it to be highly implausible. And I consider it rational to reject the extraordinary claim in the absence of substantially better evidence.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 5:04pm
Walter,
For me, the “extraordinary amount and kind of evidence” is found in the Bible. Jesus spoke and acted like no other human being I have encountered or read about. (What rational human being says things like “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and “Love me more than you love your own family”?)
That He lived and died in a manner consistent with what He taught further distinguished Him from the rest of humanity.
It is inconceivable to me that anyone could have fabricated the story of Jesus. To think it up, you’d have to think like Jesus – and if you did think like Jesus, you wouldn’t lie.
If you are truly going to believe in Jesus, as opposed to joining a church or some other group, it is your conscience that has to get you there. Jesus promises to address the shame we feel for not living up to our own ideals. There’s no one else I can turn to for help with that. History, reading, evidence, reason – all these things matter. But if one’s conscience is not in play, the search for Jesus is useless.
Erlend says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 10:52pm
Walter you said;
“We do not know for certain who wrote ANY of the gospels. The traditional attributions were based on guesses by second-century Church fathers”
Sorry, but that statement is patently incorrect- at least in the strength with which you have expressed it. Again please consult proper scholarly discussion on this; of which there have been numerous studies on the history and sources behind the attribution of the gospels’ titles. In fact Martin Hengel wrote a monograph on the issue! and demonstrates (once more) that the voice the idea that they are ‘second century guesses’ is to speak from ignorance of the data.
Walter says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 11:43pm
I have studied the evidence from both conservative scholars as well as liberal/agnostic ones and I stand by my original statement. It goes almost without saying that the gospel accounts were initially distributed *without* authorial attributions. The main reason probably being that anonymous documents convey a greater sense of authority, whereas if you knew that Fred of East Galilee wrote a gospel, your focus would be on Fred and not the message the gospels were trying to tell.
Robert says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 2:06pm
Yes, accuracy of the original autographs needs to be established, not assumed.
The criteria for canonizing one text and not another was subjective and (like most human endeavors) prone to all kinds of errors and bias, early church fathers included.
pete says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 8:00am
its the differently weighted scales of credulity that one attaches to secular history (Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC) vs. Apostolic, Patristic, and Old Testament typological/prophetic witness to the Divinity and Ministry of Jesus Christ.
Evidential integrity demands that his history be approached the same way as others.
And if found to be true, there are consequences to how we respond.
Robert says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 9:10am
What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn’t make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn’t make it go away.
And because it’s true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn’t there to be lived.
People can stand what is true, for they are already enduring it.
—Eugene Gendlin
Robert says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 9:14am
Above is just a quote you reminded me of. It’s not a counter-argument, I just wanted to share the quote. Enjoy!
MGT2 says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 4:15pm
As I already said, that Jesus had to learn is not in dispute. What he had to learn is another matter; and I already stated some.
There is nothing in scripture, absolutely nothing, that can justify the claim that it is a fact Jesus believed wrong things. To say that he did not “know” some things is vastly different from saying that it is a fact that he definitely believed wrong things. To say that he did not “know” some things does not logically lead to the conclusion that he definitely believed wrong things. Such a conclusion is pure speculation posturing as fact.
It is simply an argument (without the necessary caveats) establishing a possibility. It does not establish a fact.
clamat says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 6:16pm
@MikeGantt
So isn’t the simpler explanation that Jesus was simply irrational?
In any event, plenty of human beings, both rational and irrational, say things like “I am the truth” and “love me more than you love your own family.” They’re called “cult leaders” and, tragically often, the “mentally ill.”
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 6:42pm
So isn’t the simpler explanation that Jesus was simply irrational?
Simply put, no. His teaching was marked by rationality that His critics could not overcome – though heaven knows their best minds tried. His behavior was unusual – most people can’t stay quiet when they’re cut off in traffic, much less crucified – but always rational. Whenever asked, He always gave a rationale for anything He did.
In any event, plenty of human beings, both rational and irrational, say things like “I am the truth” and “love me more than you love your own family.”
You must not have proofread this sentence. If you know plenty of human beings who say things like this than you’re hanging out in the wrong places. And if you know rational people who say things like this – well, maybe you’re not in the wrong place after all.
They’re called “cult leaders” and, tragically often, the “mentally ill.”
I’ve never heard of a cult leader or a mentally ill person who uttered a teaching as eloquent as the Sermon on the Mount, or who sacrificed themselves that others might live and spread a message of love. Oh, and none of them was raised from the dead and started a movement that is still gaining strength after two thousand years either.
I urge you to go back to Jesus’ words and consider whether or not in all of literature you have ever heard teaching marked by such moral beauty and clarity. Anyone who cares about the battle between good and evil in our world cannot help but be attracted to the power of His message.
clamat says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:27pm
Staying calm doesn’t mean what one is saying is rational, any more than raising one’s voice means what one is saying is irrational. And I seem to recall that Jesus “cried out with a loud voice..My God, My God, why has thou forsaken Me?” So apparently, by your reasoning, this loud “crying out,” i.e., failing to “stay quiet,” means he wasn’t rational.
Giving a “rationale” for doing things doesn’t mean one is rational, it means one is rationalizing. The most evil people in the world give a “rationale” for their atrocities.
You can’t honestly dispute that many, many people have made claims that, on their face, are qualitatively indistinguishable from those made by Jesus. Including many claims to actually be Jesus. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/05/jesus_jesus_jesus.htm
I assume you think the Three Jesuses of Ypisilanti were delusional, despite the things they said. Why do you Jesus of Nazareth was telling the Truth? It seems to be because Jesus of Nazareth was really “eloquent.”
But eloquence is entirely subjective. In the immortal words of the Dude, well, that’s just your opinion, man. It’s trite, but entirely accurate. Eloquence is in the ear of the listener. In my opinion, plenty of cult leaders have said things just as eloquent as the Sermon. Prove my opinion is wrong. You can’t. Similarly, I defeat your argument by simply offering my bald opinion that, oh, the Koran, say, is marked by far superior moral “beauty” and “clarity.” (again, eye of the beholder).
Whether Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead is a matter of some dispute, to make the understatement of the year. All the rest is just your own attempt at eloquence. Others would praise their personal heroes just as passionately, and in similar terms.
On their face, Jesus’ claims to be “the way” (whatever that means), the “truth” (whatever that means) and the “life” (whatever that means) are just as likely to be the product of a sick mind as were those of Jim Jones. Or as conniving a mind as the Baghwan. Or as deluded a mind as Mohammed.
That said, in my opinion, Jesus of Nazareth said some wonderful things, the Golden Rule being perhaps the best.
But Confucius and said it first.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 9:03pm
clamat,
You threw a lot into your answer, so I responded to it here: http://wp.me/p1eZz8-Ce
clamat says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 9:55pm
Mike,
I’m going to respond in both places this time, but since it started in Randal’s blog, that’s the one I’m going to follow from here out. I just don’t have time to keep up with two threads. Hope you understand.
In other words, Jesus’ claims to be divine were unique because only Jesus was divine. Sort of assumes the conclusion in a big way
I wasn’t trying to disprove the “reality of Jesus.” It’s not possible to disprove Jesus’ divinity. Which is why theists tend to insist on it.
My point is that you can’t prove that people who claim to be Jesus are not Jesus. But it’s highly unlikely they are. It’s far, far, far more likely they’re crazy or lying, for whatever purpose, good or ill. I can’t prove that Jesus wasn’t what he claimed to be (assuming the words ascribed to him by latter-day authors are accurate). But given the wealth of sick or dishonest or deluded people who make similar claims, it’s highly unlikely. It’s far, far, far, more likely he was crazy, or lying. That his purpose was laudable doesn’t make his claims any more true.
As is so common with believers. Your inner witness isn’t exactly objective evidence, now is it?
More importantly, your conscience confirms Jesus was telling the truth. Precisely. If Jesus’ words did not comport with your conscience, you wouldn’t endorse them. In other words, Jesus must agree with you, not you with him. That’s not a criticism, it’s just observing the truth that people choose their gods, not the other way around.
This suggests you can “prove” it to others. I’ll just point out that “proof” does not mean “persuades the most people.” Just because Obama was elected doesn’t “prove” he was the “best” candidate.
No, I don’t. But a billion people do. Can you prove them wrong without resorting to the subjective confirmation of your conscience? Personally, my vote for best moral statement – and clarity, consistency, and brevity weigh far heavier in this determination than does heavily than beauty – is the one at the end of Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.
Or Jesus. So what need of Moses, Jesus, or Christianity?
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 10:39pm
clamat,
My response is here: http://bit.ly/vExR7L
clamat says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 11:34pm
Mike,
I think many of your statements are inconsistent, irrelevant, miss the point, or are flat-out non-sequiturs, but time is short, so I’ll speak to two comments you’ve made, one in our exchange, one your exchange with Walter, and trust faithful readers to fairly parse the rest.
So you do not dispute that Confucius developed a profound moral teaching – perhaps the single most profound moral teaching – completely independent of Jesus, et al. There are many other examples, from many other traditions, which demonstrate that it’s simply not necessary to come to Jesus to be moral.
And morality alone should solve for “sin.” (Whatever “sin” might mean, exactly. As far as I’m concerned, pride, lust and covetousness cannot be sins under any reasonable conception of the word. It is unjust to convict people of thoughtcrimes. If you can demonstrate covetousness is a sin without resort to the simple, simplistic mandates of the Bible, I’ll listen. )
As for “solving death.” Unless there are bulletins from the afterlife I’m unaware of, you’ve got exactly zero evidence that Jesus solved for death beyond a few scant pages of pleasant poetry in a single ancient book.
My uncle Frank solved for death and sin. How do I know? He said so, according to a book written by a guy who knew his best friend. Plus the book (written by the guy who knew Frank’s best friend) says Frank was a really good guy. Frank obviously solved for death and sin. What other possible explanation can there be for Frank’s life and what he said? According to a book. Written by people who didn’t know him. And then translated, edited, and elided multiple times. Resulting in institutions that have afforded their leaders enormous power, even over one’s soul, for thousands of years.
I humbly submit you are not exercising your powers of conception to their fullest.
All the best,
clamat
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 10:24am
Jesus was the manifestation of God as a human being. Every human being has a conscience, and that conscience comes from God. Through his conscience, a human being can think morally. He can even develop teachings about morality, as Confucius did and others have done. Confucius did it independent of the knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, but with the conscience God (i.e. Jesus) had provided him. However, a person who thinks morally will have his conscience – at whatever level it currently exists – upgraded when he studies Jesus of Nazareth.
Morality could solve for sin…but obviously it doesn’t, as anyone who’s tried it knows.
As for covetousness, it is first of all a sin against oneself wherein you rob yourself of the contentment and joy you would otherwise have over what is your own. Simultaneously, it robs your neighbor of the love you should having for him, for if you love someone you will be happy that he has what he has.
The New Testament is more than poetry and more than a few pages. It is extensive testimony soaked in the blood of those who would not lie or keep quiet about what they saw and heard. The truth about Jesus and His resurrection – and what it meant for others as well as themselves – was dearer to them than their own lives. You can reject this evidence if you like, but you can’t honestly say it’s “zero evidence.”
Your “Uncle Frank” story is too contorted to follow. However, I can assure you that the New Testament does not authorize any institution. Leaders who say otherwise are misleading you about Jesus. He is Spirit. You can relate to Him…directly…now…everywhere…and always. You do not need church.
The limitation lies not in my conception but in your perception. You do not understand the story of Jesus if you think it could have been fabricated. Find me another life like it – oh, and make sure the biography of it was written well in advance over a thousand-year period by dozens of collaborators, most of whom never had contact with each other much less the subject – and I will concede that I have failed to exercise my imagination sufficiently.
All the best to you as well. And Jesus Christ is where you will find it.
clamat says:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 7:24pm
Mike,
I always do this. I say I’m going to stop, but the conversation is interesting and fun and then (to paraphrase Michael Coreleone) it pulls me back in!
(Randal, apologies for taking this thread somewhat off-topic. And voluminously.)
The very first sentence of your post assumes the conclusion. The remainder contains too many other examples of unjustified assumptions, bald assertions, and non-sequiturs to tackle individually, so once again I’ll concentrate on a few specific portions.
Too contorted? It’s a short paragraph comprised of ten sentences written in plain, modern English. No complex grammar or unusual syntax, no SAT words, no references to esoteric philosophical concepts or obscure histories. The paragraph distills the Jesus/Bible story you have told above, substituting the name “Frank” for “Jesus” and the word “book” for “Bible.” I find it hard to believe this very simple passage is too “contorted” or that the analogy was lost on you.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to (1) the New Testament or (2) to the Old Testament “prophecies” of the messiah?
If (1):
It seems to prove my point pretty clearly. The question is whether the Bible is an accurate, reliable account of the life of a real person. If we were discussing any other book, surely you’d conclude the fact that it was written by dozens of people who didn’t have contact with each other or the subject they were writing about makes it far less likely to be accurate. But because you’re start from an unshakable commitment to the truth of the Bible you must convince yourself that these weaknesses are somehow strengths when it comes to your chosen Book.
Many books describe many lives, some just as fanciful and fantastic as that of the Biblical Jesus. Many people think the lives described in their chosen Book are just as exemplary as the ones described in yours. Muslims, the Koran, and Mohammed being just one example. Why should I believe you over them?
Your contention that the Jesus story told by the Bible is true is based entirely on your inability to imagine that anybody could have made it up or gotten it wrong. Your lack of imagination is not an argument. Or, more accurately, it’s an argument from incredulity. Or, perhaps more accurately, it’s an argument from credulity.
If (2):
Suffice it to say the Old Testament prophesied the birth of Jesus of Nazareth just as clearly and specifically as Nostradamus did the death of Henry II. (And just as trustworthily, given a thousand years of selective translation and editing.)
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 10:04pm
If “Frank” substitutes for “Jesus” and “book” substitutes for “Bible,” then the contortions include the reference to “Uncle” (which I suppose now carries no meaning), the assumption that the New Testament was not produced by eyewitnesses (which contradicts the New Testament itself), and the omission of the Old Testament (which was the set of documents to which the New Testament writers were constantly referring as documentation for their claims – not the New Testament).
The latter. Therefore, only your answer (2) below is relevant. But some of the incidental things you say in (1) deserve a response for their own sake so I’ll comment on them, too.
Yes, of course, That’s the very point I’m making. Such circumstances would make it all the more difficult to get the story right. The fact that they did get it right – and that they got it right before He ever lived – is what points to God’s hand being in it. Note carefully that I was speaking of the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, it was largely written by people who knew Jesus firsthand. The rest was written by contemporaries and colleagues of those eyewitnesses. There is no mystery that their stories would have been consistent.
Actually, I started reading the Bible in my late 20′s with no such conviction at all. It was only serious reading and study of the texts that lead me to that conviction. Faith was not something I packed for my journey; it was a destination to which my journey took me. I wasn’t looking for faith, I was looking for truth. Once I found truth, there was something to have faith in.
Do you really think the life of Muhammad approached the life of Christ? Muhammad was a man of bloodshed; the only blood shed by Christ was His own. Muhammad amassed political power; Jesus eschewed it. Muhammad accumulated wealth; Jesus gave away everything He had. I could go on. To suggest that Muhammad’s life was like that of Christ is frivilous.
My argument is like the argument that says “Astronauts probably did land on the moon because it’s impossible for me to conceive that something of that scope involving that many people over that period of time could have been faked.” I wasn’t on the moon when it happened; I wasn’t at Mission Control in Houston. I cannot know from direct experience; I have to make a decision based on the data to which I have access. Based on that data, I cannot deny the moon landing. In the same way, I cannot deny the story of Jesus.
I’ll start with your last point. There are more extant copies of the Old and New Testaments than there are of any other documents from antiquity. The process of sifting through and comparing them has led inexorably toward one ideal: to determine as precisely as possible what the originals said. This process therefore leads in the exact opposite direction in which you are pointing. That is, you want to suggest that time and process has allowed the editing and shaping of the documents when the reality is that time and process have worked against anyone who wants to edit and shape the texts. Compare any two Bibles you can buy at a bookstore: they will only diverge in details, never on substantive and recurring themes.
The Old Testament prophesied much, much more about the Messiah than His birth. If you read a translation of the New Testament that shows its quotations of the Old Testament in distinctive print, then you will see how the Old Testament referred to Christ over and over and over -pulling from a variety of Old Testament books.
I have never studied Nostradamus so I do not know what prophecy he may have made that some may or may not consider to have applied to Henry II. I can tell you, however, that Nostradamus was one guy and this is a very important part of the point I am making to you about the Old Testament: It was not one person who prophesied about Christ, it was many. It is the combined testimony of all these men of God which becomes so powerful. It is the expectation that, being at such a distance from each other as well as Him, they could not be in agreement about His life that makes it so unique that they are.
The core contents of the Old Testament have been known since the time of Christ, and there has been no serious dispute about its this issue since. That each book in many and varied ways testifies to the coming reality of a great Messiah is what lends an authenticity to Jesus not enjoyed by any other figure, whether in antiquity or modernity.
clamat says:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 11:22pm
Mike,
I think we’ve reached an impasse, so these really will be my last comments on this thread.
You can have no idea that the authors of the New Testament “got the story right” unless the story can be confirmed against something independent of the New Testament. Referring to the prophecies of the Old Testament doesn’t get you anywhere because the authors of the New Testament could have simply written the new story to line up with those prophecies. (To the extent the New Testament actually does line up with the Old. Again, I think people who believe the OT prophecies tell of Jesus are reading through the pleasant haze of rose-colored glasses.)
As for your claim that multiple, contemporaneous eyewitnesses wrote the New Testament, the weight of Biblical scholarship, produced by both theists and non-, is squarely against you. This is certainly true of the Gospels. Even if we grant certain of the Pauline epistles (the originals are gone, and analysis of the text and external references leads many to question whether about half of them were actually written by Paul), this is one contemporaneous author, not many authors telling consistent stories.
I stand by my charge: You are fully committed to the truth of the Bible (to the extent it comports with your own personal values – “Man, being a gentleman, returned the favor”). It makes no difference that you came to Christ later in life. I can’t know the circumstances or psychology that may have influenced your conversion. At this point, I doubt you can, either. What is clear to me is that now you are more committed to commitment than to critical thinking, and thus your faith is impervious.
Which is why you genuinely believe – and I have no doubt your Belief is genuine – that the evidence for the Moon landing and the evidence for Jesus Christ are equivalent.
Sincerely, and until we spar again!
clamat
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 10:27am
clamat,
You speak as if the New Testament were a single document written by a single person or group at a single point in time in a single room. The reality is that it is a file drawer into which depositions from a long list of various witnesses – geographically and chronologically dispersed – have been placed. The testimonies of these various witnesses corroborate each other and provide a solid case. You’re like the juror who will never convict because he always wants one more witness than there is. The New Testament is a file of hundreds of witnesses. It’s more than enough for a conviction.
Again, you remind me of the juror unwilling under any circumstances to convict. You are here contradicting yourself in order to make sure you don’t convict. That is, you are saying that any correlation between the testaments was fabricated by those who wrote the New Testament, but that there really is not a correlation. Commit to one position or the other because they certainly cannot both be true. You’re not committed to either position – you’re only committed to not giving a conviction.
Your view of “the weight of Biblical scholarship” is selective and prejudiced. There are plenty of scholars whose work confirms the reliability of the New Testament documents including the gospels.
Shall we actually number the scholars on each side and then compare the tally? Or shall we simply be more reasonable and acknowledge that truth is not determined by majority vote?
You demonstrate a greater familiarity with criticisms of the Bible than you do with the Bible itself. Paul’s letters were written to various groups spread across the Mediterranean shore over a period of years, if not decades. Most of these cities he visited and so the people knew him face to face. In these letters he made reference to other apostles (and they made reference to him). These independent groups corroborated Paul and his story to each other – as well as that of other apostles. The letters are extraordinary evidence of a geographically-dispersed movement of people whose common bond was knowledge of the fact that a contemporary itinerant Jewish rabbi had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah. To say that Paul’s letters represent only one contemporaneous witness is to reveal a gross, and perhaps wanton, ignorance of their contents and their provenance.
Yes I am. However, it was not an a priori commitment. My reading and my reason led me to it.
I assure you that the values of God as revealed in the Bible are an ideal for which I am still striving. It was the beauty of His morality that caused me to realize how insufficient mine was.
If you approached all literature with the same cynicism you apply to the Bible – that is, as a juror unwilling to convict – you’d probably be unwilling to accept that Rousseau actually said this.
I’ve begun to see that nothing makes a difference to you. Your commitment is to denial of Christ. You welcome any philosophical or historical position that supports that commitment.
You are projecting your position on to me. It is you who are more committed to denial than to critical thinking. I know that it was critical thinking that led to my conviction about Jesus Christ. And that it is critical thinking that keeps me convicted about Him.
Everyone believes. It’s just a question of who and what we believe. For you it’s Rousseau; for me it’s Jesus Christ.
This I know: you will eventually acknowledge Christ and will do so willingly. The sooner that happens, the better for you and those you love.
If you truly were a critical thinker – and not just a critic – you would know the validity of the comparison. Until then, you are avoiding the facts and simply taking comfort in the number of people who surround you at the moon landing conspiracy conventions.
In the meantime, I encourage you to spar with Christ – He is a far more worthy opponent for you. Moreover, when He defeats you, you will be glad He was stronger. Just ask Jacob.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 10:37am
P.S. clamat, we’ve exchanged many words in this dialogue. If you value anything I’ve said, please keep this uppermost in mind: Even though judgment is upon us, still everyone is going to heaven. See you there, if not before.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 3:57am
Why does a normal cognitive development necessitates holding false beliefs? Is it your view that to develop normally is to hold false beliefs?
Are you saying that it is impossible to not hold false beliefs? I know of no study that makes holding false beliefs a necessary part of normal cognitive development. Maybe you can point me to one.
And concerning Jesus, where in the biblical narrative does it point to Him definitely having FALSE beliefs?
MGT2 says:
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 11:13am
Randal,
As I thought about it last night, given that we know of so many child geniuses over the years, would you say that they had a normal cognitive development, or would you say that they are exceptions?
Could Jesus have been an exception?
I would like to know if you think that Jesus HAD to have a normal cognitive development?
Could he have been a genius savant without any brain malfunction? (Not all savants have developmental disorders).
There is evidence that he was cognitively extraordinary when he spoke with the religious leaders at the age of twelve. He was already cognitively aware of his Deity by that time, with nothing to suggest that it was a sudden or recent awareness.
So there is evidence that Jesus knew he was not like every other child.
It is therefore more reasonable to assume the possibility of him not having false beliefs than to claim affirmatively that he definitely held false beliefs.
Have a great Thanksgiving…if you celebrate it in Canada.
randal says:
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 4:49am
MGT2 I gave a very concrete case with a teacher who provided false testimony but it was plausible testimony and the teacher was a trusted authority. Any child would have believed her and thereby acquired a false belief, at least for awhile. What is your objection to Jesus also believing her and having a false belief for awhile? I really don’t understand what compels you to go through those contortions.
By the way, we celebrate Thanksgiving in early October, but since God’s foreknowledge is meticulous he took your well wish into consideration in early October and made the turkey that much more delicious as a result. So thanks!
MGT2 says:
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 12:27pm
Randal,
Once again, I have no problem with asserting the possibility of your clam. It is the certainty and “impossible-to-be-otherwise” posture you have taken with it that concerns me. Especially when there is nothing stated within the texts to support that certitude. That strikes me as elevating speculation to solid epistemically grounds.
It is no contortion to use the information given in the bible concerning Jesus’ perspiccacity and conclude that it is more reasonable for the opposite of your claim.
On a lighter note, I made turducken for Thanksgiving…awesome.
wilbur says:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 5:04pm
it is no contortion to say that Jesus was not ‘any child.’ his divinity is foundational to any belief in him, and the contortions come in trying to deny him. you really have not cited all those many examples of where Jesus was wrong. if there were so many examples, where are just a few?
randal says:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 8:47pm
(1) Jesus was a human zygote
(2) A human zygote lacks the cognitive capacity to know anything.
(3) Therefore, Jesus the human zygote lacked the cognitive capacity to know anything.
MGT2 says:
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 12:32pm
Randal,
I wanted to say epistemic but I cannot edit posts from my iPad it seems.
Andy Derksen says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 1:07am
Okay, first off, I suppose it’s theoretically possible that Jesus grew up having some false beliefs in company with fellow Jews (or Gentiles, for that matter).
Secondly, that’s a very different thing–his general range of knowledge, including things not mentioned in the gospels–from what he actually *taught* in his public ministry. In regard to *that* category of knowledge, Jesus said this: “I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment — what to say and what to speak. . . . The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority” (Jn. 12:49; 14:10; cf. 3:32; 5:19; 8:26, 38; 12:50; 14:23-24; 15:15; 17:8).
This automatically means–unless Jesus was in fact wrong about his very identity and mission(!)–that whatever he actually *taught* as recorded in the gospels–including statements that have a bearing on evolutionary theory–is TRUTH.
And if this is not the case, then we might as well abandon the faith right here and now.
Case closed.
randal says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 8:27pm
“I suppose it’s theoretically possible that Jesus grew up having some false beliefs….”
Andy, what do you mean “theoretically possible”? Why don’t you think it is probable?
“This automatically means–unless Jesus was in fact wrong about his very identity and mission(!)–that whatever he actually *taught* as recorded in the gospels–including statements that have a bearing on evolutionary theory–is TRUTH.”
I am not sure what you mean by “statements that have a bearing…” Every statement we make bears unspoken implicature. Jesus’ statements would as well. What makes you think that the unspoken implicature of his statements were all inerrant?
Finally, your closing is absurd. Let’s take Jesus at his word and say that he thought the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. He was wrong. Thus, by your reasoning “we might as well abandon the faith right here and now.” Think about it. You have made your entire faith contingent upon the view that Jesus did not really believe the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. That strikes me as an absurd set of priorities.
MGT2 says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 9:04pm
Randal,
I read Paul Copan’s explanation of the mustard seed issue and think you have misunderstood the cultural context within which Jesus spoke, which would have made that statement accurate.
randal says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 9:58pm
You’re missing the point of what I wrote. The issue is not what Jesus meant when he referred to the mustard seed. Rather, the point is that Andy’s faith would collapse if Jesus happened to have his seed sizes mixed up.
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 12:51pm
More absurd than the set of priorities that has a Christian apologist bent on persuading people that Jesus grew up with false beliefs?
randal says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 1:54pm
There is nothing absurd about defending Jesus’ normative psychological development over-against an incipient docetic christology that believes human cognitive limitations are irreconcilable with the incarnate Word. Luke had no problem twice affirming Jesus’ growth in wisdom (Luke 2). Do you?
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 2:28pm
None whatsoever. However, to state that Jesus “held false beliefs” is to go beyond saying that He experienced human cognitive development and thus is to tread where Luke has not trod.
randal says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 2:36pm
As I pointed out already normative human psychological development includes the acquisition of some false beliefs. To grow in wisdom entails, among other things, that you move from affirming some propositions that are less wise to others that are more wise.
Why would you think of denying this of Jesus as a four year old boy?
*cough cough* docetism *cough cough* Apollinarianism *cough cough*
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 3:16pm
I have no problem believing that Jesus experienced all our limitations when He was a human being, including ignorance but excepting sin.
I don’t believe He was ever omniscient as a human being, but that He depended on the Holy Spirit…just as we can do, though none of us seem to be doing it nearly as well as He did it.
Even so, I have a hard time imagining all that was in His mind at any time in His earthly life, so different was His life from ours. (As for age four, I can hardly imagine what was in my own mind then, much less in His.) Even though Jesus was fully human yet His contemporaries said, “Never spake a man thus,” and His closest followers were always scratching their heads. For you to glibly say that “surely someone taught Him something wrong and surely He believed it” strikes me as unwarranted and inconsistent with the inscrutability of what Jesus thought except when He told us what He thought.
The example of your daughter and Canada vis-a-vis Russia is interesting, but not compelling. And I certainly don’t feel comfortable jumping from that to as an adult Jesus 1) held a false belief about seed sizes, or 2) falsely believed in an account of creation that could not be true.
Thus it is quite possible to reject the idea that Jesus embraced falsehoods without resorting to the kind of heresies you invoked. Ignorance is one thing; error is another.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 3:59pm
Randal,
The accusation of docetism and Apollinarianism is a cheap shot and a false choice you are forcing upon us.
The orthodox view that Jesus had two natures, human and divine, is maintained. But very different from every other human is the fact that this divine person existed before the incarnation. This divine person just happens to be God the Son; hence, “the first Adam is of the earth, but the second Adam [Jesus} is a life giving spirit.
When he assumed (hypostatically) the human form, even as a child, he was still the pre-existent divine person, God. The human nature does not equal a person or a mind. So it is easy to see that the mind of Jesus was not like any other human mind – there is an eternity of difference. This is where I think you are mistaken in thinking Jesus could have had wrong beliefs.
To give your thesis credibility you need to show that there was a point when the person Jesus was not the pre-existent divine person.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:25am
MGT2, Apollinarianism is, among other things, a denial of the full developmental human psychology of Jesus. To have a full developmental human psychology is to listen to your mom when you are three years old and she is teaching you about the natural world. When that mother happens to live in first century Palestine (or 21st century North America) that mom will get some things wrong and thus the child will gain some false beliefs.
You write “The human nature does not equal a person or a mind. So it is easy to see that the mind of Jesus was not like any other human mind – there is an eternity of difference. This is where I think you are mistaken in thinking Jesus could have had wrong beliefs.”
Can you explain what this means exactly? This statement sounds very Apollinarinan.
“To give your thesis credibility you need to show that there was a point when the person Jesus was not the pre-existent divine person.”
MGT2 there are two fine models you might consider: a kenotic model and a two-minds model. The former is rooted in a classic Lutheran christology, the latter in a Reformed christology. Both provide a framework to affirm the full human psychological development of Jesus as attested to in the gospels. Neither obliges one to deny that Jesus was “the pre-existent divine [second] person [of the Trinity].”
MGT2 says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 4:08am
Apollinarianism denied that Jesus had a complete nature, only a human body.
What I stated about the nature not equalling the person is affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon when they reasoned that the incarnation combined two natures in one person, thus avoiding the Apollinarian problem.
They also acknowledged the pre-existence of Jesus and sought to avoid what your thesis cannot escape: God became human at one point and them back to God again.
I think that the issue here is a confusion about just what is meant by human nature. Your claim that a normal human psychology means believing wrong things hence Jesus must have, ignores two essential facts.
First, our human natures are not normal, but fallen.
Second, Jesus’ human nature was normal, not fallen.
So your use of normal is also problematic.
MGT2 says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 4:16am
I meant complete human nature.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 1:28pm
“sought to avoid what your thesis cannot escape: God became human at one point and them back to God again.”
This is mystifying. Why do you think that anything I have said requires a temporary incarnation?
As for definitions of normal, I’m going to respond to that in the blog.
randal says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:59pm
Not at all. Normal human cognitive development includes the holding of false beliefs.
If you disagree can you provide me with one example in history of an individual who held no false beliefs during their upbringing?
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:24am
Jesus of Nazareth.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:28am
Of course your answer is begging the question since the very question at issue is whether there is reason to think Jesus had no false beliefs. I pointed out that every other human being acquires false beliefs in their upbringing and have for a reason to think Jesus would be the single exception.
The only possible avenue I can see that one might argue is to claim that it is sinful to have a false belief. But it isn’t sinful to have a false belief so that mode of argument is not open to you.
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 11:21am
Randal, you are the one trying to present an argument; I’m merely rejecting it.
You want to argue that Jesus “held false beliefs.” To start with, that’s provocative language to a believer in Jesus and makes it incumbent on you to be clear, precise, and logical – which you have failed to do. You suggest that surely while Jesus was young, some authority figure gave Him erroneous information which He must have believed. You then use this to justify saying that Jesus as an adult passed on erroneous information about seed sizes and creation (since He couldn’t have humanly known about evolution). This is an incredible leap even if the childhood speculation were true, which I don’t easily grant that it was. And if I did grant it, such grant would be based on finding some more precise language than “belief” which, in your argument, lumps relatively inconsequential factoids with important doctrines of truth.
You’ve presented a weak case, with imprecise and provocative language, to make a point which raises all sorts of questions (e.g. “How are we to judge when Jesus, and the degree to which, Jesus’ teaching was corrupted by false belief?”) which you are not answering. You ought not be surprised that readers aren’t uniformly and enthusiastically hitting the “Like” button.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 1:18pm
Mike: “You suggest that surely while Jesus was young, some authority figure gave Him erroneous information which He must have believed.”
Yeah, just like every other kid in the history of the world.
Here’s one scenario from tens of thousands of exchanges Jesus would have had with others.
Jesus (at four): Mama, why is the sky blue?
Mary: That’s because there is an ocean above us Jesus. God made it and put a hard raqia in the sky to hold it up.
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:29pm
Randal, let’s set aside this part of the argument for the moment and please tell me where it ultimately takes you. That is, to believe that “Jesus held false beliefs” presumably has some effect on the way you read His teaching in the gospels – the way you regard, understand, heed, embrace, and obey Him. Please describe that effect.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:34pm
“That is, to believe that “Jesus held false beliefs” presumably has some effect on the way you read His teaching in the gospels….”
Not necessarily. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 4:00pm
Without a worthwhile destination, there’s no point putting the horses in harness.
You would have us depart from explicit teaching the Lord has given us to obey by speculating not just on his childhood experiences, but on His inward reaction to them – which neither He nor the Scriptures have invited us to do.
Furthermore, you would do so with imprecise terminology that would rewrite Luke’s 2:52 from “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom” to “And Jesus keep increasing in a combination of wisdom and falsehood.”
I like you, Randal, but count me out on this one.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:09pm
“Without a worthwhile destination, there’s no point putting the horses in harness.”
The worthwhile destination is a doctrine of incarnation.
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:45pm
But that is not a destination, it’s our current location – at least for those of us who believe that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:07pm
You’re missing the point. Assent to the incarnation as a doctrine is our current location. A theoretical account of the incarnation is our destination. Faith seeking understanding.
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:23pm
To answer you here would be to duplicate what I’ve already written today (postmarked Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:10am) on your newer post The Fallible Jesus? where you have continued this topic. If we’re going to extend this dialogue, that’s probably the place to do it.
MGT2 says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 4:03am
Andy,
I agree with that.
The scriptural evidence taken together, especially his own proclamation that he speaks only what the Father tells him, should lead one to think that Jesus had no wrong beliefs because of his total reliance upon the Father, instead of trusting in human understanding.
Andy Derksen says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 11:37am
First, my thanks to those who supported my earlier post. Great to see a lot of consistent Bible-believers here!
Secondly, my rejoinder to Randal. . . .
By “theoretically possible” I mean things Jesus might’ve said that were (a) outside of Scripture, and (b) part of casual conversation (e.g., “Hey, Simon, how do you think the Hellenists will do at the upcoming Games? I think they’ll clean up.”) Of course, Jesus’ casual conversations aren’t recorded in the gospels, so we don’t have any such thing on record to go by.
On the other hand, one must also consider that even in conversations deemed “casual” and unrecorded in the gospels, if Jesus had erred in any such conversations, the likely effect on his disciples’ psychology would’ve been negative. On the third hand, perhaps such errors, if they happened, would’ve pertained to things about which no 1st-century person would’ve had knowledge so as to prove Jesus wrong.
In all of this I’m obviously theorizing about extrabiblical possibilities–hence the phrase “theoretically possible.”
> I am not sure what you mean by “statements that have a bearing…”
You mentioned evolution as an example. Ergo, I referred (quite naturally) to Jesus’ statements that have a bearing on that subject (if we want to use that as an example).
Because he taught such things with both explicit and implicit divine authority. Look, if Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about with respect to creation, then why on earth should I take him at face value when he tries to get me to believe other things?
It’s reasonable to expect (and quite demonstrable from other examples) that Jesus would’ve used analogies to which his Judean and Galilean audiences could relate. Ergo, the wording of those analogies would conform to their experience–ergo again, the mustard seed was the smallest seed in *their* agricultural experience. Jesus specifically referred to a farmer sowing his field (Matt. 13:31; Mk. 4:31), hence referring not to literally “all” seeds on the planet, but to seeds with which the *Jews* (not all ethnicities) had experience *cultivating* (not wild seeds). It is true that the mustard seed was the smallest seed in /that/ narrower context.
Jesus may also have simply been using hyperbole; he was certainly doing so when he described the *result* of the sowing: “when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree” (Matt. 13:32). The normal mustard plant is more bush than tree, and not the largest one around. The editors of the NET Bible comment: “there is important OT background . . . : Ezek 17:22-24 pictures the reemergence of the Davidic house where people can find calm and shelter. Like the mustard seed, it would start out small but grow to significant size.” (New English Translation [bible.org], Matt. 13:32 n48)
Jesus’ parables typically had hidden meanings–i.e., hidden to those without spiritual sensitivity or a wider biblical context in their awareness–so the “seed” here could be a metaphor for what was at that moment the smallest known religion on the planet: discipleship under Jesus!
Then I follow Jesus’ own absurdity; he who said to Nicodemas, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (Jn. 3:12) In other words if people didn’t take Jesus at face value when he spoke of mundane things, how could they take him at face value when he spoke of loftier things? Think of what the effect on his listeners would’ve been if Jesus had spoken demonstrable errors in his illustrations: they would then have failed to take seriously his “spiritual” sayings, because they would think he didn’t know what he was talking about (“If this guy doesn’t even grasp farming or fishing or local economics–how can he tell me about God???”).
Hence your statement is reductionistic: the question is not in re. to the mustard seed per se, but whether Jesus was wholly trustworthy and authoritative. If his analogies were in error, then what they analogized could also have been in error.
You’re presuming that Jesus was a “normal” human. He wasn’t. He was *truly* human, and *perfectly* human–but he wasn’t a “normal” human in terms of the normalcy of a fallen world. By your reasoning he not only should have erred in this thinking–he should also have been a sinner, because “normal” humans are sinners.
That’s “normal,” yes–but not logically necessary. One could simply grow from not knowing something to knowing it. Not knowing something doesn’t require positively erring; Jesus could simply have been aware that there were some things he didn’t know–and avoided affirming any particular belief about those things.
Scripture says nothing about “the full developmental human psychology of Jesus.” It says only that he was fully human–but that doesn’t require all the normal limitations we associate with *fallen* humans. Jesus was the Second Adam, and necessarily differed from fallen Man in key ways. There’s no reason to assume one of those differences couldn’t have been the avoidance of intellectual errors when publicly teaching under the unction of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, there’s every reason to expect he *would* have avoided any errors *at least* in that context!
One of *your* fundamental errors, Randal, is the presumption that (ideal) humanness logically requires intellectual error. It does not.
> . . . every other human being acquires false beliefs
Jesus wasn’t every other human. He was *uniquely* human.
Then you need to broaden your perspective, for another, more reasonable avenue is that the Father prevented Jesus from erring so that nothing would undermine the Son’s divine authority in his public ministry.
This is absurd for two reasons. (a) It’s pure speculation that such a conversation would’ve taken place–or that Jesus would necessarily have believed such an answer.
(b) It assumes that Mary necessarily believed in a “hard” vault surrounding the Earth. The Heb. /raqiya/ (often rendered “expanse” in Gen. 1:6-8, 14-15, 17, 20; et al; “firmament” in the KJV) doesn’t inherently refer to something solid, but rather to something /spread out/ like hammered metal. Indeed, Daniel’s usage of /raqiya/–as a realm in which the stars shine–positively implies that it is *not* solid, or else the stars could not move and shine there.
The noun derives from the verb /raqa/, meaning to “pound” or “overlay” or “spread.” An excellent example showing the verb’s latitude is 2Sam. 22:43, where David says poetically, “I beat [my enemies] fine as the dust of the earth; I crushed them and stamped them down [raqa] like the mire of the streets.” Does it sound like his enemies would have been “solid” after such stamping??? No, precisely the opposite!
Here Randal reveals another of his errors: the presupposition that the Bible, merely because it is ancient, “must” contain the same cosmological errors as ancient paganism–despite the fact that Gen. 1-2 and other passages were written *in opposition* to pagan cosmology. What has actually happened–and this is a great irony–is that Randal himself has bought into the pagan cosmology of our day, evolutionism, and granted it authority over Scripture.
The ultimate effect of Randal’s line of reasoning is to undermine confidence in the Lord’s teaching. If he has erred here and there (and surely if Randal is correct, then the mustard seed couldn’t be the only such error), then it falls to us to determine where and to what degree–meaning that we assert our authority over Scripture, rather than vice-versa.
All because of unfounded assumptions.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:15pm
“Look, if Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about with respect to creation, then why on earth should I take him at face value when he tries to get me to believe other things?”
That’s a very strange assumption. If your cardiologist doesn’t know much about the Metaphysical Poets do you look for a new cardiologist?
“You’re presuming that Jesus was a “normal” human. He wasn’t. He was *truly* human, and *perfectly* human–but he wasn’t a “normal” human in terms of the normalcy of a fallen world. By your reasoning he not only should have erred in this thinking–he should also have been a sinner, because “normal” humans are sinners.”
Then you haven’t read what I wrote. Jesus was like us in all things except sin. I’m not going to reproduce all that I’ve already written on the matter.
“The Heb. /raqiya/ (often rendered “expanse” in Gen. 1:6-8, 14-15, 17, 20; et al; “firmament” in the KJV) doesn’t inherently refer to something solid, but rather to something /spread out/ like hammered metal.”
Andy, the ancient Israelites believed the firmament was a hard surface that held up the ocean above us. I already provided some sources to Mike Gantt to read up on this. I suggest that you read up on the beliefs of ancient Israelites as well. The fact that the Israelites held an ancient science isn’t a disputed point among Hebrew scholars.
“Gen. 1-2 and other passages were written *in opposition* to pagan cosmology.”
First, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate narratives. Second, Genesis 1 assumes the three-storied universe. As I already said, get a good commentary and read it.
“The ultimate effect of Randal’s line of reasoning is to undermine confidence in the Lord’s teaching.”
If your confidence is undermined by recognizing that Jesus had a normative cognitive development that involved the acquisition of some errant beliefs from his culture then that is a problem with your christology.
“If he has erred here and there (and surely if Randal is correct, then the mustard seed couldn’t be the only such error)…”
Good gosh man, as I have already said more than once, this is not about a mustard seed.
davidstarlingm says:
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 1:49am
I generally accept your conclusions here, but I take issue with one of your implicit arguments.
Even if ancient Jewish cosmology was Babylonian, and even if Genesis was used to defend Babylonian cosmology, and even if the ancient Jews derived Babylonian cosmology from Genesis, it does not automatically follow that the author(s) of Genesis believed in Babylonian cosmology.
For example, consider transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is almost completely derived from Scripture, yet centuries of dispute show that transubstantiation does not automatically follow from Scripture.
davidstarlingm says:
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 1:37am
“If this guy doesn’t even grasp farming or fishing or local economics–how can he tell me about God???”
There are simple facts about farming and fishing and local economics that, despite their demonstrability in the 21st century, would have been thought foolish by first century farmers. Is it unthinkable that the construction of analogies could have included statements that were technically incorrect but were necessary to produce understanding in listeners? And if that was ever the case, is it more consistent with Scripture for Jesus to (a) Know the truth and say something false, or (b) Believe an untruth and share it? A false statement can be part of an analogy without making the analogy ineffective or the conclusion inaccurate.