Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I hasten to add ...

I hasten to add that I, myself, am a stupid son-of-a-bitch and a weak puss for letting anyone get me so riled.

I confess.

Ugh.
 

Er,

Re: Oral v.written tradition I was trying to figure out what your problem was with (in this case) Matthew. Was it that you believed that it was authored late, and that the oral tradition was corrupted before it was written, or that you believe that it was written too earlt for there to have been much of an oral tradition. I think you've answered that, but your original assertion wasn't clear.

Re: Do you dismiss their efforts or comclusions. I did not give you any specific conclusions to deal with, what I was asking was more general. If I could try again. There are a number of people who have spent significant time studying this topic. Many of them have come to conclusions that differ significantly from yours. (One recent example, is the Dr's Boyd and Eddy) My question to you is. Do you (after having studied the available material), disagree with the conclusions they have reached, or (since they have reached different conclusions) do you dismiss their efforts. I hope this clarifies what I was asking.

Craig
 

There, there, ER, totally understandable. I have always found it ironic and hilarious that folks who can't, apparently, even understand clearly written English sentences still argue that they've got the lock on interpreting Scripture. LOL

There's a difference between misunderstanding and intentional obtuseness...I think the exchange in the other thread is an excellent example of the latter. If someone wants to simply fisk comments for one or two sentences that they can then twist into a pretzel merely because they get some sort of bang out of disagreement, you can't stop them.

But kudos to you for not shouting "Straw man!" every other comment (even though the intentional misstatements of your comments were just that.) ;)
 

Alan: Sigh. :-)


Craig: This is all I know about Boyd and Eddy, from Amazon:

"Even mature Christians have trouble defending the person and divinity of Christ. The Jesus Legend builds a convincing interdisciplinary case for the unique and plausible position of Jesus in human history. He was real and his presence on the planet has been well-documented. The authors of the New Testament didnt plant evidence, though each writer did tell the truth from a unique perspective. This book carefully investigates the Gospel portraits of Jesus -- particularly the Synoptic Gospels -- assessing what is reliable history and fictional legend. The authors contend that a cumulative case for the general reliability of the Synoptic Gospels can be made and boldly challenge those who question the veracity of the Jesus found there."


Now, I do not question the veracity of the Jesus found in the Gospels; I acknowledge that each writer sought to tell the truth from his own perspective; I didn't
mean to suggest that Matthew "made something up" or planted evidence.

So, while I haven't ready the book -- and, in favt, never heard of Boyrd and Eddy before now -- I'm sure I'd enjoy it.

None of which invalidates my speculation as to whether the author or Matthew, to bolster a particular assertion about Jesus, looked to the Scripture of his day to do so -- much as preachers often do today.

Because the author of Matthew was a preacher, an apologist, an editorial writer -- not a reporter or a historian.

I have no problem with Matthew. I do not seek to dismiss or any of the Gospels. I do try to be honest about what I think they are and are not.
 

Sorry (well, not so much) that I missed out on all this gufflin'. What a gang of fun.

I have always found it ironic and hilarious that folks who can't, apparently, even understand clearly written English sentences still argue that they've got the lock on interpreting Scripture.

Yes! Alan and ER are RIGHT ON on this point. They consistently misconstrue all our written words thinking we mean, variously, that we hate America, that God is not omnipotent, that the Bible is not reliable, etc, etc, etc - EVEN THO we never said any of the sort!

And THEN, they insist that they are quite capable of clearly determining the meanings of the Bible with 99.9% accuracy!

Yes! Excellent point! If they can't even understand this 21st Century fellow Christian from a similar background and upbringing, what HOPE do they have of EVER coming in close proximity to interpreting the Bible's words???
 

ER,

I will be interested in your response to Dr's Boyd and Eddy's book. If you have a chance to read it. I not sure you'll agree with their conclusion though.

The only reason I used the Dr's Boyd and Eddy book is because it's recent. There have been a number of others on both sides of the issue.

I guess my question is when people look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than you have, what is your response to them. You obviously have deveoloped some opinions on this subject. I think I understand your opinion, I'm more interested in the process that led you to that opinion.

Craig
 

In a nutshell: It was an epiphany more than a process. It's idolatry to consider the Bible "inerrant," "infallible," etc. That doesn't mean it's not reliable for what it is. But, my idea of what the Bible IS has changed over time.

Rather than God's revelation to man, I see it more now as the record of inspired human beans trying their best to explain and understand their encounters with the divine, within the context of their religion. As such, I consider them sacred -- and I do not doubt that there are revelations of God IN it.
 

ER,

So, are you saying that you believe anyone who views the Bible differently is wrong? The reason I ask is, there are a lot of really intellegent people who have (after years of study) come to a different view of the Bible. I'm having trouble reconciling the two views.

Craig
 

No. I'm saying that none of us is exactly right.

But we don't have to be. We just have to be close, in the neighborhood, in faith and humility, and God in his Grace covers the rest.

I just no longer get the need people have to nail down these kinds of things, treating the Holy Scriptures, full of God in God's Mysterious Godness, and humans in their messy humanness, as if we were trying to get the nut-and-bolts instructions down exactly for how to put together a Sears work bench.
 

ER,

Thanks for the explaination. I'm not sure how to respond. Except to say, I'm not sure it is an either/or situation. Things are a little to busy to go much beyond this, but maybe later.

Craig
 

ER,

A couple of thoughts/questions, while I have a chance. I appreciate your answers, because I hope that I can better understand your perspective.

For clarification, it sounds as though you are saying that you believe that the gospels as we have them accuarately represent what the authors wrote. It seems that you consider the gospels closer to James Michener than Stephen Ambrose. Am I getting close?

It seems as though this could go on for a while, and that maybe it would be better to take this to e mail, rathere than continue this thread. Let me know what makes the most sense to you.

Craig
 

I'll have to think about that!Because while I trust Ambrose more with facts, I admire Michener's ability to get at the truth, even with fiction, in a way that mere facts can make difficult.

In a nutshell, I know the truth is in the Bible. But that's different from me thinking it's all factual.

For example, I just now put up Mark's version of Jesus praying in Gethsamane, with a few remarks. I have no doubt that he was in agony, but I don't have to believe that every single bit of the story is exactly factual to see the truth of it.

And, I selected Mark specifically because I think it is a more reliable account, precisely because it is stark, more like a report than an apology/editorial/narrative/ sermon.

Matthew and Luke have Jesus seeming to know how it was all going to turn out, which I think is improbable. Why would he have been anguished if he knew the future?

Now, people can talk about foreknowledge, and what divinity means and Jesusness and Godness, etc. And I think that's more fruitful than worrying over the details of Scripture.

Leave yer e-mail here. I'll grab it and then take it down as soon as a I can.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

(Reposted for Craig, minus his e-mail address.)


ER,

I'm with you on Michener v. Ambrose. Although both do a great job of bringing you into the story. Thanks for your explaination. I'll wait to hear from you.

My e mail is XXXXX.

Craig

PS, re: the other thread, part of the relationship has been us supporting the black church financially. (As we do with a number of other local churches/ministries) The problem is that while we see this as an opportunity to share our resources (financial and otherwise), we also (as with some of our other partnerships) are trying to take it deeper than $$$. For example, Sunday, a number of us our going to serve Easter lunch, and spend the afternoon with one of our other partner churches. It's a difficult situation and there is a level of frustration on our part, due to the lack of willingness on their part. We'll probably end up looking elsewhere for another church in that part of the city.

Craig