Am I missing something?

I thought the same thing. But the press seems incapable of resisting the "this will shake the faith and undermine the legitimacy of Christianity" stories. They seem to come out every 6 months or so now.

It wasn't that long ago that evidence of prophetic statements about what was soon to happen was taken as a sign to bolster the faith of believers. Chesterton makes the same argument about the pagan stories of a sacrificial offering that brings new life -- these stories suggest to him that there's a universal depth to the resurrection story that many cultures somehow tapped into, and that are fulfilled and even transcended by the reality of Christ's message.

But I guess if you start with the premise that it's all made up, anything can be used to bolster that faith as well.

Rod,

You're absolutely right. I don't have the time to find the citations at the moment, but both CS Lewis and the Russian Orthodox Fr. Dmitri Dudko have written beautifully about the power of the Truth of the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection being of such magnitude that they obviously echoed backwards and forwards in time, and that all earlier mythic or prophetic manifestations of the Gospel story prepare us for the moment when the Myth becomes Fact.

Bless,
Doug

I don't think this shakes Christian faith so much as it potentially shakes the faith of Jews who think that Christians or Paul invented a messianic belief or soteriology about a savior that dies and rises in three days.

This is exactly it, I think. It's not so much about shaking a Christian's faith in Christianity, but rather the traditional Jewish perception of Christianity.

And the other thing that made me yawn is that the critical words were filled in by the scholar particularly pumping this -- on the actual tablet, those words ("live" "three") are, ummmmmm, illegible.

What's more interesting about the story is how fundamentally the New York Times reporter shows an utter bias, disregard or willful ignorance for the evidence of the New Testament and Gospels themselves.

Jesus book-ended His own ministry with direct references to Old Testament prophecies that predicted His life. He wasn't ignorant of these predictions, any more than His listeners were. He was appealing to their authority! His opening shot was to quote directly from the Old Testament! If some missing fragment of Jewish tradition predicted a messiah's rise from the grave three days after His death, then that merely strengthens Christian assertions, because after all the Christ Himself was cognizant of these predictions and used them to make His case to His disciples.

When opening His ministry, He purposefully referred to Isaiah ("The Spirit of God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me, To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound") when opening His ministry (Luke 4:21). "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

An angry crowd grabbed Him and even tried to throw Him for His words!

His ride into Jerusalem on a donkey was a conscious and purposeful fulfillment of prophecy - as well as being a multi-layered lesson for all present: political theater mocking the Romans, and a teaching through his actions about the true nature of the Kingdom of God.

And he purposefully referred to a Psalm by its opening lines (My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?) while He suffered on the cross, in part so that those listening wouldn't miss His point, that the Scripture was being fulfilled on that very day in their presence and on His authority.

Psalms were referred to by their opening phrase Jesus' day, so He was intentionally pointing to Psalm 22 and He was saying in part, "Just in case you've missed it up to this point, I am the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. And here on the cross, as I suffer, I am redeeming mankind. This is how much I love you. Pay attention. Act accordingly."

The destitute and frightened early Christians must have been geniuses indeed if they could purposefully engineer a crucifixion and circumstances around this cruel tortuous death that just happened to line up perfectly with the strange visions in Psalm 22.

Just a few examples.

Let's leave aside the rather bizarre, nonsensical assertion of atheists and "scholars" that early Christians would spend the remaining years of their lives risking life and limb, living in poverty and hardship, simply to spread a convenient lie they had cooked up.

If the discovery of this stone is authentic, it would tend to strengthen what faithful, knowledgeable Christians already know about Jesus and His purposeful (not just coincidental) fulfillment of prophecy, rather than undermining our faith.

I think the larger question would be why mainstream publications like the NYT constantly see the need to try to tear down Christian faith. You see no such attempts, for example, to question the authenticity of the thousands upon thousands of clearly contradictory and voluminous Buddhist texts attributed to Siddhartha himself.

Poor Karen Armstrong.

Poor Elaine Pagels.

Poor Paula Fredriksen.

As sometimes happens, I agree wholeheartedly. What surprises me is that this did not get embargoed by the press until the next Easter season when the press needs these kinds of stories to stir the pot.

I am, however, a little perturbed by Christian commenters here saying that it will disrupt Jewish understanding of history. Why don't we Christians leave it to the Jewish scholars to tell us what they think of this?

Thanks Eric. Sorry for the assumption.

No big whoop.

The "sign of Jonah" predates this inscription and, in retrsopect, is seen to prefigure the 3-day resurrection. Why not a non-scriptural tradition?

If anything, this shows how Christ's ministry is imbedded in history.

This kind of thing pops up all the time, and in and of itself, will neither perturb the faithful nor enlighten the faithless.

You mean to tell me that we now can document Jewish prophesies about Jesus? Shocking.

What's going to happen when archaeologists discover Book II of Plato's Republic and they read that the perfectly just man will be tortured and crucified?

How will traditional Christianity survive?

Wait a minute, Scott R. I have faith in the United States government, and I can prove that there is a government of the United States.

It may be misplaced faith, but it's faith nevertheless. ;-)

I mean, if you're determined to disbelieve, there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve. And if you're determined to believe, material evidence doesn't much matter, does it?

The interpretation passed down asserts magical events to have taken place. It lives and dies with the plausibility of that magic.

There are more rational interpretations possible that make Jesus a far more conventional Jewish mystic/prophet. Much of the Gospels will have to be admitted to be heavily edited and confabulated by ideologues, and much of it metaphorical or subjective experience. That interpretation can probably survive Modernity.

Jillian,

Do you mean to imply that "Modernity" -- which you valorize with a capital "M" -- is *not* itself a thing which has been "confabulated by ideologues?" If so, please explain. If not, then how stable are your own grounds for critiquing Christianity? If it can be argued that Jesus Christ was simply a "conventional Jewish mystic/prophet," then can it not also be argued that "Modernity" (capital "M") is simply one more instance among many others of a certain time as experienced by certain people in a certain place being taken as far more distinct and far more important than it actually may be in the broader scheme of things -- historically, culturally, and geographically?

The post above is just further proof that Charles Cosimano is a troll. And also that he's not very smart. Ho hum.

If in fact the tablet mentioned does refer to a man who dies and is resurrected after three days, then why is it not mentioned by either Christ or the Jews in the New Testament? And if this tablet was at all known among mainstream Jews, why is it that the apostles "did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it" when Christ prophesied about His death and resurrection? There is also another question raised - Jesus clearly could not have known of this tablet first hand (if He is merely mortal, that is) - so from whom could He have known of it?

"The post above is just further proof that Charles Cosimano is a troll. And also that he's not very smart. Ho hum."

Well, no, Cosimano's right for once. As far as I can see, the gospels were fabricated, and not very convincingly, to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecies. That is really a pretty uncontroversial position for most scholars in the field.

There's so much that's good about Christianity - the architecture, art, music, most of the morality, even a lot of the rituals - it's just a pity it's all built on a lie. It's also a pity that the Mediterranean world chose for it's divine miracle-worker a Jew, and thus introduced Semitic nastiness, indirectly preparing the way for the current unwillingness to condemn Islam, the apogee of Abrahamism. Apollonius of Tyana, for example, would have been a better choice.

I keep reading this blog, trying to understand the conservative and/or
Christian mindset. I am left speechless and uncomprehending by this quote:

"And if you're determined to believe, material evidence doesn't much matter, does it?"

I never cease to be amazed how people can continually overlook what is staring them in the face. The defenders on this site keep acting as if the Gospels are actually historical, and proven to be somehow, when every critical scholarly exploration I have ever read has clearly shown me that they are not. "Ho hum" sounds like whistling while walking by the graveyard.

Buddha Boy: "The defenders on this site keep acting as if the Gospels are actually historical, and proven to be somehow, when every critical scholarly exploration I have ever read has clearly shown me that they are not. "

Name the names, Buddha Boy. And don't say Vermes, or we'll laugh at you.

David K: "The pagan views of the classical world failed as the basis of their culture because they were inadequate, not because they weren't chosen.
Its final incarnation, stoicism, couldn't offer a human way of living other than for a privileged few. You are talking about a culture that killed its own infants. If you got sick with a contagious disease, your own family left you to die. Christians were notable for avoiding all of this. Pagan culture was the real lie.
And the neo-stoic Enlightenment is rapidly heading the same way. Take a look at British society if you want to see the future of Modernity. People cannot "live the lie" for ever, as we saw in eastern Europe."

You're conflating a lot of things here. I agree that Christian morality is, on the whole, superior to classical pagan morality. There are also lots of other pretty sophisticated moral systems going (Indian, Chinese, ...), and you'd have to look carefully at them all to sweepingly judge Christianity to be superior.

I do think you're too dismissive of Stoicism, though. Actually, a lot of the Stoics had pretty simiilar moral values to the Christians.

My point was that the superior moral system, when it arrived, hitchhiked on an inferior religious perspective, Abrahamism.

I also think it's pretty odd classing modernism as neo-Stoicism, and then jumping directly from that to the ills of modern British society. I suppose there might be a case to defend here, but you'd have to write a whole book doing so - you can't just throw it in as a couple of sentences. In any case, although the ills of modern Britain are somewhat different from those of the USA, are they any worse? And what about the ills, different again, of societies that are even more secular than Britain (Japan, France, Holland, Sweden, Denmark)?

Posted by: Augustus Johnson | July 6, 2008 8:57 PM

Well AJ, in favor of Modernity, the rituals used to heal the sick generally work most of the time, unlike those of Christianity.

I'd say that is one point in favor.

Or in a more general sense, the tools and philosophies of Modernity do a better job of describing the physical world than does those of Christianity.

Whether or not one thinks that is important is another thing altogether, I'll admit, but I find it compelling.

And to those who are treating the Bible as a reliable source of historical fact - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

An account of someone rising from the dead, written by those who had a vested interest in perpetuating that belief - and not corroborated by any outside sources - is not compelling proof for those not already disposed to believe the story.

The above message was mine again.

As a further analogy; I don't have a strong a priori disbelief in survival after death and the ability to communicate with the dead, in fact, I tend to accept the truth of this. However, on my one visit to a medium, he was obviously a fake. Supernatural claims should be handled on a case-by-case basis without any assumption of their falsehood.

rombald:

What you have "discovered" about the variances among the resurrection accounts has been known for years and years and years - centuries, likely. I think Origen posited that discrepancies and contradictions between or among some of the Biblical accounts suggests that a spiritual, not literal, meaning is to be sought. Or something like that.

Now, try to do the same with Judas's death, and the synoptic accounts of the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the Temple and the cursing/withering of the fig tree.

Tell us some of the good ones, then, Augustus. I'm all ears! ; )

I don't think anyone denies that many scientific discoveries took place under the aegis of religious faith, since up until recently, the entire world was dominated by religious faith and all who wanted a peaceful life had to give at least lip service to one creed or another. That is not quite the same thing as saying that religion is responsible for, or gets the credit for, all scientific achievement. This is a much more complicated question. There were lines of thought within Christianity that were favorable to scientific achievement, and others that were definitely hostile to it. Neither one can be denied. Nor can it be denied that organized religion has always tolerated scientists only insofar as scientists bow to the authority of religious leaders. Therein lies the conflict.

Has science brought human beings more benefits than religion? Well, if Christianity had actually succeeded in getting billions, or even millions, of people to practice the Beatitudes, I might be inclined to say it was about even. Under present circumstances, however . . . let's just say I'm really enjoying modern medicine--based on anatomical studies originally condemned by the Church--clean water, electric lights, and my computer.

There are ways to play gotcha with Christians, but claiming ownership of science is not a very good one.
Posted by: Augustus Johnson | July 7, 2008 9:29 AM

Well then take the basic question - when someone is sick, do you take him to the Elders of the Church for healing or to a doctor?

Newton, btw, is believed to have held anti-Trinitarian views.

It seems Newton was a convinced Arian--thus, anathema.

Well, thank God, then, that a Jew set him straight.

Sigilaris,

There are in fact many millions of people trying -- sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding -- to follow the Beatitudes. And Christianity has a wholly coherent account of their failure to do so when it occurs -- the fallenness of human nature, which requires humility and repentance for one's sins.

As for the historical importance of Christianity -- both to Christians and to those who do not profess the faith -- there is little in the modern Western and increasingly the modern global worldview -- including its supposedly "secular" aspects that is not either derived directly from Christianity or which is not derived from pre-Christian classical sources whose inheritance was modified by Christianity.

Nietzsche's is just about the only influential modern moral paradigm that I can think of other than Freud's that amounts to much more than Christian heresy by some other name. And even Freud's is most Jewish heresy by some other name.

If you want to hold to Nietzsche's view of things, that's an intellectually reputable thing to do, but such commitment would oblige one to cease from promulgating the secular Enlightenment view of "human rights" -- which Nietzsche rightly saw was just Judeo-Christian "slave morality" dressed up in different clothes.

Also, on a different note, you're resorting to conspiracy theory to wish away the fact that many scientists both now and in the past held religious faith. How do you account for the fact that some 40% of scientists today profess to hold religious faith? Are they afraid of being burned at the stake?

John E.,

Medicine and Christianity are two different things, neither one of which invalidates the other necessarily.

Are you not aware that there are doctors who go to church and churchgoers --including clergymen -- who go to see their doctor from time to time?

If you're going to ask churchgoers to heal themselves in physical terms, would it not also be fair to ask physicians to heal themselves in spiritual terms?

Many if not most of them would not purport that such a thing is something they can do -- let alone the many other things that clergymen and theologians do.

Are they, like sigilaris's scientists, afraid of being burned at the stake?

Finally, Newton is also "believed" to have held Trinitarian views. It depends on who does the believing and from what point of view. In any event, Newton is far from the only scientist, even today let alone in the past, ever to have held to a religious faith. Do *all* of them secretly hold different views from those they claim to profess. If you think so, then you have joined sigilaris in conspiracy-theory-land.

A *lack* of religious faith does nothing to diminish *my* respect for a scientist's work.

If the *presence* of religious faith does something to diminish *your* respect for a scientist's work, then the scientific method is not what you're using to evaluate the work, but rather a religious test based on your (presumably) atheist faith.

If the *presence* of religious faith does something to diminish *your* respect for a scientist's work, then the scientific method is not what you're using to evaluate the work, but rather a religious test based on your (presumably) atheist faith.
Posted by: Augustus Johnson | July 7, 2008 11:36 AM

Agnostic (since one cannot prove a negative) Stoic (since that seems to fit my personality), actually. Don't know if the word 'faith' really applies.

And I'll suggest that you have made a lot of soup from not much oyster.

The import is that an idea that is floating around before an historic event would tend to undermine the idea of the historic event. Jesus death and resurrection would not be 'historic' if the idea of it was in peoples minds before the event. I know faith trumps history and reality and common sense, but it is hard for me to fathom a historic event that also happens to be part of a culture common folk tales.

It would therefore be most likely that Jesus, identified as 'Messiah,' would then also be ascribed to have risen from the dead after three days because by folk tale of the time that is what Messiah's do.

Augustus, I second John E.'s protest. I don't see, in anything that I've posted, a desire to set up some sort of "reservation," whether for scientists or believers--not that I ever said the two were mutually exclusive. Please re-read my post with more attention to observing the data rather than assuming you have a revelation about my meaning. (Insert emoticon to indicate an attempt at wry though pointed humor.)

It seems as if you're engaging a culture-war tactic that I find regrettable, because it generates more heat than light--create false dichotomies, then attempt to force your interlocutor into one of them. I decline to be herded into the Nietzschean corral simply because I question the right of Christians to claim credit for every benefit ever brought to humankind via human reason.

Yes . . . Christianity is historically important to an understanding of our culture. I believe I've said this myself fairly often. But when you say that, you then open up a whole can of worms as to what, exactly, you mean by "Christianity," in its many versions and its many complex interactions with co-existing social structures and secular agendas. Beyond the scope of this discussion--but certainly much more difficult to assess than "Christianity gave you everything you have, you wretched ingrate, so there!!" And let it be noted that I never said scientists professed belief because they feared being burned at the stake. You introduced that lovely image, but fine, if the Spanish Boot fits, wear it.

There are in fact many millions of people trying -- sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding -- to follow the Beatitudes. And Christianity has a wholly coherent account of their failure to do so when it occurs -- the fallenness of human nature, which requires humility and repentance for one's sins.

Or, in other words, when Christians behave well, it proves the glorious truth of their beliefs. When they behave badly, it's because they're just bad people. Sorry, not a convincing argument.

In closing . . . I know it's petty of me . . . but it would be nice if people could try harder to spell my name right. It's not really that difficult. Again, a matter of using one's (God-given?) powers of observation. Or maybe you just can't . . . because of original sin and an ensuing lack of repentance and regeneration. . . . Never mind, I forgive you. ; )

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
- Lewis Carroll

As for as agnosticism, you could have fooled me. In fact you did. You clearly are neither disinterested or neutral where religion is concerned.

While you have referenced two definitions of agnostic, the one I was using was "the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods."

Are you agnostic toward scientific claims as well as religious claim? You ought to be, at least to a certain extent, since the scientific world view is based on a priori or intuitive assumptions just like religious world views.

Why should I be agnostic to the claim that "A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."

Are you open at least hypothetically to the possibility that some religious claims could prove to be true?

Yes - I have yet to see an example, though.

It seems as if you're engaging a culture-war tactic that I find regrettable, because it generates more heat than light--create false dichotomies, then attempt to force your interlocutor into one of them.
Posted by: sigaliris | July 7, 2008 1:27 PM

I concur.

Grrr.

As you no doubt inferred, the July 7, 2008 2:00 PM posting was mine.

The import is that an idea that is floating around before an historic event would tend to undermine the idea of the historic event. Jesus death and resurrection would not be 'historic' if the idea of it was in peoples minds before the event.

1. Or the historic events could have been the fulfillment of longstanding prophecy, which is what Christians have been saying about Jesus and the Old Testament since the beginning.

2. Even so, the possibility that there MAY have been a reference to someone overcoming evil by "returning to life" on one obscure tablet produced decades before Christ's resurrection doesn't come close to establishing the proposition that the idea of resurrection from the dead was generally in the public mind "before the event".

Gracious, Augustus, you are cranky today. And I'm still not sure why. You said: But I did want to point out that Christianity has made some important contributions that even you depend on every day and that even you would not want to do without. Yes! I agree, have agreed, and I think I've agreed a couple of times today already. (Though I'm not sure why you say "even you" because I certainly don't consider myself oppositional to Christianity in general.) I wanted to hear what you had to say, and I continue to find your views interesting--interesting enough to engage with, to dispute, to examine--and sometimes even to agree with. Clearly you find our conversation disagreeable, and I'm sorry about that.

I used the Beatitudes as shorthand, as one is wont to use shorthand in these discussions. I think you and I have in common a desire to clarify things in some detail, and that isn't always possible in the genre of writing appropriate to a blog. I'm asking a question that, to me, is very serious and not at all sarcastic. IS there any evidence that belief in Christianity, overall, makes people treat each other better? Honestly, if there is no such evidence, then I don't see the point of even discussing Christianity as anything other than one more social phenomenon. I'm afraid your readiness to box my ears in virtual space and stomp off in a huff does nothing to preserve my hope that the Gospel message actually means anything. Please don't read retributive dudgeon into this comment. I'm not ticked off at you for being offended. I just feel sad that we are apparently failing to communicate.

Oh, and thanks for spelling my name right, even though I apparently can't remember to do so myself. Sigh.

A sigaliris, Max, is a type of small green moth with transparent patches on its wings, the better to conceal itself among the debris of its forest home.

Posted by: Grigory | July 7, 2008 5:51 PM

So are you saying that there are no stories involving the pagan dieties I mentioned being resurrected from the dead?

Because that was the aspect that Simon | July 7, 2008 2:11 PM referenced - "the idea of resurrection from the dead"

I invite you also to reread your previous posts. In the course of them you attribute to me all sorts of claims that I have never made:

That Isaac Newton is an "exemplar" of the "orthodox" scientist, rather than simply an *example* of a scientist who also was a person of religious faith, however heterodox it may have been.

That Christianity can claim "all" of science's achievements, instead of merely *some* of them.

Worst of all that I characterize Christianity in a way that I never have or never would, a way that claims that Christians are more virtuous in moral practice than anyone else, such that the recognition of moral vice in Christians would somehow invalidate their Christianity or even Christianity as such.

Your sense that Christianity is some sort of "get-good-quick" scheme such that one ought to expect all Christians to be little goody-two-shoes all of time and justly labelled hypocrites if ever they fail so to be bears almost no resemblance to what Christianity is and what it actually holds about human behavior and about how the world works.

Likewise your sense that if the Kingdom hasn't come -- per your own schedule rather than God's -- within 2,000 years that it never *can* and never *will* come.

I acknowledge that my posts in reply to you earlier today were intemperate and I am sorry for that -- with both my misbehavior and my recognition of such being wholly in keeping btw with Christianity.

That said, if you *do* reread your own posts, I don't see how you cannot conclude that almost all of the "men" you deployed in those posts against me were themselves made of "straw."

"Yes Grigory, 'vague generalities that almost all Gods of history have shared' - the idea that Gods get resurrected."

Well, okay, except that the idea that Gods get resurrected isn't necessarily a common feature among the Gods of history. Osiris remained in the underworld as King of the Dead after he died, the only sourceable reference to Mithras dying and being resurrected is a passing comment by Tertullian, a writer born in the second century AD, prefaced by the phrase "if my memory still serves me" which mentions that Mithras was supposed to have introduced an "image" of a resurrection, Tammuz's "resurrection" was assisted by his wife and "demons" who carried him out of the underworld (hardly a resurrection in the typical Judeo-Christian sense), and Attis either turns into a pine tree upon his death or Zeus grants his body uncorruption after death, makes his hair continue to grow and his pinkie to move about depending on what account you are reading.

Thanks for coming back and explaining your displeasure in more detail, Augustus. I now understand better where the problems lie. It would, perhaps, be rather tedious reading for me to dissect the misunderstandings word by word, so I'll just say that I willingly retract any expressions you disliked--the example/exemplar controversy, for instance.

I can't smooth over the question of Christian moral virtue quite so easily, though. We were talking about the truth claims of Christianity, I thought, and one traditional argument for the validity of the Christian worldview has been that Christians are better people as a result of their faith, so therefore the faith must be true. Many early Christian apologists made this claim. I could find direct quotes, but I suspect you're more familiar with them than I am! If you don't make that claim, then I apologize for bringing it up. But others have, for sure, so I think it is fair to ask if it's really true.

Certainly, you can point to many charitable works by Christians: hospitals, schools, food for the poor, etc. A climate of inquiry favorable to science has been adduced as one of these benefits. Yet, at the same time, one can point to many roadblocks laid in the way of discovery by religious leaders and practices. And one can also point to a great deal of harm done by Christians, via warfare and persecution. Which side weighs more heavily in the balance is, I think, a legitimate subject for inquiry without subjecting myself to accusations of anti-religious bigotry. Another question that I don't consider settled is whether advances in social organization and science can be attributed mostly to the influence of Christianity, or whether they are more a result of other influences within Western civilization.

Perhaps it would help if you understood where I was coming from. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm an atheist bent on tweaking your nose. Actually, I'm a cradle Catholic who earnestly pursued the practice of my faith for over 50 years. You name it, I've probably done it, from Cursillo, to praying the rosary daily, to studying and reading Scripture, etc. etc. I quit going to Mass a couple of years ago, sickened to my soul by the revelation of child sexual abuse in the church, and the bishops' reaction to it. So I would be the last to "expect all Christians to be little goody-two-shoes all the time" (ahem, [kaff-kaff (strawman) kaff-kaff]). I DO, however, expect that if a person calls himself "saved," "transformed," "brought to a new life in Jesus Christ" or whatever formulation you want to use, that he will bloody well ACT LIKE IT, at least most of the time. It is this very argument--that you can't expect Christians to be any more decent than anyone else--that is the crux of the matter, to me. If that is an unreasonable expectation, then can you please explain to me why anyone should care whether you're a Christian or not?

I should know better than to post when tired. At the risk of threadhogging, I just wanted to clarify that my final question, above, is meant to be general, and certainly not directed at Augustus in particular, who I believe is quite a decent fellow and has always behaved as such around here.

Billy Goat,

If you can point me to a scholarly exploration that you feel makes the case that the Gospels are indeed historically accurate, I would be happy to read it.

Thanks for your response.

Sigaliris,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Let me start drawing a distinction between the gospel of Jesus Christ and Christianity as a set of phenomena engendered in response to that event. All Christians accept the gospel, but they differ very greatly on what its implications are. Christianity is not some perfect thing that appeared long ago to set things right all at once. Jesus Christ was the perfect persons who came to do that by giving us the tools for setting things right with his help -- for setting our selves right, for setting the world right. Christianity then is what we have done so far by using those tools.

It is difficult to gauge the success of the project so far, for at least two reasons.

(1) Christians have never come to consensus on exactly how the project should proceed, and so they have pursued it taking many different tacks, some of which conflict.

(2) Even to the not inconsiderable extent to which Christianity has so far been successful, its fruits are hard for us to see because we take them for granted, as we do with most good things.

In any event, there has never been any consensus within Christianity even that salvation is contingent on doing good works, let alone that the doing of good works by Christians somehow proves the supernatural basis of Christianity.

I think your objection is with one of many manifestations of Christianity rather than Christianity as such, when taken as a whole, in all of its variety.

In thinking through the issues that concern you, it might be worth revisiting the old distinction between salvation by faith and salvation by works.

I can only sketch the sense of salvation by faith that is held to in my own Anglican mode of Christianity.

Within the paradigm of salvation by faith, the most basic Christian imperative is to humble yourself before Christ by gratefully accepting the redemption that you recognize you need and that you recognize Christ has offered you, along with everyone else.

Following on from that primal act of humility, you then are humble enough to recognize that God's law as revealed to the Jewish prophets and as modified by Christ may in fact just possibly be a way to live your own life in ethical terms that will be better for you and for everyone else. A Christian then expresses his or her gratitude for being saved by adhering to the law and by spreading the good news of Christ.

Now here's the rub, and the crux -- I think -- of the problem you have with Christianity in ethical terms.

The Christian moral ethic as expressed most succinctly in the Sermon on the Mount is based most fundamentally on a communal reciprocity -- on treating others as you would have them treat you.

The more that people hold to this ethic collectively the easier it is for any one person to hold to this ethic individually.

The Christian moral ethic is an altruistic one, based one's responsibility to other selves, rather than the rights that are entitled to one's own. In that sense, it is a far more socialistic or communitarian ideal than the gimrack liberalism or "progressivism" that tries to lay claim to those terms.

To whatever extent a collective Christian solidarity is not in place, to just that same extent will it be difficult for individual Christians to fulfill the obligation they feel to God's law, however humble they are, however grateful they may be.

The impulse to respond in kind to the treatment one receives at other people's hands -- in other words the impulse to break the golden rule -- runs very deep in human nature. It is not the basis of human nature or the only thing that runs very deep in the human heart, but it is nonetheless there. It is a type of the selfishness or the self-centeredness that is the essence of sin.

Christians are preparing themselves and the world for a Kingdom that has not yet come, that will not come until the world and those who live in it have been set right to some considerable degree, which means that the Kingdom is probably a long way off from where we are today.

Two ways to think about Christianity that are helpful for me are to see it as Lewis did as a hospital for sick souls or as Chesterton did as an unfinished temple. If one expects the Christian Church -- whatever Christian church -- to be Club Med or the Taj Mahal, one will be disappointed, but one will also have failed to take Christianity for what it really is and for what it has for the most part professed itself to be.

I hope this helps. Thanks for the conversation.

I've read all your comments and find you all to be sophomoric, and way over my simple mind. Which makes me wonder if any of us really have a mind at all.

Three points I would like to weigh in with:
1. The tablet is not "biblical" and has not been contributed to the Hebrew Cannon.
2. If there was a three day resurrection story prior to Jesus, if would give credence to the Resurrection of Jesus as believable.
3. Just as there are lots of "stories" of heresies that have floated around before the Christian Bible was compiled by Rome, I'm sure there are a lot of Jewish "heresies" that predate Christendom.

I think it's a lot of hooey about nothing and should be not taken seriously. Besides it is probably a fake.

If you're still reading this topic, Augustus, I intended to return earlier and offer some appreciation for the time and trouble you took to reply. Yours is a more generous and hopeful version of Christianity than some, which is one reason I enjoy your comments.

It is perhaps unfortunate that many of the points you make are things I used to believe myself, but no longer do. I say this not to appear condescending or to imply that you will follow my path, but because it is a continuing source of wonder to me how different people can look at the same thing and see it very differently, because of the different experiences they bring to the examination.

I agree with you that it is much easier to be "good"--to be honest, to be kind, etc.--within a social structure that rewards such behavior. In human affairs, you always have to ask yourself, "compared to what?" And at many times, Christianity has appeared fairly beneficial, compared to some of the alternatives. But then again, Christians triumphed and dominated, so we don't get to compare them to what might have been if they had not. We can speculate, but we can't know. Nor can we know what might have been if, for instance, Christians had not persecuted every other group with which they came in contact--indigenous peoples, Jews, Muslims, pagans . . . . Justifying what currently is, because that is what enabled the Church to survive, as evidenced by the fact that it's still here, seems to me an ethically weak argument.

I think I disagree with you about the Sermon on the Mount being based on reciprocity. I agree that, as above, if it becomes reciprocal, that makes it easier to do. But I don't think that was what Jesus was talking about. He said it was blessed, or happy, to do this whether anyone ever reciprocated or not. It doesn't matter. You do those things because they are better. Because you will have a kind of peace within that you'll never get from doing unto others and making sure you do it first.

Sadly, the Church itself can't seem to grasp this new idea. But it's beginning to spread outside the organized Church. Perhaps this is what Jillian means by Modernity, in part. People begin to act in a different and more benign way, because they realize that, in the long run, this benefits everybody more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the mutual assured destruction that has been the pattern of relating for so long. Christianity had a part in bringing this new way of thinking to birth, but alas, in many ways, the organized churches are now standing in the way of the original message.

I can tell you that the one feature of orthodox religion that I have found to be reliable via experiential testing is the power of compassion. Hard and bitter as the practice may be, the only true miracles I've ever seen have been the result of not giving up on love. To speak metaphorically--an angel will come when you call for one, but there must be a human being there to stand up and take the angel's hand. Happy are you if you can be that person.

I'm afraid the part I most disagree with is your imperative to "humble oneself before Christ"--and this is what makes me most a renegade, I'm sure. Been there. Done that. I've done all the kneeling and bowing I'm ever going to do. Perhaps it's more important for men to learn to bow and submit. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that women do not need to be taught to kneel any more. We've had thousands of years of kneeling. Women need to stand up. While I still prize compassion for all living things, in this matter I've returned to the barbarian philosophy of my childhood: "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

This is waaay too long, and I'm sorry for that--but long posts seem quite fashionable down at this end of the topic. ; )

The only really cogent thing you say in your lengthy post in reply to me is that "Modernity" is "not a clearly defined thing" -- at least a thing that has not been clearly defined in your own mind. That lack of a clear definition makes of "Modernity" a constantly shape-shifting thing that I cannot assess and therefore that you cannot advocate for in any substantive way. The problem is that your sense of "Modernity" has no intrinsic substance other than its *not* being Christianity and other things with which you disagree. "Modernity" therefore is simply a term for what you are inclined to believe at some particular time when it happens to suit you to, based on whatever circumstance or contingency.

No, our problem here is that you wish to have Modernity defined as a religion, as a set of dogmas.

To the limited extent that you *do* make some *attempt* to define the term "Modernity" in a substantive way, your attempt mostly fails when put to the test of analysis in terms of specific examples.

The specific examples I used were the works of four thinkers that anyone must grant are paradigmatic for modernity however defined: Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud.

You're misassuming a priesthood that lays out the full Truth for all time. I see a group of pioneers doing a first pass of penetrating thinking, a kind of first archaeological dig.

You claim that modernity assumes the "unconditional dignity" of "individual" persons.

"An" unconditional dignity.

Is that true of Nietzsche's "transvaluation of values," which proposed to do away with any such a notion, along with the rest of the Judeo-Christian "slave morality" on which it is most certainly based -- however inconvenient that truth may be to you?

Damnation is a traditional Christian belief; certainty of it has gone along with denial of dignity, deprivation of life, and so on. I don't have Nietzsche's writing handy, but he basically contrasts Christianity and Buddhism. Buddhism is frankly a bit better about that particular.

Nietzsche's "slave morality" is in quite a bit of evidence on this blog if you bother to look for it.

You also claim that modernity assumes "the inner autonomy" of "individual" persons.

"An" inner autonomy. Can I ask you a favor, btw? Your excessive use of scare quotes honestly makes it difficult to read some of your lengthier passages for content. It's a habit of the insincere polemicist in my experience.

Is that true of Marx's view that consciousness is predetermined by material circumstance and that our history is predetermined by the iron-clad logic of a zeitgeist independent of our personal will?

Marx means consciousness of the group, not of the individual. (It's more obvious in the original German.)

And Is it true of Freud's view that our consciousness is predetermined by repressed psychological forces and impersonal drives beneath the level of our conscious rationality?

Even supposing this to be a serious model, the content of consciousness is not determined that way. Freud does allow for free will and rationality.

You likewise claim that modernity is based on "adherence" to a "verifiable" reality.

Is that true of Nietzsche or of Marx or of Freud?

Nietzsche's cultural critiques have held up pretty well. Marx's economic critiques were substantively correct. Freud had to start from nothing and invent nomenclature- and empirically the Id/Ego/Superego scheme is not a bad fit. The societies and conditions that they were written for and about no longer truly exist, though. The miners and ironworkers of Lille, the Ruhr, Silesia, and the English Midlands have vanished. Viennese Jewry is also quite disappeared. The German aristocracy and rigid burgher classes are also no longer.

Nietzsche is a moralist with no more self-evident basis for his morality than anyone else.

Well, the value of his system of morality, as such, lies in its demonstration that permitting a status of moral superiority creates an immoral system.

Marx and Freud based their work on pseudo-scientific assumptions that can neither be proved nor disproved -- that is on assumptions that cannot be falsified, and therefore ones that cannot be verified in any truly scientific way.

Neuroscience and social democracy beg to differ that it's all wrong. True, the two fellows claimed a great deal more than they could warrant. But to read their works fairly, they admit much of it is conjecture or polemic. Their followings made the error you do, which is to take their teachings as belief systems.

Marx's work has clearly been made a hash of by subsequent history, and Freud, while he does have some suggestive insights by the way, is no longer considered to be sort of modern magus that many once took him to be.

Which leaves us with Darwin, whose work really *is* scientific, but not irreconcilable with Christianity.

But it is irreconcilable with Biblicism.

If there is a different set of thinkers whose work may constitute "Modernity" for you, I am happy to hear who they are.

Einstein, Buber, Arendt, Heidegger, Russell, Gandhi, Rilke are Moderns you might want to look at.

But without something solid to wrap my head around, I don't see the point of going any further with you on this particular point.

Well, we're going to have trouble as long as you make the category error of Modernity constituting a traditional belief system with determinative texts, dogmas, authorities, orthodoxies.

Of course, that is the great inherent problem- that the two things in conflict are of very different natures, operate on different planes. One is largely a claimed perfected body or bodies of knowledge. The other is largely a process of generating, destroying, and modifying knowledge according to a small set of principles.

Well now! I really did think I typed my name that time. Oh well. This gives me a chance to put the "s" back in Nietzsche.

Jillian,

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid that while I have the inclination I do not have the time to respond to them in it in the detail that it deserves. Instead, I'll briefly leave the trees and return to the forest again.

Our conversation began when I questioned your criticism of Christianity as merely a "confabulation" produced by "ideologues" in contrast to a "Modernity" which you invoked later on in your post as an implicit alternative to Christianity.

It seems to me that the rub of our disagreement is that (to my mind anyway) you are trying to reserve for yourself all the rights of an ideologue, while at the same time foreswearing the responsibility one bears if one holds an ideology.

You want to reserve for yourself a position from which to critique the points of view of others with whom you disagree. Yet you don't want to put yourself in a position to be critiqued yourself from someone else's point of view that may be different from your own.

You want "Modernity" to be solid enough that you can use it as a stick with which to beat Christianity. Yet you want it to be fluid (even gaseous) enough that it cannot be criticized in turn from a Christian or from any other point of view that is more solid than your own.

I can see the point of critiquing Christianity in terms of the specific points of view -- taken one at a time -- of any of the thinkers you mention in your previous post. On the one hand, doing so would give your arguments against Christianity more cogency. But on the other hand, it would also commit you to positions that are equally available to be criticized as Christianity is -- it would require you to acknowledge that you -- like Christians -- are an ideologue, and that your ideas are based on the same combination of faith and reason -- "confabulation" if you will -- as Christianity is.

Finally on the question of "scare quotes" and the "insincerity" of my "polemic." I quote you when I want to make it clear to others who may be peeping in on these posts that I am doing so, that I am replying to specific things you've said in previous posts. If seeing your own terms cited in that particular way is frightening -- or "scary" -- to you, then all I can say is that that was not my intent. As for "insincerity," I can assure you that whether you agree or disagree with my own points or with how I have construed points the yourself have made, I am sincere in what I have to say and not engaged in prevarication of the sort that you imply.

Doesn't matter what 'they' (scholars) say, the FACT is that Jesus rose from the grave...HE proved it to Thomas, and to the rest of us. It doesn't require that much belief when thousands after His resurrection came to Him.

I sure don't need Jesus to PROVE His existence...because the Holy Spirit guides me in my life each day. MY proof, if someone needs it, are the little (and great) serendipities provided. Some so jaw-dropping that they defy explanation, some so mundane that I'm in danger of taking them for granted.

I have learned NOT to take Him for granted, however, and thus I raise my eyes every morning to see Him and His leadership...no scholars needed, to prove OR disprove the Christ in my life.

I AM ANOTHER BELIEVER, GRATEFUL EACH DAY THAT MY SAVIOR DID RISE AND DOES MAKE EVERY DAY A BLESSING!!!!!

Jesus is not a retelling of Mithras or any other pagan god.
That became famous because of the DaVinci code, however no real scholars believed that. On the internet there are tons of bogus websites that people believe to be real.
Always check the source. Scholars do not see the connection.

Mithras was not born of a virgin, but out of the side of a rock wall.
He did not walk on water, he was a fierce warrior & military commander.
He did not have 12 disciples, he had 2.
Mithras killed a bull, died & went to heaven.... how is that atonement for sins or similar to Jesus at all?

The Mithras comparison to Jesus has been invented after the fact & if one truly researches finds that the attributes given to Mithras by people of this theory are not found in ancient records or good research.

This is not new information, the documentary Zeitgeist (which is online and on youtube) covers this.

Both Osiris and Dionysus (who was "the Vine" long before the evangelists placed the words "I am the Vine" in Jesus' lips) had communion sacraments identical to Yeshua's with wine and bread. Both were dying and resurrecting Men Gods.

I think the reason why this is all coming to light now (as well as the Tablets of Amarna, where we learned that Eve was originally the Hurrian Goddess and Mother of all Living, whom the Jews appropriated and turned into the Mother of all humans. She is a recycled myth) is because of the 2012 gate where there will be a new mythical cycle that will begin: but the old one must crumble first.