Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: The Revelation to Mike Huybensz Message-ID: <1208@topaz.ARPA> Date: Sun, 14-Apr-85 03:20:53 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.1208 Posted: Sun Apr 14 03:20:53 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 01:00:10 EST References: <281@cvl.UUCP> <465@cybvax0.UUCP> <4881@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 55 I have avoided (and will continue to avoid) getting into discussions about the plausibility of Christianity. The arguments somehow never seem to go anywhere. But I would at least like to ask those who are going to do so to try to take account of current scholarly views of the New Testament. Comments in the text, early church tradition, and the results of literary analysis all suggest that what you see in the NT was written down after the church had been in existence for several decades. There is no agreement on whether there are earlier written sources behind the Gospels. But whether the sources are written or verbal, the Gospels appear to be the endproduct of traditions developing in a number of different communities. It is simply not plausible that the NT itself should be a fraud. You may believe that the earliest Christian preachers were either mistaken or intentionally misrepresenting what happened. But it is not plausible that the NT should have been concocted by a cabal and then used to convince people to become Christians As to the idea of a cabal, maybe I am just more credulous than you, but I think conscious religious fraud is less common and easier to detect than you do. At least in modern times, questionable sects seem to have leaders who claim a direct pipeline to God, and who know all the answers. It is unusual to see any group (even sincere) whose basic documents show their leaders as having badly misunderstood the basic principles of the religion. The disciples are consistenly shown as not understanding why Jesus should die (e.g. Mt. 16:21-23). Their misunderstandings continue even into the period when they are leading the church (Acts 10:9-23, which is one of the accounts of the disagreements within the church about whether to accept non-Jews). The tensions within the early church are very clear in Acts and Paul's letters. Then we have the 4 Gospels themselves. While they do agree about many things, differing accounts are given even of such basic items as Jesus' birth and resurrection. Of course it is always possible that the leaders decided to be particularly subtle in their fraud, but that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me.per Also, on the importance of miracles. It is interesting that when Jesus was asked to do a miracle, he is recorded as saying "The only miracle you will be given is the miracle of Jonah" (Mt. 16:4 and parallels) The basic miracle in the book of Jonah is Jonah's conversion of Nineveh. (It is unfortunate that so many people's only exposure to this story is in 3rd grade Sunday school class, where the emphasis is on living in the belly of the fish. The book is a delightful piece of literature, with a rather pointed message about bigotry, and is well worth rereading as an adult.) Recall that much of Jesus' attention is given to bringing God's kingdom to people who have been shut out: people too poor to obey the strict ideals of the Pharisees, tax collectors, sinners, harlots, etc. A large fraction of his parables are told defending this role. In talking about the miracle of Jonah I think Jesus is saying that his major accomplishment is the conversion of people who were regarded as hopeless. (There are 4 different versions of this story. Mt. 12:38-42 gives an alternate interpretation, where this represents the resurrection. However scholars do not regard this as the original version.) Charles Hedrick, topaz!hedrick (unintentionally A.K.A. root@topaz)