tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post5459741311821878974..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Are the gospels reliable? A letter to a young inquirerBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6833183049576020302010-01-19T12:58:31.929-05:002010-01-19T12:58:31.929-05:00Unless the doors of perception are opened, and we ...<i>Unless the doors of perception are opened, and we begin thinking in a whole new framework, it will never make any sense.</i><br /><br />Yes, Father, the Doors of Perception. The Gospel according to Blake, Aldous Huxley, and...the Doors. <i>Break on through to the...otha side, for Jeezuss</i><br /><br />Actually, a somewhat insightful essay, F & T.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-40809417718425934132010-01-18T22:37:51.253-05:002010-01-18T22:37:51.253-05:00If you don't understand the epistemic perspect...If you don't understand the epistemic perspective of the early church, you'll make major mistakes reading the New Testament, including mistaking the literary genres, which misreading of the New Testament has basically been ongoing for about 1900 years.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-79177988356107901452010-01-18T15:25:23.120-05:002010-01-18T15:25:23.120-05:00This post was spot on, and reminded me of a quote ...This post was spot on, and reminded me of a quote from Hauerwas: “It is not my intention to settle to what extent we can know the ‘real Jesus.’ I am quite content to assume that the Jesus we have in Scripture is the Jesus of the early church. Even more important, I want to maintain that it cannot or should not be otherwise, since the very demands Jesus placed on his followers means he cannot be known abstracted from the disciples’ response. The historical fact that we learn who Jesus is only as he is reflected through the eyes of his followers, a fact that has driven many to despair because it seems they cannot know the real Jesus, in fact is a theological necessity. For the ‘real Jesus’ did not come to leave us unchanged, but rather to transform us to be worthy members of the community of the new age” (“Jesus and the Social Embodiment of the Peaceable Kingdom, 118, The Hauerwas Reader).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-8635106476357023472010-01-17T23:03:28.641-05:002010-01-17T23:03:28.641-05:00I don't think that the gospel accounts were in...I don't think that the gospel accounts were intended to be anything other than historical documents of the judicial "bench notes" sub-genre.<br /><br />I think that it's irresponsible and incompetent to ignore the epistemological perspective of the early church--which essentially took its epistemology of phenomena straight from Judaism. The notion of questioning witnesses by a tribunal was foremost in the jewish mind when questions of phenomena were at stake--especially religious phenomena. When Christ called the apostles his witnesses, he didn't mean that they were supposed to talk about their spiritual experience, but only of "what they had seen and heard." This was the phrase attributed to the apostles in Acts when going before the Sanhedrin and the phrase Jesus used when speaking to the witnesses sent by John the Baptist when John sent messengers to Jesus and was asking whether Jesus was the Christ.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-57760844453791645182010-01-17T17:46:43.769-05:002010-01-17T17:46:43.769-05:00Maybe this is irrelevant but Anyul Rivas's com...Maybe this is irrelevant but Anyul Rivas's comment nr. the top got passed over. I think he raises an interesting point. Faith and the what God was up to in Christ necessarily transcends the historical dimension. Adam Nigh has a recent posting on Torrance and the resurrection, in his blog, and here Torrance is helpful I feel on the God time dimension.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11795485331439360230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-40958254716405502822010-01-16T15:00:40.562-05:002010-01-16T15:00:40.562-05:00"In other words, outwardly and inwardly B app..."In other words, outwardly and inwardly B appears to be just as much a Christian as A, but B sees no need to believe in the Resurrection story. He doesn't necessarily deny it, just doesn't see its relevance to salvation. What does one say to B?"<br /><br />Jesus is either alive or dead. If he's dead, then talk of his "presence" today is just sentimental mumbo-jumbo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-38510373939901329522010-01-16T14:54:19.911-05:002010-01-16T14:54:19.911-05:00Internet infidel trolls???
Thanks for posting th...Internet infidel trolls??? <br /><br />Thanks for posting this Ben.One of Freedomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479227411431959461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-29486058095136970932010-01-16T03:33:33.151-05:002010-01-16T03:33:33.151-05:00Professor Hunsinger is not mistaken (nice post, Ge...Professor Hunsinger is not mistaken (nice post, George). As Rowan Williams also observes: "As far as the historical question goes, it is clear that the scholarly analysis of the resurrection narratives has not yielded a single compelling resolution to the numerous difficulties."<br /><br />That's the situation. We have <i>sufficient</i> but not <i>conclusive</i> evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. But then if (as Barth says) "resurrection is a paraphrase of the word 'God'", then the last thing we should expect is historical-critical closure. Indeed if we had it, we'd be worshipping an idol.kim fabriciusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65905932200791301872010-01-15T22:23:35.942-05:002010-01-15T22:23:35.942-05:00I don't have either the time or the inclinatio...I don't have either the time or the inclination to become involved in a controversy in this thread. However: I believe that Prof. Hunsinger _gravely_ underestimates the force of the historical case for Christianity in his repeated deprecating statements about it and particularly when he says, "In the end I think the historical evidence remains ambiguous and inconclusive, taken as a whole." I am sure that that is his honest opinion. I just think that he is mistaken, and mistaken in a way that could be potentially damaging to N. and others with similar questions. (N., of course, may be fictional.)<br /><br />If you are someone like N. and are genuinely interested in the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Internet infidel trolls need not follow up on this), and if you are willing to take the trouble to find my e-mail address, feel free to make contact with me. My e-mail address can be found here:<br /><br />http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/author.php?author_id=5Lydia McGrewhttp://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-67112624226083622022010-01-15T19:54:55.620-05:002010-01-15T19:54:55.620-05:00Thanks, prof. Hunsinger.
In addition to the though...Thanks, prof. Hunsinger.<br />In addition to the thoughtful theological reflection to be found here, posts like this one are invaluable as pictures of theology put in to play in the midst of real relationships.Erinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13301222412563398458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-44069911520845740082010-01-15T18:31:12.737-05:002010-01-15T18:31:12.737-05:00Kierkegaard has a similar argument, but one that g...Kierkegaard has a similar argument, but one that goes much deeper in his Fragments and Postscript. Hunsinger's response is like the first part of that argument. From the standpoint of "certainty" we are left with a stalemate, so perhaps we ought to examine the kind of confidence that the Bible calls faith instead, since "death is a good dancing partner". <br /><br />I suppose Malcolm Muggeridge would be an example of a B Christian? I recall reading an essay where he says that faith (in his definition) would continue to be possible if the bones of Jesus were found at some point in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1507429159381143452010-01-15T17:18:00.566-05:002010-01-15T17:18:00.566-05:00I don't know if this is the appropriate place,...I don't know if this is the appropriate place, but I would like to pose the following theological question: what difference, in terms of salvation, does it make to believe in the Resurrection? Let me expand.<br /><br />Suppose there are two people, A and B, who both believe in eternal life, that Jesus is, after his death, a real Presence and guide for all, who both take to heart the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount, although both understanding themselves as sinners, not really capable of living up to its demanding standard, but both having faith in ultimately entering some mysterious blessed state called the Kingdom of God,.... However, A also believes in the Resurrection (that the tomb was empty), while B doesn't care about it, that Jesus' body probably decayed away like any other.<br /><br />In other words, outwardly and inwardly B appears to be just as much a Christian as A, but B sees no need to believe in the Resurrection story. He doesn't necessarily deny it, just doesn't see its relevance to salvation. What does one say to B?SRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-91473980355512345132010-01-15T01:46:15.366-05:002010-01-15T01:46:15.366-05:00I found Allison sort of depressing. It seemed lik...I found Allison sort of depressing. It seemed like he was playing the part of an agnostic trying to convince his reader he still believed. The Gospels, realiable or unrealiable it didn't matter because he believes. Why? I understand that the Gospels are written after Jesus' resurrection, but if the Gospels don't present and honest picture or Jesus, what's the point.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05421115748452625059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-46099279335255690972010-01-14T17:59:47.871-05:002010-01-14T17:59:47.871-05:00I'd likewise support Allison over more conserv...I'd likewise support Allison over more conservative scholars like Wright. His works are great in that the provide a scholarly alternative to the de-eschatologized Jesus of Crossan and BorgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-80983733014828697272010-01-14T16:30:15.615-05:002010-01-14T16:30:15.615-05:00Well said. I think the final three paragraphs are...Well said. I think the final three paragraphs are absolutely vital and articulate the crux of the matter with clarity and precision. Prof. Hunsinger, here, states quite neatly what thinkers like Athanasius, Calvin, Barth and Torrance were all about. Specifically, our persons and our very frames of mind are bound with and confronted by the personal reality of Jesus Christ that is the subject of the NT's witness.Mike Gibsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-26671608993387173982010-01-14T14:58:47.402-05:002010-01-14T14:58:47.402-05:00I appreciate Prof. Hunsinger's response and I ...I appreciate Prof. Hunsinger's response and I understand that he may have intentionally avoided overwhelming the questioner. Still, I think the scholarly works he references are too conservative in their arguments and conclusions regarding the gospels. I'm afraid that the conservatism of these works will be unconvicing for a genuinely skeptical questioner, esp. as they often beg certain questions. To be sure, Hunsinger hints at this observation in his comments. The recent works by Dale C. Allison are better, in my judgment, both his larger "Resurrecting Jesus" and the much smaller, more accessible "The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus." Here's the Amazon link to the latter.<br />http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Christ-Theological-Jesus/dp/0802862624Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-18666220721788126712010-01-14T01:57:29.290-05:002010-01-14T01:57:29.290-05:00Thanks for posting this Ben.
DaveThanks for posting this Ben.<br /><br />DaveDave W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-30659041775319678302010-01-13T22:53:56.285-05:002010-01-13T22:53:56.285-05:00To anonymous,
That is precisely why this piece is...To anonymous,<br /><br />That is precisely why this piece is not philosophy. It is critical of critical philospophy and historical criticism for not being critical enough of their own sceptical presuppositions to "justify or prove any statement one wished." The attitude eluded to here is rather one of openness and receptivity to see the truth to which the Gospel writers themselves testify. It is not to gain control or domination over the text through one's use of critical reason. It is rather to be controlled by the subject matter itself to which the Gospel tesitifies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-9242413913751797282010-01-13T21:00:45.437-05:002010-01-13T21:00:45.437-05:00If this essay had been submitted to the philosophy...If this essay had been submitted to the philosophy 101 class in Columbia University in 1957 it would have quite rightly been torn to shreds---all of it.<br /><br />Columbia was then a very tough and demanding philosophy school where one actually did philosophy as a potentially life changing exercise and where one was always relentlessly challenged to justify or prove any statement one wished to make. It was a place where one was taught and encouraged to use Critical IntelligenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1497432944600032312010-01-13T20:24:26.132-05:002010-01-13T20:24:26.132-05:00Great article, I agree with most of it, but there ...Great article, I agree with most of it, but there is something that see that is missing in this kind of apologetics writing.<br /><br />You say <i>The picture of Jesus in the gospels, for example, represents an overlay of the Risen Christ upon the "historical" Jesus, because the point is that the historical Jesus and the Risen Christ are finally one and the same.</i>, and then I ask: <i>how is that? can someone explain me how this two apparently contradictory depictions of Jesus, on one side, a Cosmical and preexisntent Son of God who comes and dies for all human sins, and in the other hand, an earthling man from a poor family murdered by the Roman Empire to avoid any subversive movement from de Jews?</i> I know this is a matter of Christology and the Hypostatic union, but I find some the explanation implausibles.<br /><br />Thanks a lot.Anyulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13970052852527981843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-13296958008207257272010-01-13T17:07:17.131-05:002010-01-13T17:07:17.131-05:00One funny bit in there is that I find the opposite...One funny bit in there is that I find the opposite to be the case between Bauckham and Wright. Wright overstates the utter dichotomy between "Greek" and "Jewish" visions of Resurrection, but his exegesis is massively convincing, whereas Bauckham seems to overstate his case historically speaking.<br /><br />But then again that's only my opinion.Tony Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15364659700029347895noreply@blogger.com