Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I agree with your analysis, Bob.  I never found the "lord, liar, or
    lunatic" argument to be very convincing either.
    
    -- Mike

    Thanks Bob for creating this topic.  I have been meaning to create
    it myself, but you beat me to it.  I too have read this quote,
    especially the line, "You must make a choice."  My response to that is: 
    Who says?  Much depends on one's concept of God and definition of
    "lord."  It also depends on one's definition of a "man."  Lewis makes a
    lot of sexist, demeaning remarks against women, but those aren't
    revered with as much esteem as the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic thing.
    
    Essentially, I believe Jesus was who he said he was, but what I mean by
    "who he said he was" would not be equivalent to what traditionalist
    Christians mean when they say "who he said he was."  Jesus, I believe,
    was "God," in that he was One with the Source, creator of all things. 
    He embodied the Spirit of God/ATI/Source.  Whether he was ALWAYS one
    with God, or whether he was once, like us, on a "path" to God, is 
    irrelevant to me.  He was, here on earth, a great human moral teacher
    as well, showing us the way, demonstrating by his life/actions/words,
    that our physical world -- every bit of suffering, decay, hunger,
    thirst, disease, material possessions, hardships found on earth,
    INCLUDING physical death -- does not really matter when held up to what
    does really matter:  Treasures in heaven, eternal life, the Spirit of
    God.  So, I essentially believe Jesus was setting an example for the
    rest of us, showing us the way to become one with God, as he is/was one
    with God.  Were there other humans like Jesus?  Yes, I believe there
    were and are.  Lewis maintains the best we can do is develop a
    "relationship" with Jesus/God, not become One with God, as Jesus is.  
    I disagree, and sincerely believe that Jesus was demonstrating to us what 
    Oneness with the Father really means, by his teachings, by his sacrifice
    and example of suffering and death.   So the question isn't:  Was Jesus
    really the Son of God?  The answer, IMHO, is yes.  But we are also all 
    sons/daughters of God.
    
    So for me and a lot of others, it is not simply a choice of Lord, Liar,
    or Lunatic, as it is presented here.  There are many other ways of
    looking at the essence of Jesus, as well as the essence of God and
    humanity.  To try to force someone to accept certain premises and make 
    a choice like that strikes me as intimidating and puerile
    closed-minded.
    
    Paul 

Re:  97.0

Other possiblities:

  >Jesus may have been misquoted and/or misinterpreted.  

This can be subdivided:

  >The disciples may have made claims on Jesus's behalf after Jesus died, 
  >either because they misinterpreted Jesus's message [unintentional 
  >distortion] or because they wanted to win more converts [intentional 
  >distortion].  

  >Another possibility is that Jesus was a human teacher with human 
  >failings, such as an exaggerated sense of his own importance.  

If this is true, then it is covered under the first possibility that
Jesus' sayings and teachings have been misrepresented.  (The reason
I put it there is that Jesus did *not* cleam to be a human teacher
with human failings, rather he claimed just the opposite.  This means
that either the record is wrong or that Jesus is a liar.)

  >Yet another possibility is that Jesus was merely an invention, a composite
  >of teachings that came from other cultures blended with Judaism.  

If this is true, then it is covered under the first possibility (that
Jesus' sayings and teachings have been misrepresented).

  >It doesn't seem credible that the Jesus myth would spring out of thin 
  >air in a matter of a few decades.

Particularly when we have a record claimed to be written by eyewitnesses.

  >This person's message may well have been altered and added to by those 
  >recorded it, and his legend may have been enhanced...

This, again, is covered under the first possibility.

What I reason from this, Bob, is that there are four possibilities and
that C. S. Lewis assumed one of them (that the Bible contains an accurate
account of who Jesus was (is) what Jesus taught).

I agree with you, Bob, that this assumption was made.  It is, however,
not simply a pipe dream, but there is much evidence that this assumption
is in fact true.  Much of this evidence has been presented in this
conference, much in Golf::Christian, and some I have read about but
not seen presented.

Re:  97.2

  >Much depends on one's concept of God and definition of "lord."  It 
  >also depends on one's definition of a "man."  

This, again, is covered under the first possibility that Jesus' sayings
and teachings have been misrepresented.

  >Jesus, I believe, was "God," in that he was One with the Source, creator 
  >of all things.  He embodied the Spirit of God/ATI/Source.  Whether he 
  >was ALWAYS one with God, or whether he was once, like us, on a "path" 
  >to God, is irrelevant to me.  

We have a record of who Jesus was.  This is not what the record says.
Again, either the record is wrong or Jesus is a Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.

  >Were there other humans like Jesus?  Yes, I believe there were and are.

The record we have disagrees with you.  For example, Jesus was sinless.  
All others have sinned.  Again, this possibility boils down to the
record being wrong.

In summary, if you discount the record of Jesus we have, then you may
believe *anything* your heart desires about "Jesus".  It is only if
you accept that the record we have is accurate (commentary : WHICH IT IS)
that we have the Liar, Lunatic or Lord option well-defined.

Collis

    RE: 0
    
    IMO, C. S. Lewis, has the problem.
    
>    	A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus
>    said would not be a great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic
>    on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would
>    be the Devil of Hell.  YOu must make your choice.  Either this man was,
>    and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.  You can
>    shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a Demon; or
>    you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord AND God.  But let us not
>    come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human
>    teacher.  He has not left that open to us.
    
    I say that Mr. Lewis doesn't understand or believe things "DIVINE" or
    "HOLY".  
    
    First, we must agree, according to scripture, that God's WORD is
    DIVINE; that JESUS is the WORD OF GOD made flesh, or in the flesh.  So
    if a "mere" man were to say (and believe in) the things that Jesus
    said, that man is no "mere" man, but is a son of God, as it is written,
    "Those that receive HIM, gave he the power to become the sons and
    daughters of God."  Also, there is scripture that says something to the
    effect that no man can say Jesus is Lord, unless he be of the Spirit.
    
    Jesus, without the indwelling Word of God, would be a mere man,
    himself.  God's Word is "great morality", anyone who teaches the Word
    of God, is automatically a "great moral teacher"!  
    
    The choice we have to make, is not to decide whether Jesus is the Son
    of God or a Liar or a Madman.  Jesus IS the Son of God, and the
    question is will we receive him as such, and as our Saviour.  No where
    in the Bible does it describe Jesus as a liar and madman.  Who said
    those alternatives were available, for us to choose from?  The Bible
    presents Jesus as the Bible presents him...take it or leave it alone!
    
    It is not good that C.S. Lewis could cause one to doubt the Word of
    God, such that you say the disciples and apostles
    "misquoted/misinterpreted" Jesus...it seems to me for one to honestly
    say that they would have to be Jesus, or at least in possession of the
    right interpretation.  It is not acceptable for someone to say they
    misinterpreted something if they don't know the right interpretation
    themselves, how do they know it is wrong?  How can they be SURE of
    that?  Casting doubt just to cast doubt is negativity (Devil's
    Advocate) if I've ever heard it...I've NEVER listened much to those who
    say, "I don't know what is right, but I know this or that is wrong." 
    Pray tell how do you know this?

    .3  Collis,
    
           "... if you discount the record of Jesus we have, then you may
            believe *anything* your heart desires..."
    
    Why is it, in my discussions with you, that my understanding of the 
    meaning of God and of Jesus's life/teachings is almost always poo-pooed 
    as self-serving attempt to reinvent God according to whatever my little 
    heart desires, whereas your understanding of God and the meaning of 
    Jesus's life is almost always presented as not *even* yours, but as *the*
    "official" way that God is, the "official" interpretation of Jesus's
    life/teachings?  You do this over and over and over again.
    
    I am not discounting any record of Christ -- the record of the gospels
    or any other non-Biblical ways in which Christ reveals himself in
    people's lives.  My understanding of God/Christ appears to be different
    than yours.  Period.  Stop telling me that I have certain
    understandings of Christ/God because I am trying to gratify Self 
    and not God.
    
    Frankly, Collis, I am beginning to get fed up with your repeated
    proclivity for questioning my motives/intentions in coming to certain
    understanding of the Divine, rather than addressing the content of the
    subject matter that I present.  Is this what being "scholarly" is all
    about?  In my eyes, your continued define-God-as-your-little-heart-desires
    remarks strike me as puerile and petty, though these remarks usually 
    sound impressive and scholarly, all masked-over in heavy intellectual 
    rhetoric.
    
    With all due respect, I would ask you to address the content of what 
    I say from now on -- agree or disagree with it -- rather than analyze my 
    intentions/motives in coming to certain understandings of God.  
    If it doesn't stop, then I will be glad to return the favor by presenting 
    some hypotheses regarding your intentions/motives -- about how and why I
    think you personally come to certain understandings of the nature of God.
    Two can play this game Collis.  If you want me to jump in the game, 
    just give the word.
      
    Paul
    

Re:  97.6

Paul,

I don't know how to respond.  I state what I think is clear, reasonable
and true and you jump all over me.  Perhaps I'm blind.  But I am sorry
if I (and my style) offend you.  That is *not* what I'm trying to do.

I said, 

     >>"... if you discount the record of Jesus we have, then you may
     >>believe *anything* your heart desires..."

I have not heard you claim that the Scripture is an accurate record
of who Jesus is and what Jesus did.  But, I have heard both statements
about the Scriptures and statements about Jesus which lead me to
believe that you do not accept that the Scripture is an accurate record
of who Jesus is and what Jesus did.

The question is, how inaccurate is it (in your opinion)?

I don't know.  So, I say that if you don't accept what the Scripture
says about Jesus, I don't see that there is anything to hang your hat
onto about Jesus.  (At least, this is what the statement above boils
down to as I meant it.)

I question your basis for believing what you do because I do not
see the basis behind what you believe.  I do see how it contradicts
with what the Bible says and have pointed those inconsistencies out
in the past and will point them out in the future.

("what the Bible says":  read this to mean that there *is* a clear
understanding of the Bible that can be drawn out of it)

You don't like my summary statements.  You don't like my specific
statements.  Sorry, Paul, but I believe them to be true.  And I really
am sorry if this offends you.  But I'm not sorry either for believing
that they are true or that I say them when appropriate (i.e. when
relevent to the discussion).
    
  >Stop telling me that I have certain understandings of Christ/God 
  >because I am trying to gratify Self and not God.

Please show me just one statement that explicitly says this.  If you
can't find one, perhaps you're reading too much into what's there.

  >I am beginning to get fed up with your repeated proclivity for questioning 
  >my motives/intentions in coming to certain understanding of the Divine, 
  >rather than addressing the content of the subject matter that I present.  

This really appears to be the issue.  Paul, let me state for the record
that in my mind I have *never* questioned that you sincerely believe what
you believe and that you believe it is true.  Does that help?  I will
also state for the record that I have never intentionally questioned your
sincerity.

In my mind, I *do* address the content of the subject matter.  (Some would
say I address this rather vigorously.  :-) )

What I *did* and *do* question is the evidence you use to and how you
use it.  From what I see, you pick and choose what you want to believe
from the Scriptures.  The principles of why you choose some things and
not others are not clear to me.  Perhaps you don't have a clear-cut
principle.  I don't know.  Perhaps this is why you think I am questioning
your motives and intentions.  But I don't see that I am questioning your
motives and intentions.  Perhaps you misunderstand me.

Collis

    
    re .6
    
    Paul,
    
    The question, then, is what is the basis for your knowledge of God and
    Jesus?
    
    Jamey 
    

Re: .7  Collis

>The question is, how inaccurate is it (in your opinion)?
>
>I don't know.  So, I say that if you don't accept what the Scripture
>says about Jesus, I don't see that there is anything to hang your hat
>onto about Jesus.  (At least, this is what the statement above boils
>down to as I meant it.)

This is pretty much what I believe.  I think the Scriptures are very
probably inaccurate, but beyond that it's hard to say just how inaccurate
they are.  There is a wide range of hypotheses and none of them can be
proved.  Thus, I am an agnostic.

What C. S. Lewis was trying to do was to use logic to disprove one of the
most attractive hypotheses: that Jesus was a great teacher.  In order to
do this, though, he had to introduce the unstated assumption that the
Scriptures are accurate.  This pretty much begs the question, though: if
I saw someone heal the sick, walk on water, raise people from the dead,
die and then rise from the dead on the third day, and this person claimed
to be God, then even I would probably believe him.

It might be interesting to make the assumption that the Scriptures are
completely accurate and *then* debate the Lord, Liar or Lunatic question,
but for me and for most other people here this would be an academic exercise,
because we *don't* think that the Scriptures are completely accurate.

(Of course, I view the claims of Scripture much more skeptically than most
other people here.)

You're right that most of what I said in .0 boils down to saying that there
is a fourth alternative: that the Scriptures aren't completely accurate,
in which case Jesus could still be Lord, Liar or Lunatic but there are
other possibilities, such as that he was a great teacher or that he was
merely a composite of other myths.

There was one other point I made, though, that is independent of this.  Even
if Jesus was a "lunatic" because he thought that his supernatural powers
meant that he was God, that doesn't mean that he also wasn't a great teacher.
An idea is valid regardless of its source (a near-quote from the movie
"Dark Star").

				-- Bob

    
    I do *not* believe the Scriptures are "completely accurate" in every
    detail, though I believe that they are accurate enough to be worth my
    attention, study, etc.  I *do* believe Jesus is Lord, the Son of God in
    a unique way.  (Is this a combination of possible beliefs not yet
    stated in this string?  I think so, but I'm a bit confused on that
    point! :-)  )
    
    To continue:  I do believe Jesus is Lord, the Son of God in a *unique*
    way (there I differ with Paul C.)  BUT -- I am not at all sure that
    Jesus *knew* or *thought of* himself as the Son of God, the Messiah!!
    Some of his claims in that regard are some of the parts of the
    Scripture that have the most questionable origins (later additions,
    etc.)  
    
    I believe that Jesus was deeply commited to Judaism (or whatever it was
    called at that time).  He was trying to help people understand who God
    *really* is -- a God of love, a God who cares about justice, not laws
    and rules and ceremonies, a God who wants his people to be one, not
    fighting amongst themselves.  Etc.
    
    I believe God *called* Jesus to be his son, and that Jesus was his son
    by "adoption" rather than by pre-existence.  Jesus responded to that
    call in a positive way, rather than refusing it.
    
    I further believe that it is *possible* that God previously called
    others to be the Messiah (to be his son -- and maybe his daughter, too) 
    but that either none of them heeded his call or for some other reason
    we do not know anything about them. (This, of course, is speculation.)
    
    Nancy

    This is an aside to Playtoe, C.S.Lewis was an Englishman who
    has been regarded as the 'greatest Christian appologist' of
    the 20th century. 
    
    His account of his conversion to Christianity "Surprised by Joy"
    and his subscquent novels, essays and radio programs were/and 
    are remarkable as a witness to Christ and in the people he brought
    to the Lord.
    
    Bonnie

    To jump in on Bob's coat-tails (you don't mind, do you Bob?),  :-)...
    
    I don't believe the scriptures are innerrant either but I _do_ believe
    there's a lot of wisdom and value in them just as there is a lot of
    wisdom and value in other published works I've read, the words I've
    heard spoken by many people I've met, the words I've seen written here
    and the feelings that I find written in my heart at different times of
    my life.  What does it matter what the source is as long as the
    expression is of God?
    
    Nanci

Let me push a little more...

I don't believe that you have to accept the Scriptures as inerrant to
also accept the Liar, Lunatic or Lord theory.  All I think that we need
to assume (believe) is that they are essentially correct (i.e. that
there are not major, glaring errors).

The reason I say this is that Scripture deals with the same subjects
time and time and time again.  (Not all subjects, but the most important
ones in terms of believing who Jesus was).  There are over 75 references
to the deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament alone.  You can discount
one as a mistranslation, another as a garbled manuscript and a third
as an author's intentional bias, but to dismiss all 75?  (Seventy-five
is not my counting, but the counting of others.  I could easily come
up with 25 and with some work come up with 50.)

Other important issues are the same.  300 references to salvation by
faith.  (Three disputed references to salvaution by faith and baptism.)
The evidence is there.  (The fields are ripe for harvest.)  We just
need to open our eyes and see it.  (At least, that is what I believe.)

Collis

    The "quest for the historical Jesus" is an interesting topic in its own
    right.  There has been a lot of valuable scholarship in that area in
    recent decades, as a result of a renewed confidence in the productive
    value of such an endeavor.  Unfortunately, Lewis's ultimatum is neither
    aimed at agnostics such as Bob (who are inherently unlikely to consider
    the Gospels to be 100% authentic), or at Christians such as Nancy (who
    are likely to embrace Jesus as their "Lord").  Who exactly, is Lewis's
    comment aimed at?  Well, ostensibly, it appears to be primarily at a
    school of thought that was popular in the 19th century, expressed by
    individuals like Albrecht Ritchl, who saw Jesus almost exclusively as a
    moral teacher, without the eschatological or messianic elements
    typically assigned to him.

    The problem, as Bob pointed out, is that very these individuals are
    hardly very likely to accept Lewis's premises about the nature of Bible
    either.  Thus his ostensible targets were, for all practical purposes,
    nobody.  However, that hasn't prevented Lewis's ultimatum from
    retaining popularity to this day.

    Coming from a fundamentalist background myself, I am more than aware of
    the this ultimatum, having first encountered it as a teenager.  It is
    interesting how this notes topic has quickly changed from one of
    Lewis's faulty logic into a debate over the legitimacy of the one
    possibility that Lewis ignores when he claims to propose a
    comprehensive list of allowable possibilities.  Those who deny that
    this other possibility is legitimate--namely, that one need not accept
    the Gospels as 100% accurate--have already collapsed Lewis's three
    alternatives into one anyway, since they are not likely to believe that
    Jesus is either a liar or a lunatic.  So, as far as they are concerned,
    there really aren't three options, but just one, thus making Lewis's
    ultimatum redundant.  Yet there seems to be a special concern that the
    fourth option be omitted from the list, even though options two and
    three are equally unacceptable to the True Believer.  I suspect that
    this has to do with the fact that options two and three fall outside
    the domain of the faith, and thus have little to do with maintaining
    Doctrinal Purity, unlike the omitted fourth option.

    -- Mike

Re:  97.14

  >Who exactly, is Lewis's comment aimed at?  ...[those] who saw Jesus 
  >almost exclusively as a moral teacher, without the eschatological or 
  >messianic elements typically assigned to him.

This is exactly true.  In order to believe that Jesus was simply a
moral teacher, a vast amount of the Scriptures have to be either
deleted or modified, in my opinion (and in the opinion of C. S. Lewis).

  >It is interesting how this notes topic has quickly changed from one of
  >Lewis's faulty logic into a debate over the legitimacy of the one
  >possibility that Lewis ignores when he claims to propose a
  >comprehensive list of allowable possibilities.  

It is true that no one debates the possibility of any of the three
options which Lewis proposed.  The only other issue is "were there other
options left out"?

Lewis made an assumption which, in my opinion, was a reasonable one.
It would have been better to state it up front.  But what Lewis was
trying to say was, "As presented in the Scriptures, Jesus is either
a Liar, a Lunatic or Lord".  So far, we all seem to agree with this.

  >So, as far as they are concerned, there really aren't three options, but 
  >just one, thus making Lewis's ultimatum redundant.  

C. S. Lewis was being logical in trying to assess all the possibilities.
The belief that very few would accept some of those possibilities is
not Lewis' problem.

Collis

    Re .14
    
    Considering that C. S. Lewis was a medievalist, it is likely that he
    was quoting a much older version of the dilemma (or multilemma, if you
    prefer), put forth in the works of St. Augustine, who tagged the
    argument as "aut deus aut malus homo" ("either God or a bad man").  His
    attention may have been drawn to this by the 19th-century movement you
    mention, of course, but it is Augustine that he sometimes quotes.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Thanks for pointing that out, Earl.  I was not aware of the connection
    with Augustine, but that makes a lot of sense to me.

    The problem was, of course, that Lewis was *not* offering all the
    conceivable possibilities.  Despite his faulty logic, I agree, by the
    way, that Jesus was not *exclusively* a moral teacher, but was probably
    also, among other things, something of an eschatological prophet.  I
    suspect, as I mentioned earlier, that the reason for the popularity of
    the "lord, liar, or lunatic" ultimatum, fallacies notwithstanding, is
    that it is used as a rhetorical weapon to enforce Doctrinal Purity.

    -- Mike

    
    I think it's interesting to note that we all have to solve the 
    puzzle of the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic on a daily basis when we
    engage in conversation with the people around us.
    
    Will we recognize the divinity in them?
    
    Will we simply write off what they say because it just seems so 
    foreign that it MUST be a lie?
    
    Or will we decide that the person knows not from whence they 
    speak?
    
    guy
    

Good food for thought, Guy.  

Thanks,

Ro

Re: .15  Collis

>In order to believe that Jesus was simply a
>moral teacher, a vast amount of the Scriptures have to be either
>deleted or modified, in my opinion (and in the opinion of C. S. Lewis).

Proposition: Jesus was not divine, was not the Messiah, and never claimed
to be.  His disciples misunderstood his message and falsified the Gospels
in order to reflect their belief that Jesus was divine and was the Messiah.
The question is: how much scripture would have to be deleted or modified
in order to support this hypothesis?

We can throw out any Old Testament prophesies that show that the Messiah
would be divine, because Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah.  We can
throw out the epistles and the book of Revelation, because they reflect the
mistaken views of the disciples rather than Jesus's own statements.  We
are left with: (a) statements by Jesus about his own divinity and Messiahship;
(b) account of miracles performed by Jesus; and (c) events in Jesus's life
which fit Old Testament prophesies about the Messiah.

I'm most interested in scripture in category (a), since accepting passages
in categories (b) and (c) requires belief in the supernatural.

So my real question is: how many times does Jesus claim to be God or claim
to be the Messiah?  My guess is: not very often.

				-- Bob

    re: back a few...Guy - 
    
    Wow!  You do have a way of taking off on tangents, don't you?  Thanks
    for triggering my brain in a different direction.  I think your
    comments are going to provide me with lots of food for thought for a
    long time.
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci  
    
    

    Yeah Guy,
    
    *Good* food for thought!
    
    Thanks,
    
    Kb

    I'll chime in also.  Good thoughts, Guy.
    
    -- Mike

    re:  .18    Excellent comments!!
    
    
    re:  Collis & Jamey ... Concerning where I "hang my hat" spiritually, I
    thought I had written novels on this in previous topics/conferences. 
    I do not "hang my hat" on any one particular rack, and I will spell it
    all out for you later, when I have more time on my hands; however, 
    I predict my comments won't sit well with you.  (Surprise! ;))
    Regarding the Bible... I think it is flawed and not an entirely accurate
    record of Jesus's life/teachings in terms of the nature of God.  And 
    because the gospels are not perfect recordings -- just like mono sound 
    recorded 60/70 years ago -- I think there is room for interpretation and 
    putting in perspective statements like this:  "I am the way, the truth, 
    and the life; no one goes to the father except by me.  Now that you have 
    known me you will know my father also."  That does not mean I do not 
    think it is not a useful tool in understanding the nature of God.  
    It is a useful tool, but it is only one tool.  And that does not mean 
    I see the gospels conflicting with other (non-biblical) vehicles 
    through which God reveals himself.
    
    PS.  Given the lord-liar-lunatic ultimatium, one must understand that
    there are certain assumptions that are dished out with it.  One is
    forced to assume/accept the ultimatum-giver's concept of "God" and "lord" 
    and "man" and "teacher."  There are other ways to address lord-liar-
    lunatic as long as the assumptions/definitions/premises that come with 
    the package are not swallowed hook, line, and sinker.  That's the beauty 
    and appeal of issuing lord-liar-lunatic to someone.   It's not a choice
    at all.  It shuts people off.  "You either accept my notion of what 
    God/Christ/humanity are all about or else you don't believe in and/or
    accept God in your life."
    
    Paul      

Re:  97.20

  >The question is: how much scripture would have to be deleted or modified
  >in order to support this hypothesis?

Good question.  Let's look.

  >We can throw out any Old Testament prophesies that show that the Messiah
  >would be divine, because Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah.  

You *must* throw out the Old Testament prophesies because Jesus
fulfilled them.

  >We can throw out the epistles and the book of Revelation, because they 
  >reflect the mistaken views of the disciples rather than Jesus's own 
  >statements.  

You *must* throw out the epistles and the book of Revelation because
they clearly proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah.

  >We are left with: 

  >(a) statements by Jesus about his own divinity and Messiahship;

Yes, we must throw out those sections of the gospels which record this.
(I'm not sure why this isn't included with the other writings by
followers, but I'll throw it out here.)

  >(b) account of miracles performed by Jesus; and 

Throw these out.  They were what the Messiah was supposed to do.

  >(c) events in Jesus's life which fit Old Testament prophesies about 
  >the Messiah.

Those go out too.  They support the claim of the Messiahship of Jesus.

  >So my real question is: how many times does Jesus claim to be God or claim
  >to be the Messiah?  My guess is: not very often.

Of course, there's nothing left in your Bible.  :-)

Collis

Re:  97.24

  >Given the lord-liar-lunatic ultimatium, one must understand that
  >there are certain assumptions that are dished out with it.  

We have defined exactly one assumption.  That assumption is that
Scripture is an accurate record.  Are there other assumptions that
you are claiming?

Collis

    At least two assumptions come to mind.  First, the assumption is that
    the Gospels are a 100% accurate record, rather than a mostly or partly
    accurate record.  Also, Lewis is assuming that good moral teachings are
    somehow invalidated if they come from the mouths of less than perfect
    people.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  97.27

  >First, the assumption is that the Gospels are a 100% accurate record, 
  >rather than a mostly or partly accurate record.  

I have already stated that this is not a necessary assumption.  Perhaps
we disagree? 

  >Also, Lewis is assuming that good moral teachings are somehow 
  >invalidated if they come from the mouths of less than perfect people.
    
Lewis was not dealing with the teachings.  He was dealing with the
PERSON.  The question is not whether or not the teachings are right.
The question is, "Who is Jesus Christ?"  Assuming we have a reasonable
record of his life, Is he a liar, a lunatic or Lord?

Collis

    Yes, we do disagree over your conclusion that this is not a necessary
    assumption.
    
    As for the point of Lewis's fallacious ultimatum, it seems to me that
    it is directed at those who believe that Jesus was more or less
    exclusively a good moral teacher (a view of Jesus that I do not agree
    with, by the way, as I have mentioned before.)  The argument seems to
    be that Jesus could not have been just a good moral teacher, but rather
    that he had to be a Lord, liar, or lunatic.  I therefore interpret the
    ultimatum as being directed at an interpretation of Jesus's role as a
    moral teacher.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .25  Collis

>  >We can throw out any Old Testament prophesies that show that the Messiah
>  >would be divine, because Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah.  
>
>You *must* throw out the Old Testament prophesies because Jesus
>fulfilled them.

Only according to the gospels.  The gospels may have been wrong, and the
Old Testament may have been prophesying a different Messiah.

"Throw out" wasn't really the right word.  I should have said "exclude as
irrelevant".

>  >We can throw out the epistles and the book of Revelation, because they 
>  >reflect the mistaken views of the disciples rather than Jesus's own 
>  >statements.  
>
>You *must* throw out the epistles and the book of Revelation because
>they clearly proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah.

Again, change "throw out" to "exclude as irrelevant".

I'd exclude these as irrelevant because they fit my hypothesis, i.e. that
the disciples thought (mistakenly) that Jesus was the Messiah.

>  >We are left with: 
>
>  >(a) statements by Jesus about his own divinity and Messiahship;
>
>Yes, we must throw out those sections of the gospels which record this.
>(I'm not sure why this isn't included with the other writings by
>followers, but I'll throw it out here.)

I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus actually did say everything
that the gospels say that he said (with the exception of the few verses that
may have been distorted).  I'm making a distinction here between the epistles,
where the disciples wrote down their own thoughts, and the gospels, where they
wrote down what they claim Jesus said.

>  >(b) account of miracles performed by Jesus; and 
>
>Throw these out.  They were what the Messiah was supposed to do.

Which may have been why the disciples invented/appropriated those incidents.

>  >(c) events in Jesus's life which fit Old Testament prophesies about 
>  >the Messiah.
>
>Those go out too.  They support the claim of the Messiahship of Jesus.

Ditto to my previous remark.

>  >So my real question is: how many times does Jesus claim to be God or claim
>  >to be the Messiah?  My guess is: not very often.
>
>Of course, there's nothing left in your Bible.  :-)

"Of course"?  Then you admit I'm right: Jesus never claimed to be the
Messiah (except perhaps in a handful of passages).

				-- Bob

    re:  .26
    
    Collis,
    
    Yes, there are other assumptions that you/Lewis are claiming, IMHO.  
    I suggested what these are in the remainder of that paragraph in .24,
    which you did not quote.  Namely, that those who dish out this
    lord-liar-lunatic ultimatum assume that the other person accepts or
    must accept, or must study this issue from a place where he/she
    accepts, the same concept of "God" and "lord" and "teacher" and "man."  
    Also that the other person should accept the ultimatum-giver's
    interpretation of the meaning of the gospels (in addition to the 
    validity of the gospels).
    
    Paul
    

Re:  97.30

     >>You *must* throw out the Old Testament prophesies because Jesus
     >>fulfilled them.

  >Only according to the gospels.  The gospels may have been wrong, and the
  >Old Testament may have been prophesying a different Messiah.

But later on you *accept* what the gospels say.  You can't have it
both ways.

  >"Throw out" wasn't really the right word.  I should have said "exclude as
  >irrelevant".

Oh, it's not "irrelevant".  If it wasn't relevant, you wouldn't have
to exclude it.  It is precisely because it is *extremely* relevant that
you have to decide whether to accept or reject it.  You choose to reject
it and therefore say that we need to "discard" those portions of
Scripture.  It sounds to me like "throw out" really is appropriate.

  >I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus actually did say 
  >everything that the gospels say that he said (with the exception of the 
  >few verses that may have been distorted).  

But it's not simply a matter of "a few verses".  For one reason, "*who*
Jesus is" is a (perhaps THE) MAJOR focus of the gospels.  The turning
point of the gospel of Mark is the confession by Peter that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of the living God.  This *can not* just be written
off as another verse.  It's like writing a book and leaving out the
key piece of evidence.  The rest of the story becomes meaningless.

     >>Of course, there's nothing left in your Bible.  :-)

  >"Of course"?  Then you admit I'm right: Jesus never claimed to be the
  >Messiah (except perhaps in a handful of passages).

No, what we're dealing with is, "What parts of the Bible do we have left
after we exclude the sections dealing with the claims of who Christ is."
The answer is, we have very little of the Bible left.  Because these
claims are throughout the entire Bible and other claims are indirectly
attached to the identity of Jesus.

So, we're back to where we started.  If the Scriptures provide a
reasonably accurate picture of Jesus, then Jesus is either a Liar,
a Lunatic or Lord.

Collis

Re:  97.31

Paul,
    
  >I suggested what these are [other assumptions] in the remainder of that 
  >paragraph in .24, which you did not quote.  

Sorry, I will now deal with these explicitly.

  >Namely, that those who dish out this lord-liar-lunatic ultimatum assume 
  >that the other person accepts or must accept, or must study this issue 
  >from a place where he/she accepts, the same concept of "God" and "lord" 
  >and "teacher" and "man."  Also that the other person should accept the 
  >ultimatum-giver's interpretation of the meaning of the gospels (in 
  >addition to the validity of the gospels).

The question as I see it is, "do the Scriptures reveal clearly what
Jesus claims and who He is?"  Lewis and I both believe that the answer
is yes.  In fact, C. S. Lewis does a great deal of talking about this
before he makes the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" claim.  So this is not
an assumption, really, but a point which is discussed in detail in 
advance.

You are claiming that Jesus does not do this.  But Lewis claims that
the Scriptures contradicts you and this is precisely *why* he makes
the Lord, Liar or Lunatic claim.

Collis

Re: .32  Collis

>  >Only according to the gospels.  The gospels may have been wrong, and the
>  >Old Testament may have been prophesying a different Messiah.
>
>But later on you *accept* what the gospels say.  You can't have it
>both ways.

You must have misunderstood me.  The only part of the gospels that I am
accepting (for the sake of argument) are the words of Jesus.

I'll restate my assumptions, in an attempt to clarify what I am trying to
say.

For the sake of argument, I am assuming that the Old Testament prophets said
what the Bible says they said, Jesus said what the Bible says he said (except
for "a few verses"), and the disciples said what the Bible says they said.  I
am not accepting the accounts of miracles performed by Jesus or the events in
Jesus's life that fit Old Testament prophesies, because that would require
belief in the supernatural.

Under these assumptions, both the Old Testament prophesies and the epistles
are irrelevant.  The Old Testament prophesies may or may not be true
prophesies, but if Jesus wasn't the Messiah then the prophesies are irrelevant
because they are referring to a different person.  The gospel accounts that
show that Jesus fit the prophesies *are* relevant, but I'm rejecting them
because they require belief in the supernatual.

Similarly, the epistles are irrelevant because they show what the disciples
believed, not what Jesus said he was.

>  >"Throw out" wasn't really the right word.  I should have said "exclude as
>  >irrelevant".
>
>Oh, it's not "irrelevant".  If it wasn't relevant, you wouldn't have
>to exclude it.  It is precisely because it is *extremely* relevant that
>you have to decide whether to accept or reject it.

Nonsense.  For all I care (for the purposes of this discussion) the Old
Testament prophesies could be 100% accurate.  It's the events in Jesus's life
that fit those prophesies that I'm rejecting.

>  >I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus actually did say 
>  >everything that the gospels say that he said (with the exception of the 
>  >few verses that may have been distorted).  
>
>But it's not simply a matter of "a few verses".

*That's* the point I'm disputing.  I claim that it *is* "a few verses".  Let's
talk about it.

>The turning
>point of the gospel of Mark is the confession by Peter that Jesus is
>the Christ, the Son of the living God.  This *can not* just be written
>off as another verse.  It's like writing a book and leaving out the
>key piece of evidence.  The rest of the story becomes meaningless.

I disagree.   It *is* just one verse, and could have been added later to
bolster the claim that Jesus is God.

Let's look at it.

First of all, the account in Mark is far from impressive.

	And Jesus went with his disciples, to the villages of Caesarea
	Phillipi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say
	that I am?"  And they told him "John the Baptist; and others say
	Elijah; and others one of the prophets."  And he asked them, "But
	who do you say that I am?"  Peter answered him, "You are the
	Christ."  And he charged them to tell no one about him.
					Mark 8:27-30 (RSV)

Just from these verses I don't see how you can say that Jesus said he
was the Christ.  He could just as easily have told the disciple not to
tell anyone that he was the Christ because it wasn't true.

As far as I can tell, this incident isn't recorded in Luke or John, so we're
only left with Matthew 16:13-20.  Peter says "You are the Christ, the Son
of the living God", and Jesus answers "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!  For
flesh and blood hasn't revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

Assuming Christ = Messiah, this verse doesn't fit my theory, so this has
to be one of the handful of verses that I reject.  There are two problems
with the passage: Jesus acknowledges that he is the Christ, and he claims
to have authority in heaven by granting Peter the keys to the kingdom.

>No, what we're dealing with is, "What parts of the Bible do we have left
>after we exclude the sections dealing with the claims of who Christ is."
>The answer is, we have very little of the Bible left.  Because these
>claims are throughout the entire Bible and other claims are indirectly
>attached to the identity of Jesus.

IMO you'd have the most valuable parts of the Bible left: the moral teachings
of Jesus and a record of the history and culture of the Jewish people.

>So, we're back to where we started.  If the Scriptures provide a
>reasonably accurate picture of Jesus, then Jesus is either a Liar,
>a Lunatic or Lord.

You still haven't proved to me that Jesus claimed to be God, so I don't
see why Jesus would be a liar or lunatic if he isn't God.  At worst, the
Scriptures that I've rejected show that Jesus is God and/or the Messiah, but
Jesus himself never claims to be God and only in a few verses does he claim
to be the Christ, sitting at the right hand of God in heaven.  It's the
authors of the New Testament who are liars, lunatics or disciples of the
Lord.

				-- Bob

      Just a thought.  If any part of the Bible is false, then why do you
    believe any of it?  Do you except what you like because it fits your
    own morals?  If you except what the Bible says Jesus said in one verse,
    but in the next verse you do not except what the writer said, why do
    you except what Jesus said?   The same writer records both statements.
    If this is all the hope we have then away with it and get on with life.
    For this then is all we have.  
    
    But if the Bible be God's word then we best repent and be baptized and 
    sin no more.
    
    
                                 Marshall
    
    

    re: .35, Marshall,
    
    Just because some parts of the Bible are "false" does not mean they are
    necessarily untrue or are lies.  Some records of Biblical events that
    may not be historically factual nevertheless contain truths of faith or
    of religious significance -- truths that, in fact, may be obscured when
    we focus on the recorded details of the event! 
    
    >If you except what the Bible says Jesus said in one verse,
    >but in the next verse you do not except what the writer said, why do
    >you except what Jesus said?   The same writer records both statements.
    
    Sometimes the statements were *not* written by the same writer! 
    Sometimes the writings or eyewitness accounts of two or three different
    people are entwined and it is necessary to separate the threads and
    understand the perspective and teaching of each account separately.
    This does not impoverish the Bible or Bible study but, rather, enriches
    it.
    
    For me, this kind of Bible study does not in any way deprive me of hope
    or release me from my need to repent of my sin!  It continues to
    enlarge and enrich my understanding of the majesty of God and His plan
    for us all!
    
    Nancy

    re .35 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)
    
>      Just a thought.  If any part of the Bible is false, then why do you
>    believe any of it?
    
    	Just for the record, I *don't* believe that "any part of the Bible
    is false", but I suspect that for a good many people, they don't reject
    the ENTIRE work as false because of a few suspected passages for the
    same reason that historians don't always reject other whole works as
    entirely fictitious just because of a relatively small number of
    suspected parts of it.  Take the works of Josephus, for example, or the
    works of Herodotus (which I happen to have copies of).  In both works,
    there is a great deal of history which the translators themselves
    accept as genuine; but both works contains passages which the
    translators (and historians in general) feel are not true history (and
    tell us in their footnotes), even though the original authors may have
    believed them to be true.
    
>                 If you except what the Bible says Jesus said in one verse,
>    but in the next verse you do not except what the writer said, why do
>    you except what Jesus said?   The same writer records both statements.
    
    	Good questions, since this sort of distinction should not simply be
    made arbitaririly.
    
    								-mark.

Re: .35  Marshall

>      Just a thought.  If any part of the Bible is false, then why do you
>    believe any of it?

Because no other book that I've read has been completely true or completely
false, but instead contains some truth and some error.

				-- Bob

re Note 97.0 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> Another possibility is that Jesus was a human teacher with human failings,
> such as an exaggerated sense of his own importance.  This doesn't mean we
> should "shut him up for a fool", because his message is valid regardless of
> its source.  I don't have to agree with someone 100% in order to find value
> in what they are saying.
  
        I've been thinking a lot lately about a similar possibility.

        As I was flying back from a trip overseas, I got some
        patriotic feelings which some might even describe as syrupy
        sweet.  I felt great respect the US Constitution, especially
        the Bill of Rights, and the continuing governmental
        institutions which they have formed.

        Yet that same generation of people, plus two generations
        before and since, were responsible for the annihilation of an
        entire continent of native peoples and their cultures.

        Yet that same generation of people, plus two generations
        before and since, were responsible for the importation into
        slavery of black Africans.  Some of the framers of that
        government owned slaves.

        Yet that same generation of people, plus two generations
        before and since, were responsible for the American Civil
        War, one of the bloodiest in world history.

        How can this be?  How can it be that weeds are sown with the
        wheat, and a good God tolerates it until the harvest?

        (The question remains, do the weeds represent evil people, or
        the evil within all people?  Does the wheat represent good
        -- or "saved" -- people, or that which is good in all?)

        Bob

re.34

	Hi Bob,

>You must have misunderstood me.  The only part of the gospels that I am
>accepting (for the sake of argument) are the words of Jesus.

	Oh, you must own a red letter edition. 8*)

	Who wrote the gospel of John? Obviously John. Same with Matthew, Mark 
and Luke. So you beleive what John wrote quoting Jesus, but you don't beleive
what John wrote about Jesus. This is illogical. If you do not believe all of
what John says, how can you know the bias he might introduce when he quotes
Jesus? Are you willing to toss out the context of Jesus' statements as well.
If you only accept Jesus word's then you must toss out the context in which
they were spoken and therefore will not understand them.


	Now let's assume (for sake of argument) that you really do accept the
words of Jesus... 

	"Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, *teaching them to
observe all things, whatever I commanded you*; and behold I am with you all 
the days until the consummation of the ages. Matthew 28:19

	Since you accept the words of Jesus, you must therefore accept that
He commanded His disciples to disciple the nations, which includes teaching
them. Since John was a disciple, then he was most assuredly commanded by 
Jesus to disciple you and me (people of the nations). And John obeys Jesus 
in his writings as he writes..

	"But these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name"
John 20:31

	Therefore if you claim to accept the words of Jesus, and beleive
that those words are written in the gospel of John, you must accept John's own
words as well. 

	Nothing supernatural about that.

Regards,
ace

	

Re: .40  Ace

>	Who wrote the gospel of John? Obviously John. Same with Matthew, Mark 
>and Luke. So you beleive what John wrote quoting Jesus, but you don't beleive
>what John wrote about Jesus. This is illogical.

No, it's not illogical.  My hypothesis is that the disciples misunderstood
Jesus's message.  Under this hypothesis, John would have accurately recorded
what Jesus said (with possibly a few exception reflecting John's bias),
but John's own comments would have been wrong, relecting his misinterpretation
rather than the real message of Jesus.

> If you do not believe all of
>what John says, how can you know the bias he might introduce when he quotes
>Jesus?

I don't.  I can only speculate.

> Are you willing to toss out the context of Jesus' statements as well.
>If you only accept Jesus word's then you must toss out the context in which
>they were spoken and therefore will not understand them.

I can try to understand the context of Jesus's words in terms of the
customs of the Jews and Romans living on those times.  Apart from that, I'm
not sure what context you are talking about.

>	Therefore if you claim to accept the words of Jesus, and beleive
>that those words are written in the gospel of John, you must accept John's own
>words as well. 

No, I don't agree.  Althugh John may have *tried* to obey Jesus's command,
he could only do so on the basis of his own understanding, which according to
my hypothesis was an incorrect one.

				-- Bob

re.41

	Bob,

	> I can only speculate

	I suppose that is the most that could be expected, if you only
	accept parts of a whole and disregard the rest.

	In any case, your arguments are illogical to me. But I'm certain
	others embrace your opinions.

Regards,
ace

Re: .42  Ace

>	> I can only speculate
>
>	I suppose that is the most that could be expected, if you only
>	accept parts of a whole and disregard the rest.

Do you think that it's *ever* possible, e.g. for Biblical scholars, to
decide which parts of a document should be trusted and which parts should
not?

What I've been trying to show is that, except for a few debatable passages, it
wasn't Jesus who claimed to be divine (I'd say "God" but then the JWs would be
on my case :-) ), but his disciples who made that claim for him.  It doesn't
make sense, then, to say that Jesus was Lord, liar or lunatic, because he
(almost) never claimed to be Lord.

Collis said that it is a four way choice: Jesus is Lord, liar or lunatic
or else the Bible isn't 100% accurate.  I'd narrow this down further and
say that it's a two way choice: either Jesus is Lord or else the Bible isn't
100% accurate.

Similarly, either tomorrow's lottery number will be 1 2 3 4 5 6 or else it
won't be. ;^)

				-- Bob

    The "quest for the historical Jesus" has its own long history, and for
    a long time scholarship tended to believe that it was impossible to
    come to any understanding of the "historical Jesus".  The conclusion
    was that it was all strictly a matter of faith.  However, there has
    been a shift in that view in recent years, and many scholars are now
    much more optimistic (James Charlesworth, for example, is very upbeat
    about the ability to make educated guesses about what New Testament
    passages are authentic, as described in his book "Jesus Within
    Judaism").
    
    -- Mike

      What makes those of you who think that John could not record the
    facts about Jesus without error, John was actually with Jesus, so sure
    that Mr. James Charlesworth can "de-myth" the book of John?  And by
    who's authority can any man say that the book of John is filled with
    myths?  It is easyer to believe the scriptures as they are now to be
    fact without myth, than it is to believe that some modern scholar is
    filled with the authority.  Do you not believe in the Holy Ghost?
    Doesn't He have a part in opening a person's eyes to the truth?  If
    a man's heart is hard against God, yet he has the best brain in all
    of history can he know the truth?  Without the Holy Ghost a man cannot
    know the things of God.
    
    
    
                                    Marshall

    I am quite sure that James Charleworth has committed his share of
    mistakes.  After all, like the authors of the Bible, he too is human. 
    :-)  However, I certainly don't subscribe to a kind of philosophical
    anarchism with respect to the philosophy of science, a la P.K.
    Feyerabend.  Verisimilitude, a concept which I believe was one of Carl
    Popper's contributions to the philosophy of science (or at least he
    expounded on it), is something that I generally adhere to.  I don't
    dismiss all scholarship as mere rubbish simply because scholars make
    mistakes, any more than I consider the Bible to be worthless because of
    its flaws.  Unfortunately, the quest (or perhaps the psychological
    need) for *absolute certainty* often becomes a substitute for the
    pursuit of versimilitude.

    By the way, another interesting work of 1980s New Testament scholarship
    is E.P. Sander's book, "Jesus and Judaism".  I'm sorry to say that I
    have not been able to make my way through all of it; the book is aimed
    at other scholars rather than a popular audience.  Nevertheless, from
    what I have read, I have seen that Sanders clearly shares
    Charlesworth's optimism that we are anything but doomed to total
    failure in any attempt at discovering "the historical Jesus." 

    -- Mike

Re:  97.43

  >Collis said that it is a four way choice: Jesus is Lord, liar or 
  >lunatic or else the Bible isn't 100% accurate.  

Clarification.  I said that the four way choice is:  Jesus is Lord, liar
or lunatic or else the Bible is highly inaccurate.  The Bible need only
be reasonably accurate (nowhere near 100% accurate) in order to come to
the conclusion that Jesus claims to be God.  In my opinion, you have
proven this point by wishing to disregard the many sections of the Bible
which make this claim, leaving you with a holy (i.e. full of holes)
manuscript.

Collis

Re: .47 Collis

Would you at least agree that for the most part it is the disciples who are
making the claim that Jesus is God, and not Jesus himself?

				-- Bob

Re:  .48

  >Would you at least agree that for the most part it is the disciples who
  >are making the claim that Jesus is God, and not Jesus himself?

No, Bob, I can't agree with that.  The reasons are as follows:

  1)  Jesus did make this claim a number of times.  A few references off
      the top of my head are John 8, John 10, John 14, Rev 1, 2 and 3
      and the trial before the Sanhedrin (wherever that is).
      There are other references as well.

  2)  The disciples of Jesus did *not* write their own perspective of
      what happened, rather they wrote what was revealed to them by God.
      Therefore, their witness is not primarily their witness, but
      primarily God's witness through them.  Therefore, this witness is
      God's witness of who Jesus is.  (Since Jesus, by this witness, is
      God, it is also his witness.)

I will agree with you that Jesus specifically avoided making specific
claims about this during most of his earthly ministry.  The reason for
this is that his time had not yet come.  Many were looking for an excuse
to kill him and his claim to be God would be used as the excuse.  In fact,
this is exactly what happened.  *This* is the reason his claims are veiled
until his trial (when his time had come).  They are not at all veiled either
at his trial or after his death (in Revelations and in the epistles - or even
in John 1:1 which is a commentary after his death).

Collis

    A quick comment.  I'm still on timeout :-).
    
    The gospel of John was probably not written by John the disciple.
    It is possible that the gospel has as many as 3 contributors/editors
    over a period of time.
    
    The epistles of John were probably not written by John the disciple,
    but John the Elder of the early church in the North (Ephesus?).
    
    The Revelation (no 's') is least likely to have been written by the
    same person(s) who wrote the gospel or the epistles.
    
    Richard

Re: .49 Collis

>  1)  Jesus did make this claim a number of times.  A few references off
>      the top of my head are John 8

Again and again in John 8 Jesus gives glory not to himself but to God the
Father:

	They said to him, "Who are you?"  Jesus said to them, "Even what I
	have told you from the beginning.  [RSV footnote: or "Why do I talk
	to you at all?"]  I have much to say about you and much to judge;
	but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have
	heard from him."  They did not understand that he spoke to them of
	the Father.  So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man,
	then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing of my own
	authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.  And he who sent
	me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is
	pleasing to him."
					John 8:25-29

It's only at the Jesus makes an apparent claim to divine status:

	The Jews then said to him. "You are not yet fifty years old, and have
	you seen Abraham? [RSV footnote: Other ancient authorities read
	has Abraham seen you?]  Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say
	to youm before Abraham was, I am."  So they took up stones to throw
	at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
					John 8:57-59

There are two ways I can answer this, and the first is to add it to the
handful of passages I have to throw out.  Jesus said *something* that both
John and the crowd misinterpreted as a claim that Jesus was God.  The second
answer is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not physically.  He was one
with God, so in that sense he existed before Abraham was born.

>, John 10

	So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you
	keep us in suspense?  If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."  Jesus
	answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe.  The works I do
	in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; but you do not believe,
	because you do not belong to my sheep.  My sheep hear my voice, and
	I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and
	they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
	My Father, who has given them to me, [RSV footnote: Other ancient
	authorities read What my Father has given to me] is greater than
	all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I
	and the Father are one."
					John 10:24-30

Jesus does seem to be saying here that he is the Christ (although even here
he doesn't come right out and say "I am the Christ!"), so that part of the
passage is one of the handful of verses I have to throw out (since my
hypothesis is that Jesus never claimed to be the Christ).  As for the
rest of the verse, Jesus is saying that he will give his followers eternal
life *through the power of the Father*.  Once again, he is claiming glory
not for himself but for the Father.  At the end of the passage he says "I
and the Father are one" but this isn't the same as saying "I am the Father"
or "I am God".  It is similiar to a New Ager saying "I and the Universe are
one"; the New Ager wouldn't say "I am the Universe".  Or you might say that
a person is "one with nature"; you wouldn't say that the person *is* nature.

>, John 14,

	In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have
	told you that I go to prepare a place for you?  And when I go and
	prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself,
	that where I am you may be also.  And you know the way where I am
	going.
	  Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going;
	how can we know the way?"  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the
	truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but my me.  If you
	had known me, you would known my Father also; henceforth you know
	him and have seen him."
					John 14:2-7

One way to interpret this is that the way to the Father is through the
teachings of Jesus and through the example set by his life.  Since God is
love and Jesus lived and taught love, whoever has seen Jesus has seen God.

	  Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be
	satisfied."  Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and
	yet you do not know me, Philip?  He who has seen me has seen the
	Father; how can you say 'Show us the Father'?  Do you not believe
	that I am in the Father and the Father in me?  The words that I
	say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who
	dwells in me does his works.  Believe me that I am in the Father
	and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works
	themselves."
					John 14:8-11

Ditto to the previous comment.  As an interesting experiment, try replacing
the words "the Father" with "Love" in this passage.

> Rev 1, 2 and 3

This book was written by a disciple/follower of Jesus, based on a dream or
vision.  According to my hypothesis it should be discarded as irrelevant.
Since the author of Revelation misunderstood Jesus's message, his dream/
vision would reflect that misunderstanding.

>      and the trial before the Sanhedrin (wherever that is).

Interestingly enough, Mark has Jesus acknowledging that he is the Christ,
while the other gospels have him giving evasive answers:

	But Jesus was silent.  And the high priest said to him. "I adjure
	by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
	Jesus said to him "You have said so.  But I tell you, hereafter
	you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power,
	and coming on the clouds of heaven."
					Matthew 26:63-64

Isn't he just saying that he will be with his Father in heaven?

	"If you are the Christ, tell us."  But he said to them, "If I tell
	you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer.
	But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand
	of the power of God."  And they all said, "Are you the Son of God,
	then?"  And he said to them, "You say that I am."
					Luke 22:67-70

Here was his chance to say that he was the Son of God, and he didn't do it.

	Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?"  Jesus answered, "You say
	that I am a king.  For this I was born, and for this I came into the
	world, to bear witness to the truth.  Every one who is of the truth
	hears my voice."
					John 18:37

Why didn't Jesus say "Yes, I am the King of the Universe, the Lord of
Creation?"

>  2)  The disciples of Jesus did *not* write their own perspective of
>      what happened, rather they wrote what was revealed to them by God.

This is a matter of faith.  My hypothesis is that this statement is false.

>*This* is the reason his claims are veiled
>until his trial (when his time had come).  They are not at all veiled either
>at his trial

But his claims *are* veiled at the trial.

> or after his death

Well, according to my hypothesis he didn't rise from the dead, so naturally
I discount anything he is supposed to have said after his death.

				-- Bob

re.51

	Bob,

	Of course once you think that you are more qualified to interpret
the Lord Jesus' meaning than John was, you can make His words mean anything 
that pleases you.

	As the apostle Peter states..

	"And count the longsuffering of Lord to be salvation, even as also 
our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to 
you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things,
in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and
unstable twist, as also the rest of Scriptures, to their own destruction"
2 Peter 3:15-16

	Yet again this will mean very little to you because Peter in your
estimation misunderstood the Lord's true meaning. And on that basis you can 
disregard the apostle Paul's writings as well, right?

Regards,
ace

	

Re: .52

Yeah, right Ace.

One thing, though: I've just been offering as a *hypothesis* the idea that
the disciples misunderstood Jesus's message.  I'm not saying that they *did*
misunderstand Jesus.  I don't claim to know one way or the other.

				-- Bob

re.53

	Si', I comprendo Bob. 8*)

regards,
ace

    FWIW, many scholars do not believe that the apostle Peter actually
    wrote the second epistle attributed to him (or, for the matter, the
    first one either).  The New Jerusalem Bible discusses the reasons for
    doubting Petrine authorship of the first epistle, in great detail, on
    pages 1993-1995.  Regarding the second epistle, the commentary states
    that "most critics nowadays reject the Petrine authorship, though the
    writer may have had some claim to represent Peter:  perhaps he belonged
    to a group of Peter's disciples, perhaps he filled out one of Peter's
    writings with ideas from the letter of Jude.  This is what we call
    forgery, but the ancients had different conventions about authorship
    and pseudonymity."

    Another Catholic Bible, The New American Bible, also accepts modern
    scholarship on this issue:  "It is not unreasonable to conclude that 2
    Peter was written by an unknown author who followed the pseudonymous
    convention of the time in order to attract readers to his work....Some
    think that the author was close enough to the tradition of Petrine
    teaching to assume the important name Peter, but it is probable that he
    was a third- or fourth-generation Christian..."

    The Harper's Bible Commentary argues that Petrine authorship was "very
    improbable."  The Harper's Bible Dictionary writes that "although 2
    Peter claims to be a second letter from Peter (3:1), it is judged today
    as a pseudonymous letter."

    -- Mike

Re:  97.55

  >The Harper's Bible Dictionary writes that "although 2 Peter claims to 
  >be a second letter from Peter (3:1), it is judged today as a pseudonymous 
  >letter."

Yes, there are many who claim that the Bible is full of lies and
distortion.  However, such is not the claim of the Bible itself.

I am not aware of any scholar who accepts inerrancy who rejects II Peter
as being written by Peter.  In other words, the only way you can reject
Peter as the author of II Peter is to assume that the Bible has errors.
Something which the Bible many times both states and assumes it does
not.

Believe what you will.  The choice has been made clear.

Collis

Re:  97.51

Hi, Bob.  Good replies.  I appreciated reading them.  (Of course, I think
they're wrong, to some extent - but they're well said.  :-) )

Just one more question to ponder.

Let's look at this another way.  Let's assume Jesus was not God.  It is
very clear from the Old Testament that there is one God only and that
the worst thing an individual can do is claim to be God (when he is not).

And yet, in spite of this, Jesus makes statements which are easily (i.e.
most likely) intrepeted as claiming to be God - and then never denies
these claims.  

Let's compare other highly esteemed servants of God in this respect.
Abraham.  Moses.  Angels (in general).  Daniel.  What is their response
to God?  What is Jesus'?

Totally different, that's what it is.  Jesus accepts being called God
to Thomas, calls himself God when he applies God's name to himself,
applies the titles of God to himself (including son of man which is not
only a title of the Messiah but also, arguably, a title for God) and
acknowledges that being the Son of God makes himself equal with God.

If you'd prefer, I can enter more detailed response to what you have
said.

Collis

    Authorship was different then than now.  It was not considered
    plagerism to use another's name.  There is, therefore, no connection
    between actual authorship and the possibility of deliberate falsification
    of information.
    
    Richard

    It is a big leap, from merely pointing out that 2 Peter was not written
    by Peter, to any inference of an insinuation that the "the Bible is
    full of lies and distortions."  I made no such claim, and I don't
    happen to believe that, for example, the Roman Catholic Church (which
    produced the NAB) believes this about the Bible.

    As Richard pointed out, and as my quote from the NJB stated, the
    convention of writing pseudonymously was not considered forgery at that
    time.  The same applies to the Deutero-Pauline epistles, which were
    also written in Paul's name.

    -- Mike

Just for the record.

	The "many scholars say" arguement means very little in real terms. But
in most people's minds the assumption is that a "scholar" must be important
enough to take heed to. In fact anyone can claim to be a scholar. Why I
suspect there are one or two in this notesfile who think to be scholars 
themselves. 8*)  8*).

	"Scholars" can be motivated by fame or fortune. Can be biased to see
what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Can be decieved.
Etc.

	Every thought must be brought to the cross of Christ. What
issues forth from the cross is resurrection life. Only what passes
through the cross of Christ is of God. Scholars included.


Ace

    Of course, scholars may be dismissed just as easily as unscholarly
    doctrine.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .56
    
>  >The Harper's Bible Dictionary writes that "although 2 Peter claims to 
>  >be a second letter from Peter (3:1), it is judged today as a pseudonymous 
>  >letter."
>
>Yes, there are many who claim that the Bible is full of lies and
>distortion.  However, such is not the claim of the Bible itself.
    
    But Harper's Bible Dictionary -- and the term "pseudonymous letter" do
    **not** "claim that the Bible is full of lies and distortion!"  Here,
    Collis, is an example of what drives some of us "up the wall."  I am
    pointing it out here because you keep asking when you have done things
    like this.  You see, this comment *feels like* you are accusing those
    of us who heed the HBD of calling the Bible a liar, etc., when we are
    not doing that in the least!  You would put words in our mouths!
    
    *You* and *you alone* make the jump from the quotation from Harper's to
    the "full of lies and distortion" label!  As other responses have
    pointed out, this is not the same thing at all.  Try opening your
    thoughts up to a *different* possibility.
    
>I am not aware of any scholar who accepts inerrancy who rejects II Peter
>as being written by Peter.  In other words, the only way you can reject
>Peter as the author of II Peter is to assume that the Bible has errors.
>Something which the Bible many times both states and assumes it does
>not.

    Scholars who attempt to understand the Bible should approach their
    studies *without* such preconceptions as inerrancy (or, for that
    matter, such preconceptions as that the Bible is all lies).  Otherwise
    their scholarship is highly suspect, regardless of the methodology they
    use.
    
    It is not necessary to defend the Bible by presupposing inerrancy.  The
    Biblical message is so powerful, that it does not *need* such a defense! 
    As I said above, there *is* middle ground between inerrancy and lies.  
    
    The fact that you do not see that explains a *lot* of misunderstanding
    and miscommunication in this file.
    
    Nancy

    Collis,
    	your earlier comments, and those of others, regarding the inerrancy
    of the Bible, as it is the word of God, suggests that you ought to feel
    that the name of the person who wielded the pen is not important. Only
    what is said can be important since you believe that those WORDS come
    FROM God who moved the pen in some mere human's hand - or something
    like that. The name of the penman is important only to those who need
    to catalogue the placement of the phrases and teachings - like a
    primative Dewey Decimal System. There is no grace attached to knowing
    the chapter and verse, only to knowing - and living - the words. You
    know, of course, that I don't agree with you on the inerrancy question,
    but we ought to be able to agree on this.

Re:  97.62

  >But Harper's Bible Dictionary -- and the term "pseudonymous letter" do
  >**not** "claim that the Bible is full of lies and distortion!"  

This is an area where I may be stepping over the boundary lines.  Several
of you have mentioned now the it is not a lie to right a "pseudonymous
letter".  I disagree, but I don't have all the facts.  This is not an
area I have done study in.  However, study that I did do assumed that
this was not a possibility.  Therefore, I believe there is reason to
believe that the scholars I studied under do not accept the "pseudonymous
letter" theory as being a realistic possibility and responded accordingly
(if rather strongly).

  >I am pointing it out here because you keep asking when you have done things
  >like this.  

I agree, Nancy, that I am pushing the limit on this one.  However, I
think I can build a case, as well, for my comment to be considered
reasonable.
    
  >Scholars who attempt to understand the Bible should approach their
  >studies *without* such preconceptions as inerrancy (or, for that
  >matter, such preconceptions as that the Bible is all lies).  

"Scholars" who study the Bible have to reach the same conclusion that
you or I do.  Does it mean what it says?  Where you end up in your
interpretation will be vastly different depending on your answer to this
question.  History is very clear on this.  There is no such things as
a second generation near-inerrantist.  Once the decision is made by
the individual that the Bible's claim of inerrancy is wrong, the leftward
trend is impossible to stop without returning to inerrancy.

The point I was making is that those scholars who choose to believe that
the Bible does not mean what it says will find many lies and distortions
in the Bible.  They must!  Because they have already accepted that
the Bible does not mean what it says which contradicts many verses in
the Bible which state both explicitly and implicitly that it does.

  >It is not necessary to defend the Bible by presupposing inerrancy.  The
  >Biblical message is so powerful, that it does not *need* such a defense! 

I don't presuppose it.  I accept it only because the Bible claims it
and assumes it all over the place.

  >As I said above, there *is* middle ground between inerrancy and lies.  

Nancy, there *is* no middle ground between inerrancy and many lies.
This would be true if the Bible did not claim inerrancy.  But since it
does, then those claims are either truth or lies.  If they are lies,
then the Bible has many lies (about inerrancy) and (according to the
vast majority of liberal scholarship today) *very* many lies about
other things as well.  They are lies because they are not the truth
and the Bible says that they are the truth.

You example, Nancy, was well chosen.  I can understand why you see this
as a very provocative statement on my part and it certainly is.  I would
do well to study the matter of pseudonymous letters in the first culture
further before making more provocative statements.

Collis

Re:  97.63

  >your earlier comments, and those of others, regarding the inerrancy
  >of the Bible, as it is the word of God, suggests that you ought to feel
  >that the name of the person who wielded the pen is not important. 

It does and it doesn't.  God didn't move the pen, but he did keep the
author from writing any error.

However, part of the reason the church accepts the documents is because
of their authorship.  In other words, God works through some individuals
in this way and not through others.  Therefore, knowing who wrote the
document is important.

  >You know, of course, that I don't agree with you on the inerrancy question,
  >but we ought to be able to agree on this.

Dave, I have great hope that when you ponder all the facts, you will
see that the Bible does indeed make this claim and that the claim is
true.  Perhaps even this lifetime?  :-)

Collis

    The notion that there is no middle ground between inerrancy and many
    lies is shared by both fundamentalists and those who bash Christianity.
    That all-or-nothing position really is the crux of the matter.  It
    definitely explains the hostility that conservative Christianity
    expresses towards any biblical scholarship that doesn't conform to
    their theological dogmas.  After all, the very foundations of its faith
    are at stake.

    Having come from this sort of all-or-nothing fundamentalist position
    myself, I can understand it quite well.  For me, the result was that
    when I concluded that the Bible was not perfectly inerrant in all
    matters, I simply rejected it altogether; that was the the only
    alternative that existed for me--or, at least, so I was taught.

    When your theology states that you might as well reject the Bible
    entirely if it is not utterly inerrant in all details, then your
    religious faith is likely to cling rather tightly to the tenet of
    biblical literalism.   And if all the clinging in the world is still
    not enough to brace oneself against the winds of reason, the edifice
    crumbles anyway.  The dogmatic roots, unfortunately, are still in
    place, so all that happens (or, at least, happened in my case) is that
    one switches allegiance without any spiritual growth.  You still agree
    with the all-or-nothing premise that you subscribed to before, but now
    you have come to the opposite conclusion.

    This is the baggage that you can carry when you are a former
    fundamentalist.  Some are luckier in that they can gradually progress
    from a conservative to a more liberal theological outlook without
    undergoing such a wrenching theological flip-flop.  Actually, over the
    last few years, it *was* a gradual process for me, back to an
    appreciation of Christianity,  this time moving beyond the
    all-or-nothing stance on the Bible that I had embraced for so long. 
    Perhaps, in my case, it was just as well that it took place so late in
    my life, when I was able to embrace more mature theology than I was
    capable of at age 20.  In any case, I can comprehend the point of view of
    those who (I believe) simplistically bash the Bible, even as I disagree
    with it, because they also embrace that familiar all-or-nothing
    position.

    As a result, it seems that I often find myself caught between the two
    extremes.  For example, although there is much of humanism that I might
    agree with, the constant religion bashing of such magazines as
    _Free_Inquiry_ turns me off just as much as being told what I  *must*
    think according to someone else's religious belief system when I don't
    even agree with some of that person's premises.

    Lloyd J. Averill, in his book "Religious Right,  Religious Wrong:  A
    Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon", discusses several
    criticisms of both a logical and moral nature concerning the doctrine
    biblical inerrancy, from his own perspective as a moderate mainline
    Christian.  The term he uses for his own appreciation of Christian
    scriptures is "devout appreciation".  I find it amusing that those from
    a narrower, conservative perspective, feel that the only alternative to
    inerrancy is a total rejection of Christianity ("it is impossible to
    stop without returning to inerrancy"), when liberal Christians clearly
    don't conform to this dogmatic world view.
    
    Those Christians are, in effect, being told that their faith is an
    impossibility, since they don't conform to the tidy all-or-nothing
    scheme.  I'm sure that they appreciate being told that they are not
    allowed to maintain their beliefs since those beliefs don't conform to
    someone else's scheme of things.  The fact that their faith is *not*
    threatened by modern biblical scholarship, while they are told what
    they *must* believe according to someone else's theological scheme, is
    an uncomfortable reality for some.  I can relate to that discomfort,
    because I come from the fundamentalist world view.  But how can a wider
    and more mature world view explain itself to the narrower one?

    -- Mike

Collis.....

	Okay.  You've got me curious.

	Would you affirm a Biblical scholar under any circumstances?
What would those circumstances be?  What would you consider evidence
that those circumstances had been met?

	You see, the reason I ask is that I've done quite a bit of
research myself.  I find that very few books respect the reader
enough to allow the reader to draw her/his own conclusions.  Most
of these books present dogma as though dogma was the same thing as
empirical evidence.

	Of the few that seem to respect the reader, for example, the
Interpretter's Commentary on the Bible (Abingdon), most of these tend
to be very expensive.  These also tend to meet with considerable negative
criticism if their research reveals anything which might be construed
as contrary to popular (majority) orthodoxy.

Peace,
Richard

    Mike
    
    Your answer gets very close to the reasons why I get distressed
    with being told I'm not a christian because I don't accept
    a particular interpretation of the Bible. It is my personal
    understanding that the verses in the Bible that are claimed
    to prove the Bible inerant, actually mean no such thing.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .66
    
    I know the feeling, having moved from a fundamentalist position myself.
    My other word for fundamentalism is 'fanatic', and I seemed to become
    fanitically opposed to fundamentalism. It took me a while to realise
    the other side of the coin was just as bad, and to try to reach for a
    middle ground, a 'balance'.
    
    The verse "For all scripture is god-breathed, and is suitable for all
    instruction and correction of a god fearing man." has been applied by
    fundamentalists to imply that ALL the bible is inerrant, and
    god-inspired. I question this, since at the time this was written, the
    'bible' did not exist in the form it does today.
    
    The question I've yet to answer is: what is 'all scripture'? The old
    testament? Which books?
    
    Pete.

I'm reminded of John Rohmer's televised series _Testament_, where he explores 
the Bible in the light of recent archaeological evidence.  He shows that there
is much physical support for the Bible, it's obvious that the people did live
through what they write about, BUT there are discrepencies. 

His attitude was not to say "see, the Bible is wrong!"  Rather he asked the 
question "How is the Bible correct?"  "In what way is truth presented?"

The Bible, being a collection of books, is a diverse source of information and
inspiration.  There are historical commentaries, poetry, proverbs, personal 
letters, and many other writings.  I personally wouldn't expect a poem, for 
instance, to contain the same level of historical accuracy and literal truth 
as say, an eye witness account of someone's life and actions.  Each is true, 
but in different ways.

Two hundred and one years ago today, Ben Franklin said "Early to bed, and 
early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise."

Should I take that at face value?  Hmmm, what does he mean by "early".  I'm
sure I could explore historical records and find out the sleeping habits of
Franklin's contemporaries.  Say I start sleeping from 8:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.
Okay.  Now, he mentioned men.  Will this sleeping schedule work for women?
Was Ben including women with peple who could become wealthy following his 
advice?  And how healthy, wealthy, and wise can I become?  I'm pretty sure 
that healthy and wealthy in 1789 was a lot different that it is now.

Or maybe I don't take it at face value.  Maybe he was simply and poetically 
saying that if I take good care of myself I'll do better than if I stay up 
late watching TV every night and then drag myself out of bed just in time for 
work each morning.  I'll feel better, be able to do my job better, and be 
mentally more alert.

I think his words are true, but in what Way are they true?  Franklin also 
wrote a lot of other things, historical documents, scientific articles, et 
cetera.  Should I discount his scientific papers simply on the basis of some
proverbs he penned that might not be literally true?  Should I take his 
proverbs as legally binding, grouping them together with the treaties he had a 
part in forming?

And are his words discounted because he died the very next year, which was 
certainly NOT a healthy thing to do? .-) .-) .-)

Pondering...

Peace,

Jim

Let me take this opportunity to expand more on what I said.  I was
thinking about this last night and feel that my comments were overboard.
I pretty much said that yesterday, as well.  But let me just say it here
again so that you all understand me.

Given that the "lies and distortion" comment was inappropriate, let's
look more closely at the issue.

The question is, can someone write a letter, claim it is written by
someone else, and be considered truthful?

Well, there are two standards of truth.  Both are relevant to look
at.  One is society's standard, the other is God's.

In this circumstance, some scholars say that this as a common practice.
(I don't know if other scholars disagree with this or not.)  Does this 
mean that this practice was accepted as correct by the vast majority?
Or did some accept this practice as reasonable (even a majority) and
others not accept it?  Like I said, I have not studied this issue and
so I don't know the answers.  But I'm not content with the little
information provided with me so far.

The second standard is God's standard.  This truly is the most relevant
standard since if it is not truth by God's standard, then it is not
truth (since God defines what is true).  So, can someone write a letter,
claim it to be written by someone else, and be considered truthful by
God?

What is the motivation for claiming the authorship of another?  The only
reason I have heard for this is so that the writing will be accepted as
authoritative since the other author is (presumably) considered more
authoritative or prestigous.  In other words, it is to claim authority
by deception.

I do think that this meets God's standard of truth.  In Semantics class
in the 12th grade, our class agreed upon the definition of a lie which
was to intentionally deceive someone.  By this definition, the author
has lied.

Comments?

Collis

Re:  97.67

  >Would you affirm a Biblical scholar under any circumstances?

Certainly.  I have many times.  Even those whom I disagree with on
interpretation.

In this particular case, I'm not comfortable that we have all the facts.
I very willing to agree that such practice occurred and that some
people accepted this practice.  What I'm not so willing to admit
(both because I haven't studied this issue and because logically I find
it unlikely) is that this practice was universally accepted as correct.

Collis

Re:  97.69

  >The question I've yet to answer is: what is 'all scripture'? The old
  >testament? Which books?
    
Hi, Pete.

This question (and, in particular, this verse) has been looked at in
detail in another topic in this conference (maybe topic 18 - on the
nature of the Bible).  The reasons for the interpretation I hold to
are given in detail.  Plus, Richard shows his creativity :-) in
conjuring up a 1st century scenario of Paul writing to Timothy to
demonstrate his point.

Collis

    re:  .66  Mike,
    
    Thank you.  That was a beautifully written description of how the
    all-or-nothing approach to the Bible just does not wash.  I can relate
    to nearly everything you say.  Thanks also .70, Jim, I can relate to
    that too.  Many traditionalist Christians freak out when I say, "The
    Bible, particularly the NT, is a useful tool -- among many other useful
    tools -- in understanding the nature of God."  Yet I also say I do not 
    take the all-or-nothing approach, the literalist/legalistic aproach.  The 
    Ben Franklin quote in .71 -- early to bed, early to rise makes a man ... 
    -- is an excellent example of how I think we can get snagged on honoring 
    every SYLLABLE in the Bible, as if it carried the legal accuracy of the 
    letter of every general law on the books.  Things that are God-breathed
    *cannot* be studied in the way law students study legal documetns.  It is 
    counterproductdive, IMHO.  So one has to understand the gist -- the big 
    picture and general meaning of what was intended -- and one has to
    EXPERIENCE and LIVE and KNOW in one's heart what is intended, taking into 
    consideration the mistranscriptions, mistranslations, biases of the 
    authors, cultural influences, and on and on and on, that I believe are
    there in abundance.
    
    .71  Collis,
    
    Thank you, once again, for offering your own personal opinion, your own
    personal view, of what you believe "God's standard" is.  I respect your
    personal views.
    
    Paul

    Collis (.73)
    
    Why, thank you! :-)
    
    As kind of a P.S., I've felt shoved out of my comfort zone more than
    once myself hearing what scholars have had to say.  Their dispassionate
    criticality has been coldly disillusioning at times.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: .57  Collis

You're right that Jesus was not like the Old Testament prophets.  No one
had to ask Jeremiah or Samuel "Is it true that you are the Son of God?".
Whether or not Jesus claimed to be God, there was confusion about the
relationship between Jesus and God that wasn't there in the case of earlier
prophets.

My point is simply this: Jesus never unambiguously claimed to be God, so
it's not fair to say that Jesus was either God or else a liar or a lunatic.
Even without throwing out *any* of Jesus's words, Jehovah's Witnesses and
other non-Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus ever claimed to be God.
Both in the gospels and at the present time it's clear that many people
don't understand and/or can't agree on whether or not Jesus was God.

I didn't realize, BTW, that the title "Son of man" was a title of the
Messiah.  If we accept the many places in the gospels where Jesus calls
himself the "Son of man" then it does seem that Jesus was claiming to be
the Messiah.  This doesn't mean that he was insane or a liar if he wasn't
the Messiah, though; it just means that he was mistaken.

>If you'd prefer, I can enter more detailed response to what you have
>said.

Sure, go ahead and respond, although maybe this isn't the best note for
it.  We seem to be diverging into several tangents, such as the inerrency
of scripture and the nature of Jesus.  It would better if some of these
sub-topics were moved to other notes.

				-- Bob

re Note 97.70 by TFH::KIRK:

> Two hundred and one years ago today, Ben Franklin said "Early to bed, and 
> early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise."
> 
> Should I take that at face value?  

        Jim, 

        I really appreciated your illustration using this maxim of
        Franklin's.

        I wish we could discuss the Bible with the freedom with which
        you discussed Ben Franklin!  It seems to me that a lot of
        baggage comes along with the "inerrantist" position that
        prevents such a free discussion of the Bible once "inerrancy"
        is asserted.  I think that it really is baggage, and not
        inherent in inerrancy; but separating the two is quite
        difficult.

        Bob

    re: .76, Bob,
    
>If we accept the many places in the gospels where Jesus calls
>himself the "Son of man" then it does seem that Jesus was claiming to be
>the Messiah.  This doesn't mean that he was insane or a liar if he wasn't
>the Messiah, though; it just means that he was mistaken.
    
    It's also *not* the same thing as claiming to be God -- at least I
    don't *think* the OT equated the two.
    
    Nancy

    re: .64, Collis,
    
>"Scholars" who study the Bible have to reach the same conclusion that
>you or I do.  Does it mean what it says? 
    
    Wrong question!  The question should be: "*What* does it mean?"  If you
    approach it by both asking and presupposing that it "means what it
    says," then you are begging the question!  Don't you see this?
    
>The point I was making is that those scholars who choose to believe that
>the Bible does not mean what it says will find many lies and distortions
>in the Bible. 
    
    Collis, do you understand that the opposite is also true?  Those
    scholars who choose to believe that the Bible means exactly what it
    *seems* to say will be *blind to any other kind* of meaning or 
    interpretation and thus risk the *real* truth that may not be at 
    all obvious!
    
>They must!  Because they have already accepted that
>the Bible does not mean what it says which contradicts many verses in
>the Bible which state both explicitly and implicitly that it does.
    
    Scholars who approach the study of the Bible *without* prejudicially
    taking the inerrancy viewpoint are as open to the possibility that it
    "means what it says" as to the possibility that it is inaccurate in
    places.  If this were *not* so, then scholars would never find *any*
    accuracies in it, but they do!  So for you to draw the kind of picture
    you have drawn of such scholars is very unfair and is keeping you from
    seeing them as many of them really are.  It simply does not follow that
    they expect to find lies and that they "must" find lies or even that
    when they begin their studes "they have already accepted that 
    the Bible does not mean what it says!"   You chain of logic is faulty
    here.
    
    Like Mike, I used to believe in Biblical inerrancy.  But I moved away
    from that to embrace what I have found to be a more open, expansive,
    *freeing* and joyful understanding of Christianity.  Although the
    process was painful at times, I did not have to reject Christianity to
    make the switch.  
    
    I am pressing you on your reasoning in this note, because your notes
    are thoughtful and usually kind and because you *seem* to want this
    kind of "push back."  And also because I, like Mike, remember how my
    whole faith used to depend on holding to inerrancy.
    
    Nancy

    Re: .73
    
    Yes, I've read various discussions on this subject. They always seem to
    dry up when I ask the question "Which scripture is the verse referring
    to?".
    
    Pete.

re.80

	Pete,

	The sacred writings that Timothy knew from his youth were the
Old Testament scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:15) 

	Agree?



ace

    I'm not sure, what does Jewish history say? I thought the OT didn't
    match with what contemporary Jews have today.
    
    Pete.

	re.82

	Pete,

	If the scriptures that Paul was referring to were part or all of 
what we know as the Old Testament today, what difference will that make to
your point? 

In other words what's your point in .80


Ace

    (i)		I'm not sure which scripture Paul is referring to.
    		Is it the OT?
    
    (ii)	Since the NT is not included, it therefore is not covered
    		by the statement "for all scripture" - why then do the
    		discussions dry up after it's been established this
    		verse refers only to 'scripture' (which is possibly the
    		OT).
    
    If it is the case the "scripture" Paul is referring to does not match
    what we have to day, saying the bible states itself that it is god
    inspired is no longer true.
    
    Pete.

Re:  97.78
    
     >>If we accept the many places in the gospels where Jesus calls
     >>himself the "Son of man" then it does seem that Jesus was claiming to be
     >>the Messiah.  
    
  >It's also *not* the same thing as claiming to be God -- at least I
  >don't *think* the OT equated the two.

The son of man received worship in Dan 7 indicating that he is God.  In
addition, it was believed in the first century that the Son of God is
equal to God (reference in John).

Collis

Re:  97.79
    
     >>"Scholars" who study the Bible have to reach the same conclusion that
     >>you or I do.  Does it mean what it says? 
    
  >Wrong question!  The question should be: "*What* does it mean?"  If you
  >approach it by both asking and presupposing that it "means what it
  >says," then you are begging the question!  Don't you see this?

Both questions have validity.  Many statements have an "obvious" meaning.
If our statements were almost always ambiguous, communication would be
next to impossible.

I agree that the question should be "what does it mean".  However, many
people today say that what the Bible means is *not* what the obvious
meaning would be, but rather they look for a "deeper" meaning and
discard the obvious meaning.  This is the point my question addresses.
    
  >Collis, do you understand that the opposite is also true?  Those
  >scholars who choose to believe that the Bible means exactly what it
  >*seems* to say will be *blind to any other kind* of meaning or 
  >interpretation and thus risk the *real* truth that may not be at 
  >all obvious!

I strongly disagree with this.  First, let me correct your perception
that inerrantists believe that the Bible always means "exactly what it
seems to say".  All the people I studied with freely admit that there
are areas where the meaning of the Bible is not obvious and may
easily be not what it seems.  However, this is certainly the exception
and not the rule.  And there are reasons why these verses are seen this
way.  It is clear that the Bible interprets itself in ways where verses
are given meanings that both 1) the author did not consciously intend
and 2) were not commonly interpreted that way.

  >Scholars who approach the study of the Bible *without* prejudicially
  >taking the inerrancy viewpoint are as open to the possibility that it
  >"means what it says" as to the possibility that it is inaccurate in
  >places.  

All scholars must make a decision on the issue of inerrancy, because
it is fundamental to understanding the Bible and the Bible addresses this
issue both explicitly and implicitly all over the place.  Once you have
taken a position based on the evidence (whatever that position is), then
I think it is incorrect to call it a "prejudice" which is defined as a
bias before one knows the facts or an "irrational hostility" (as defined
in the American Heritage Dictionary).

  >If this were *not* so, then scholars would never find *any*
  >accuracies in it, but they do!  

This doesn't follow.  Simply because something has errors does not mean
it does not have truth.

  >So for you to draw the kind of picture you have drawn of such scholars 
  >is very unfair and is keeping you from seeing them as many of them 
  >really are.  

Do you agree that all scholars need to take a position on inerrancy?

  >It simply does not follow that they expect to find lies and that they 
  >"must" find lies or even that when they begin their studes "they have 
  >already accepted that the Bible does not mean what it says!"   You chain 
  >of logic is faulty here.

What I said was:

     >>The point I was making is that those scholars who choose to believe that
     >>the Bible does not mean what it says will find many lies and distortions
     >>in the Bible.  They must!  Because they have already accepted that
     >>the Bible does not mean what it says which contradicts many verses in
     >>the Bible which state both explicitly and implicitly that it does.

In other words, these scholars have come to the conclusion that there are
many inaccuracies in the Bible because they have come to a conclusion
which is contradicted in the Bible in many times and in many places.  I
was *not* saying that they never believe the Bible means what it says.
I *was* saying that they believe the Bible does not mean what it says where
the Bible says (and assumes) it is accurate and true [and the scholar
rejects that claim].

  >Although the process was painful at times, I did not have to reject 
  >Christianity to make the switch.  

I'm glad to hear that.  It's unfortunate that others do reject Jesus
when doubts about the Scripture enter their minds.
    
  >I am pressing you on your reasoning in this note, because your notes
  >are thoughtful and usually kind and because you *seem* to want this
  >kind of "push back."  

Yes, I do.  Although I think that part of what's going on is poor
communication since you're pushing back in areas that are not quite what
I was saying.

  >And also because I, like Mike, remember how my whole faith used to depend 
  >on holding to inerrancy.

Fortunately, my faith has never (and will never) depend on inerrancy.  I
accept this because the Bible claims and assumes it and it is far more
likely to be true than false.  But, even if it were false, my God would
still save me.

Collis

Re:  97.80

Pete,

  >Yes, I've read various discussions on this subject. They always seem to
  >dry up when I ask the question "Which scripture is the verse [II Tim 3:16]
  >referring to?".

Certainly that was *not* the case in note 18.  Your comments on the discussion
in  18 are welcome (and probably should go in note 18).

Collis

re.84

	Pete,

	Yes, I think Paul was referring to the OT scriptures when he spoke
to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:15.

	"And that from a babe you have known the scared writings, which are
able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"

	If you accept that, then perhaps you would also accept that first half
of that sentence which begins in v14..

	"But you, continue in the things which you have learned and have
been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned;" 

	The things which Timothy learned of the apostle Paul and was assured
of were the vital portion of the content of the New Testament, which completed
the divine revelation (Col 1:25). Hence, he had the practical apprehension
of a great part of the New Testament (now documented in the New Testament 
letters written by Paul).

	
Ace

    Yes, but at that time the New Testament did not exist a cohesive whole. 
    What about all of the scriptures that were excluded in the Council at
    Nicea?  They were also part of scripture at the time that Timothy was
    writing.  Yet, they are not acknowledged as such by most present day
    Christian sects.
    
    Nanci
    
    

    Okay...so the Bible is self-validating.  So am I. :-)
    Self-validation alone doesn't seem to be sufficient.
    
    There's another element that's being overlooked (which
    Nancy Smith alluded to earlier).
    
    Know what it is??
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.89

	True. Which of those excluded books do you embrace as scripture?

Regards,
ace

re.90

This isn't about self-validation. God confirms His word within the beleiver.
If you don't have the assurance in your spirit, then you need to call upon
God to turn His LOGOS (written word) into His RHEMA (instant word). Often
the missing element is faith.

Regards,
ace

    My point is that, in order to read the true meaning of what the author
    meant, we MUST look at the historical context from which it was
    written.  If you don't accept that certain documents, i.e. the Dead Sea
    Scrolls,  the Gnostic gospels, etc., were also being referred to by
    Timothy then you are only choosing to look at part of the picture. 
    If you choose that, it's fine with me, but personally I find that the
    picture is much more exciting and vibrant and alive and beautiful when
    I look at all of it.  
    
    Nanci

    A good example of what Nanci is talking about can be found in the New
    Testament epistle of Jude.  This canonical work cites from two
    "scriptures" that are now considered apocryphal by Christians:  "The
    Assumption of Moses" and "I Enoch".  These scriptural references to
    apocryphal scripture illustrate the rather blurry distinction between
    the canonical and the apocryphal.  In the case of Jude, theological
    information about the archangel Michael and Moses comes from a
    scripture that was later deemed unsuitable for the canon by the
    Christian community.
    
    James H. Charlesworth, in his book "Jesus Within Judaism", discusses
    the issue of the citation from I Enoch:
    
        As is well known, Jude 14-15 quotes from what was considered
        long ago to be--perhaps--a lost Jewish document.  Now we know
        Jude quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9:
        
            In the seventh (generation) from Adam Enoch also prophesied
            these things, saying: "Behold, the Lord came with his holy
            myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all
            the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have
            committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things
            which ungodly sinners spoke against him."
        
        Unexpectedly...this quotation, preserved in pre-70 Aramaic, was
        discovered on a strip of leather found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
        Biblical theologians and others will now be forced to reassess our
        understanding of scripture, inspiration, and canon, since a book in
        the closed Christian canon quotes as prophecy a passage in a book
        rejected no only from the Jewish canon but also from the Protestant
        and Catholic canons, although it is in the canon of Ethiopian Jews
        (Falash). 
        
        Obviously, in the first century there was considerable fluidity
        regarding the limits of scripture, inspiration, and canon. 
    
    Mike

Note 97.92

>This isn't about self-validation.

ace,

	Thanks for setting me straight. :-)

And for the advice.

Richard
    
    PS Logos is not exactly what you've said.

    re: .86
    
>All scholars must make a decision on the issue of inerrancy, because
>it is fundamental to understanding the Bible and the Bible addresses this
>issue both explicitly and implicitly all over the place....
>Do you agree that all scholars need to take a position on inerrancy?
    
    I believe all scholars need to approach the Bible sort of like I
    approach someone who comes to interview for a job with me:  
    
    I hear what they have to say about themselves and I ask to see samples of
    their writing.  *Then* I check references to verify what they have told
    me.  
    
    When I have *not* checked references and merely accepted what a candidate 
    has told me about how wonderful he or she is, I have sometimes been sorely
    disappointed.  Without checking a potential writer's references and asking
    very careful questions, I have no way of knowing whether the writing 
    samples they show are their own work, someone else's work, or their own 
    work after heavy editing by someone else.
    
    To accept someone solely on their *own* recommendation is foolish.
    
    A true scholar will do the research (i.e., "check the references") *before*
    taking a position on inerrancy!
    
    
    Nancy

    Re: back a few
    
    Mike - 
    
    Thanks for expressing it better than I could.  :-)
    
    Nanci

    Re:. 92
    
    That's a bit subjective, I think. Very difficult to be rational about
    as well. It invokes the mysticism, almost like a smokescreen.
    
    Besides, I tried calling on god to confirm or deny his word (to use
    your expression). I'm still waiting on reply.
    
    Pete.

re.94

	Let me check something with you. Are you saying that you read the OT,
the NT, and the other books (I think some are included in the Catholic Bible,
i.e. Enoch, Baruch, Bel and the Dragon, etc. etc.) and having read the OT, NT,
and the other books have found them collectively much more exciting and vibrant
and alive and beautiful? If so, could you share what you found in the other
books that was missing in the OT and NT?

thanks,


re.99

	Yes, it is subjective. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). That's pretty subjective. 

	And without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). The
experience of Christ therefore is foolishness to the natural mind for it seeks
rational as its base. But God's seekers seek after Him by faith. He will 
reward those who seek Him in this way whose hearts are sincere. 

	And God would never deny His word, He only confirms His word. 

	In scriptural fact, if a person calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus
and asks God's forgiveness of sins through His shed blood, and repents, then
God *must* forgive that person. From this starting point, God will continue to 
confirm His word in that person day by day, as he grows in the divine life.

	This is what I've experienced in my life, is the testimony of almost
every regenerated christian I've ever met, have come to understand from a study
of the Bible, and received the confirmation of the Spirit in my spirit. If I
had asked God to confirm His word in me, and He didn't, I'd insist on it. 
I'd tell Him so, bluntly. 8*) 8*)

Regards,
ace

	

Re:  97.94

  >My point is that, in order to read the true meaning of what the author
  >meant, we MUST look at the historical context from which it was
  >written.  

Most definately agreed.

  >If you don't accept that certain documents, i.e. the Dead Sea
  >Scrolls,  the Gnostic gospels, etc., were also being referred to by
  >Timothy then you are only choosing to look at part of the picture. 

The historical facts are this:  The only works that were formally accepted by
the Jews as Scripture were the 39 books of the Old Testament that we
have today.  

Collis

Re:  97.95

  >A good example of what Nanci is talking about can be found in the New
  >Testament epistle of Jude.  

Actually, the only example and one that is less than convincing.

  >This canonical work cites from two "scriptures" that are now considered 
  >apocryphal by Christians:  "The Assumption of Moses" and "I Enoch".

I'm glad you put the word "scriptures" in quotes.  Actually, a more
accurate representation would be to call them "works" because they were
*never* accepted as Scripture by Jews (and still are not), nor by any
Christians until the Roman Catholic Church accepted some of apocryphal
works in the 1540's.

  >These scriptural references to apocryphal scripture illustrate the rather 
  >blurry distinction between the canonical and the apocryphal.  

Again, the disctinction is not blurry.  What is Scripture is and has
been well-defined.  Are you saying that it is impossible to refer to a
non-Scriptural work from within Scripture without casting doubt whether 
or not it should have been considered Scripture?  

Could not Jude have been saying "Even in these inferior writings, 
it is portrayed that that the archangel Michael did not slander the
devil, and yet these people do this"?  Does this make these writings
Scripture?  No.  It is an argument from the lessor to the greater.  The
same can be said of the second reference (which includes a quotation)
which are the only two such references in the New Testament.

Collis

    It seems that we are talking about two different sets of literature when
    we refer to the "Apocrypha".  Those books which the Roman Catholic
    Church considers "Deutero-Canonical" were generally found in LXX.  On
    the other hand, the  scriptures that Jude uses as authoritative sources,
    I Enoch and The Assumption of Moses, were part of literature that is
    collectively known as the Pseudipigrapha, and are not included in the
    Roman Catholic canon.  As the biblical scholar James Charlesworth
    pointed out, the definition of "scripture" was very fluid at the time
    that Jude was written, and much of the intertestamental literature was
    also considered scriptural by various people at various times.
    
    It is true that the Bible often quotes from other sources.  What is
    interesting about the Jude reference is that it quotes from a
    non-secular source--a prophetic apocalypse, written as scripture,
    describing various visions about Heaven, Hell, and creation--and in
    particular it cites from this scriptural source an ahistorical vision
    involving a dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil over
    Moses's body. Since fundamentalists often accuse other Christians of
    "picking and choosing" which parts of the Bible are authentic, it is
    indeed interesting that the Bible itself "picks and chooses" from what
    it deems to be an authoritative theological source--one which is
    presumed accurate in the reporting of one specific visionary legend,
    but which is nevertheless not sufficiently inspired in its entirety to
    warrant inclusion as a complete entity into the canon.  It is
    interesting that the all-or-nothing ultimatum about scriptural validity
    doesn't seem to apply to the Pseudopigraphal scriptures I Enoch and the
    Assumption of Moses.
    
    It is also not accurate to claim that no one, Jewish or Christian,
    accepted the deutero-canonical works until the Roman Catholic Church
    suddenly decided to do so in the 1540's.  For one thing, as the
    Harper's Bible Dictionary points out, rabbis read from and quoted
    Ecclesiasticus for several centuries before it was dropped from use. 
    Also, it points out that these works from LXX were considered scripture
    by Christians from the very beginning of the Christian movement:

	Christians came to include in their OT a wider selection of books
	than was considered authoritative in Judaism and to arrange them more
	along the lines of chronology and genre than according to the
	tripartite division into Law, Prophets, and Writings.

	Even so, copies of the LXX do not suggest a rigidly fixed Christian
	canon, since some manuscripts omit the Prayer of Manasseh and others
	include Psalm 141 and 3 and 4 Maccabees.  2 Esdras, a Jewish
	apocalyptic writing stemming from the first century A.D. and no
	longer extant in Greek, appears in some manuscripts of the Old Latin
	(OL) version, the initial Bible of Western Christianity translated
	from the LXX, and thus has come to be included among the Apocrypha.

    The Vulgate Bible consisted of books from the Hebrew Bible that Jerome
    translated in the fourth century CE, along with the apocryphal books
    from the OL translation.

    At the time of the reformation, Protestants began to seriously question
    the canonical status of the Apocrypha.  For one thing, Protestants had
    doctrinal reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha (for example, 2 Macc.
    12:43-45 was used to support the doctrine of Purgatory).   Luther moved
    those books into a section of his Bible that he called "Apocrypha". 
    Eventually Protestants began omitting this section altogether from
    their Bibles.  In response to this process, the Catholic Church
    reaffirmed in 1546 that the whole of the Vulgate Bible was canonical,
    and declared anathema anyone who did not accept this.
    
    In addition to all of this, there were certain works that never quite
    made the New Testament, but which were considered scriptural at various
    times by individuals and groups within the Christian community.  Andrew
    Louth writes that the first epistle of Clement, which was composed
    circa 96 CE, was quoted by Denys, the Bishop of Corinth, and Clement of
    Alexandria in late third century CE.  The Harper's Bible Dictionary
    states that it was "regarded as authoritative in the second century,"
    but "it was finally not included in the canonical NT."

    Non-Gnostic Gospels that were not included in the NT canon, and which
    have been lost (except for a few extant fragments), are also rather
    interesting to consider.  The Gospel of the Hebrews was quoted by
    Jerome, Origen, and Clement.  Iraneus referred to the Gospel of the
    Ebionites, although he did not quote from it.  We do have some fragments
    from Epiphanius, a church writer who lived in the fourth century CE
    
    -- Mike

Re:  97.103

  >As the biblical scholar James Charlesworth pointed out, the definition 
  >of "scripture" was very fluid at the time that Jude was written, and much 
  >of the intertestamental literature was also considered scriptural by various 
  >people at various times.

"Various people" do not determine for the Jews what is or is not Scripture.
Again, wat was Scripture and was not Scripture was well-defined and it
was exactly the 39 books that consist of the Old Testament today.  This
is not to say that various people not in authority considered other books
Scipture.  They did.  But this did not make them Scripture.

Fact:  Books other than those in today's Old Testament (e.g. apocrypha) were 
specifically rejected by the Jewish leaders as Scriptural.  They were
proposed and rejected.  They have never been accepted as Scripture by the
Jews and, after over 2,000 years, I doubt they ever will be.

  >It is true that the Bible often quotes from other sources.  

It is not true that the Bible often quotes from other sources.

  >...it is indeed interesting that the Bible itself "picks and chooses" 
  >from what it deems to be an authoritative theological source--one which is
  >presumed accurate in the reporting of one specific visionary legend,
  >but which is nevertheless not sufficiently inspired in its entirety to
  >warrant inclusion as a complete entity into the canon.  

No such assumption is necessary to understand the quote as pertinent.
I have already explained how this quote can be understood without such
an assumption.

  >It is interesting that the all-or-nothing ultimatum about scriptural validity
  >doesn't seem to apply to the Pseudopigraphal scriptures I Enoch and the
  >Assumption of Moses.

If God had breathed them out as Scripture, then the same claim of Scriptural
truth and authority which is made throughout the Bible would be applicable 
for these books.

  >Also, it points out that these works from LXX were considered scripture
  >by Christians from the very beginning of the Christian movement:

I'm sure some Christians did.  However, again (and again and again), this
does not make it Scripture.  Again, these books were *never* accepted as 
Scripture by the ruling Jewish authorities (who were responsible for
such a determination) and were never accepted as Scripture by the the
ruling Christian authority until the Roman Catholic Church did so in
the 1540's.  This does not mean that some did not believe it was Scripture
or used it as such.

  >In response to this process, the Catholic Church reaffirmed in 1546 that 
  >the whole of the Vulgate Bible was canonical, and declared anathema 
  >anyone who did not accept this.

Although the Catholic Church declares this a reaffirmation, the word
"reaffirmation" is very misleading because there was never an original
"affirmation" of the apocrypha by either the Jews or the Church as 
Scripture.  This is why I consider this the first "affirmation" and *not*
a "reaffirmation".
    
Collis

    Collis, I am not interested in debating this issue with you.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .105

I agree.  Simply consider my responses clarifications of the facts, not
an invitation to debate.

Collis

    I'm sure that if I agreed with the contents of your responses, then I
    would consider them "clarifications of the facts".
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .107

The content of my responses were not meant to be opinion (at least most
of the content), but rather a clear statement of the facts.  I believe
that I have entered the facts accurately.

Collis

    I realize that you believe that you have entered the facts accurately.
    
    -- Mike

    Collis,
    	it is interesting to note that you cite Jewish sources for OT
    scripture, not accepting Christian sources, though no Jewish authority
    accepts any of the NT as scripture. Can it be that they are reliable
    judges in one instance yet not in another similar instance ?  Can
    various Christian sources be so fallible in one judgement yet so
    reliable in another ?  This seems inconsistent to me, even if we grant
    that Jews should not be expected to accept the words of Christ.
    	I may not have a clue as to the ramifications of Mike's essay, but
    it seems pretty clear that your response needs a lot of work. You may
    be right in your objections, but your argument fell down on you.

    There was a documentary/play which showed an English (I think...) king
    holding a trial of a jew verses the Christians. In the end, the king
    found in favour of the jew, rather than his own church, despite their
    attempts at persuasion. If only I could remember the name of this play.
    
    Pete.

Re:  97.110

Dave,

You are quite correct in your objection.  To say that the Jews pronounce
things reliably in some circumstances and yet not in others forces the
question to be asked, "what differentiates the two circumstances"?

Of course, in this case, what differentiates the two circumstances is
Jesus.  Because of their incorrect expectations and what Jesus referred
to as their hardness of heart, the Jewish leaders of his day refused to
accept his claim of Messiahship.

This, however, does not mean that they were willing to forsake the
the Scriptures that had been handed down to them.  Indeed, these Scriptures
became even more important to them and acknowledging the Scriptures that
were indeed given to them by God was an important task.

Note that God did breath some works and not breath others.  It is our
responsibility not to *define* what is God-breathed, but rather to
*discern* and acknowledge what is God-breathed.

Collis

    Collis,
    	I don't think I should push the point of "what changed" too far,
    but I think - and this is only my opinion - that perhaps there is a lot
    more to explore in this than we have covered. Your acceptance of this
    turn-about in authorities seems in need of examination (but only by
    you). Would you accept a new political direction so readily or a new
    business direction ?  Yes, this is somewhat different, but analogous. 
    	Many of my Jewish friends accept the moral/ethical teachings of
    Christ (regardless of their thoughts on the question of godhood or
    messianic concerns) and live by those standards - perhaps better than
    some supposed "Christians" that I've known. This is hardly a sign of a
    hard-hearted person or group.
    	One or another of the more conservative members of this file has
    advocated belief without thought, total acceptance without regard for
    any wordly knowledge. Maybe there was more than one who advocated
    something along those lines. I fail to see how we can discern which
    texts are "the breathed word of God" and which are not without
    thinking. Without SOMEONE thinking. I don't even see how we can discern
    which AUTHORITY to accept on the matter without thinking about it. Who
    told you which works were "breathed" and which not ?  Why do you
    believe them ?  Or did you decide on your own ?  If so, what were your
    criterion ?  Are you that sure that you, or that which you accept as
    authority, has inherited the mantle of inerrency you grant the
    concensus of pre-Christian Judaic scholars and rabbis ?
    	Gee, I think I got through a whole note - and lots of lines - and
    didn't go into loose-cannon mode once. ;-)

Note 820.30

>   Yeah, so whats wrong with it...it's a sensible premise to make?
 
>    Face it, you don't want to answer it!!
 
No, "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" is not a sensible premise.  It is simplistic
at best.

I know Jesus Christ as Lord, but I would never use the "Lord, Liar or
Lunatic" argument to prove it to anyone whose intellegence I respected.

>    Your friend always!!!

YOUR FRIEND, TOO, DAMMIT!!! ;-}

re Note 87.149 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Richard,

        As you might recall, I recoil from stereotypes, even this
        one.  (Especially this one, after all, we're ALL in high-tech
        here.)

        On the other hand, I do think that there are some very basic
        mind-sets that determine which kind of faith a person is
        likely to tend towards;  and I suspect that there might be
        some correlations (perhaps weak) between these mind-sets and
        people's choice of careers.

        For some reason I keep on thinking of the "Lord, liar, or
        lunatic" conundrum.  Why is that analysis so compelling to
        some, and yet so irrelevant to others?  When C. S. Lewis
        wrote about this, he was answering those who say "I'm willing
        to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher but not as lord or
        God."

        The argument that follows hinges on a person's understanding
        of what it means to be "a great moral teacher."  C. S. Lewis
        argues that Jesus couldn't be a "great moral teacher" without
        also being "Lord".  Lewis is basing this argument on the
        premise that a great teacher is someone who is always right
        (or at least never makes erroneous statements on important
        matters).

        To me, and, I suspect, to a great many people, a "great
        teacher" isn't at all what Lewis is thinking.  To me a "great
        teacher" is someone whose teachings deserve consideration,
        not automatic acceptance.  To me, EVERY teacher's teaching
        must be weighed against my personal wisdom and that of
        others, evidence, experience, and logic.

        To me, a "great teacher" is someone who so often has
        important insights, who so often helps me to see things
        better, that I consider it worth my time to pay attention and
        then evaluate what they say.  A poor teacher is someone I can
        ignore because their teaching is so rarely of value.

        To me Jesus would be a "great moral teacher" even if a mere
        50% of what he said helped me to understand and cope with
        life better.  For me, "Lord, liar, or lunatic" misses
        entirely.

        But I do have to understand that I am not the only kind of
        person in the world, and others may have a need for a far
        different kind of teacher.

        Bob

    re -1 Bob:
    
    Good note.
    
    IMO, the primary task of a great teacher (moral or otherwise) is to
    inspire independant thought. Without this, there would be no move
    forward which, in turn, would leave us all on square one.
    
    This is one of the problems I have with some schools of theology
    where - it seems to me - the most important message is that we should
    stay on square one. Do not ask questions; believe what you are told.
    
    Greetings, Derek.
     

    re -2 Bob
    
    I too concur.  There is lots ofinsight in your note.  
    
    Patricia

    A great moral teacher does not quicken one's spiritual life.
    
    It may awaken, but not quicken....  
    
    Nancy

    I have had a least one great teacher who has quickened my spiritual
    life.
    
    Patricia

I haven't had any who gave their life for me..







Jim

Bob,

You have completely missed C. S. Lewis' reasoning in .115.  

  >Lewis is basing this argument on the premise that a great teacher 
  >is someone who is always right (or at least never makes erroneous 
  >statements on important matters).

He does NOT assume that a great teacher must be correct about
everything.

He does, however, say that the BASIS of the teacher's teaching
MUST be correct for us to consider the person a great moral
teaching.  And what was the basis of what Jesus taught us?  He
goes to great length to show that the person of Jesus was at
the foundation of Jesus' teaching.  That to believe Jesus'
teaching and to reject Jesus' teaching about who He Himself
was is a tremendous contradiction.  That is the argument.

Collis

re Note 97.121 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> He does, however, say that the BASIS of the teacher's teaching
> MUST be correct for us to consider the person a great moral
> teaching.  

        Then I strongly disagree with C. S Lewis.

        Perhaps Lewis (and others) are confusing "teacher" with
        "prophet".  A prophet reveals the previously and otherwise
        unknowable.  A teacher leads others to understanding of what
        is known.

        The "non believers" who regard Jesus as a great moral teacher
        regard him not as revealing new things but as helping them to
        understand the world they know.  (So what if he said a few
        wacky things?  All geniuses, probably even C. S Lewis, have
        had a touch of insanity. :-)

        (Lewis' would make more sense if he said "you cannot accept
        Jesus as a great prophet and reject what he said about
        himself.")

> And what was the basis of what Jesus taught us?  He
> goes to great length to show that the person of Jesus was at
> the foundation of Jesus' teaching.  That to believe Jesus'
> teaching and to reject Jesus' teaching about who He Himself
> was is a tremendous contradiction.  That is the argument.
  
        But to highly regard SOME of Jesus' teaching and to reject
        Jesus' teaching about who He Himself is no contradiction at
        all.  That is my point.

        If you are of the "all or nothing" camp Lewis' argument is
        compelling;  if you aren't already, it isn't.

        Bob

   >But to highly regard SOME of Jesus' teaching and to reject
   >Jesus' teaching about who He Himself is no contradiction at
   >all.  That is my point.

It is a great contradiction to call someone a great teacher
who is totally wrong about the most significant issue of
which he teaches - who he is.  Who Jesus is is at the root
of Jesus' teachings.

But at least we agree on what the argument for this is now.

Collis

re Note 97.123 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>    >But to highly regard SOME of Jesus' teaching and to reject
>    >Jesus' teaching about who He Himself is no contradiction at
>    >all.  That is my point.
> 
> It is a great contradiction to call someone a great teacher
> who is totally wrong about the most significant issue of
> which he teaches - who he is.  Who Jesus is is at the root
> of Jesus' teachings.
  
        I know you can't see this from your point of view, but you
        are helping to make my point.  To you, "who Jesus claims to
        be" is his most important teaching.  To those for whom he is
        simply "one of the world's great moral teachers" that same
        issue could be one of his less important teachings.

        No contradiction for them.

        It would be a contradiction for you if you tried to hold
        that position, but you don't.

        Bob

    .124
    
    Well, I certainly can see it through your point of view.  And I can
    understand that through the authority of self imposed deity where many
    would think Christ to be less then believable.
    
    Evidence that Demands a Verdict... is a very good book.  Don't
    remember the author's name... but I believe that this view was what
    prompted the search for Truth by the author.
    
    I will simply say that its a matter of choice.  
    Until you fully give your life over to Christ and move
    it out of your head into your heart, unbelief will feel the same as
    belief.  
    
    Nancy

    
    Josh McDowell.
    
    Can't say as I'd recommend the book though.
    
    Cindy

    -1
    
    Doesn't surprise me. :-)  

  >I know you can't see this from your point of view, but you
  >are helping to make my point.  To you, "who Jesus claims to
  >be" is his most important teaching. 

Not quite, Bob.  C. S. Lewis' argument is that from *Jesus'*
point of view, who Jesus is is a *foundational* teaching.

To understand Jesus' teachings differently is a gross misunderstanding
of Jesus.  That is what C. S. Lewis says and why he preaches the
Lord, Liar or Lunatic theory.

Collis

re Note 97.128 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Not quite, Bob.  C. S. Lewis' argument is that from *Jesus'*
> point of view, who Jesus is is a *foundational* teaching.
  
        Not quite, Collis:  from C. S. Lewis' point of view *Jesus'*
        point of view is that who Jesus is is a *foundational*
        teaching.

        YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HUMAN READER OUT OF THE LOOP.

        Bob

    >> Not quite, Bob.  C. S. Lewis' argument is that from *Jesus'*
    >> point of view, who Jesus is is a *foundational* teaching.
  
  >Not quite, Collis:  from C. S. Lewis' point of view *Jesus'*
  >point of view is that who Jesus is is a *foundational*
  >teaching.

Exactly.  That is what it means when someone argues something.
C. S. Lewis' argument is...

There's plenty of material in C. S. Lewis' writings to refute
for those who don't accept the conclusion.  I expect this won't
be happening any time soon.

Collis