The Gospel Witness of Christ's Birth and Resurrection

[Honorentheos]

For discussion purposes, I've never brought this topic up with faithful LDS who have responded to it. So I'm curious to make the attempt here just to see what thoughts come out of it.

A question often raised in discussions about religion is how trustworthy are the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. That being, Jesus of Nazareth as redeemer and savior of the world. To address the question, I suggest looking to the birth and resurrection narratives in the Gospels and what that tells us regarding their reliability. 

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time. Examples included being a descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ***. And, following his death how to align the prophecies with that fact resulting in the belief he was raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness (as in it can't stand alone) for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the NT describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

Mark, the earliest and probably closest Gospel is silent. Why? We don't know. Some scholars have suggested that Mark does not describe a Jesus who sees himself as the Messiah, but rather one who is declaring the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel who would bring a literal Kingdom of God to the earth. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Either way, Mark does not try to show us parallels between Messianic prophecy and the life of Jesus.

John, the last of the gospels to be composed, is also silent on the physical birth of Jesus. Instead, we are given the poetic description of the Logos. I think it's likely that the author of John was not concerned with proving Jesus was the Jewish messiah (as the Gospel of John is also anti-Semitic in general), but instead focuses on showing the reader that Jesus is much more than that - Jesus is the Word of God and with God from the beginning. The John birth narrative isn't missing, IMO as is often stated. Instead, it tells the reader the question of what happened at Jesus' birth is the wrong question.

We are left with the two other synoptic gospels to find out about the birth story of Jesus. And they don't match up on almost every point. Why is that? Since they both used Mark and at least one other common source, this also suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth. 

In Matthew, we see constant reference to prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Matthew or his sources (from now on I'll just reference Matthew and Luke as short hand for the potential other source) tell a story about Herod killing all of the male children in Bethlehem age 2 or younger, has wise men from the east visit the infant, sends Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's men, and of course tells us Mary was a virgin. And there is the genealogy that shows Jesus was a descendant of King David. All of the above are specifically included because there is a scripture somewhere that needed to be addressed associated with beliefs about the Messiah.

Yet none of this matches Luke’s telling other than the general idea that Mary was a virgin.

Luke invents the story of a census to get Jesus to Bethlehem, has shepherds visit Jesus, and tells us Jesus and John the Baptist are related. And there is a virgin birth narrative and a genealogy.

The core stories don't match where there is no original source material to provide background consistency.

The parsimonious answer for why, rather than the apologetic one, is simply that the authors invented a backstory for Jesus that met the requirements that showed Jesus was the Messiah. Because they did not/could not collaborate and there wasn't a common source available at the time, the stories differ.

This gives us a couple of general rules of thumb when examining the gospel authors and the Resurrection account.

First, it gives us a hint that if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah was a ruler yet Jesus was killed by the Romans, how to align this with Jesus being the Messiah?

If we look to the Book of Acts, we see how Peter dealt with this where he is described as using an explicit example of Messianic beliefs to account for Jesus' death. In Acts 2, Peter teaches:

Quote

 

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 
...

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 
24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 
25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.

26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,

27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.

28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 
31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[f]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

 

Supposing then that the belief in Jesus as Messiah must address HOW this occurred, we might expect to find consistency in the stories. But instead we see the pattern hold that we found in the birth narratives when the Gospel of Mark is not able to provide guidance despite both Matthew and Luke having Mark as a source. In both we see versions of Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection where it's available, consisting of Mark’s account in chapters 14-16. They tell us that the priests schemed to have Jesus arrested in Jerusalem but feared a riot by the people, there was a last supper of sorts, Jesus took his disciples and prayed before being betrayed by Judas, that before the Priests they ultimately convict him based on His claiming to be the Messiah, take him to Pilate and claim he called himself the King of the Jews which he does not deny. Pilate releases Barnabas when the Jews cry for Jesus to be crucified, and he is handed over to the Roman soldiers for execution. He is mocked as a would-be king, beaten, crucified, and dies at noon on the day before the Sabbath. His body is given to Joseph of Arimathia who places him in his tomb and has a stone rolled in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph see where he is buried. They wait until after the Sabbath (a night, a day, and a night) and go that next morning described as the first day of the week to wash the body. They wonder who will roll the stone away but find it is already moved. Instead they find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus is not there but has risen. He charges them to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and will meet them there. But they don’t go to Peter and tell him as charged. Instead, they are afraid and run away. And Mark ends his story here as evidenced by early manuscript copies and the later inclusion of what is known as the Marcan Appendix. The last verse of Mark before the Marcan Appendix, 16:8, ends with the women who are told of Christ's resurrection leaving and not telling anyone. Why? I don't think anyone can say with certainty. What we do know is that the v. 8 ending is the oldest existent forms of Mark that we have. Not that there was variety in these oldest texts but that they end at v. 8 and others speaking of the Gospel affirm this was the case in the manuscript copies available. Early variants that then follow v. 8 seem to lack cohesive language to suggest the replacement of lost language. Rather, they seem to be there to fill in a gap based on various author's understanding of what followed. It could be that there were oral traditions being passed around and the written variants reflect this. But we don't know.

How the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with this further supports that the text they had ended at what we know as v. 8. So what do Matthew and Luke do with this story when they again lack guiding information in their sources?

Luke, at the end of chapter 23, tells us about the women seeing the body laid to rest and going on the day after the Sabbath to find the stone rolled away. But instead of a young man in a white robe, they are met by two men in heavenly glowing robes who tell them Christ is risen and to go to the apostles. They remember that Jesus said he would rise and do as they were told. Luke tells us of Peter visiting the tomb and wondering. He tells us of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He tells us of a direct appearance to the 11 who were still in Jerusalem. He tells them all this was in the fulfillment of scripture and Christ ascends into heaven. The 11 rejoice and remain in Jerusalem going often to the temple until Acts tells us about the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew inserts a little piece between the women seeing the stone placed before the tomb and finding it moved away the day after the Sabbath. He has the priest going to Pilate on the Sabbath (but saying the day after preparation day instead of the Sabbath. Kind of like saying the day after Christmas Eve) and claiming that they heard that Jesus proclaim he would rise on the third day after his death. Matthew tells us they feared a deception and ask for a guard and for the tomb to be sealed. Pilate grants this. So when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… Anyway, they are told to tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and spread the lie about being resurrected on the 3rd day. Matthew tells us this lie is prevalent among the Jews even in his day. Matthew tells us the women go to the disciples being afraid (as Mark told us) BUT ALSO FULL OF JOY so they are doing as told. Then Jesus appears to them on the way to the disciples and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. They do so, and the 11 go to Galilee to meet Jesus who tells them they are to be filled with power and go to all nations. The end.

John has his own version of events and, as we’ve noticed with the birth narrative, he isn’t too concerned with what Mark or anyone else that we know of had to say. John includes many different stories of what happened during the passion, has Jesus executed on a different day to make sure it is clear he is the Lamb of God being sacrificed as the other lambs on the day before Passover. We have an entirely different account of who came to the tomb, who saw what, what was said, who saw Jesus where and when, and ultimately an extra chapter that the original author may not have written as the final word.

Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically based on the evidence.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Honorentheos

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically based on the evidence.

As with any testimony we share at the pulpit. That which registers and resonates must be conveyed on a level other than speech or text alone (how many of the items in D&C 88:40 are as tangible?).

[Honorentheos]

A fair point, CV75. And for my position outside, I still would not fault a person for holding sacred a view that is meaningful to them if not necessarily firmly decided by the evidence. So long as we're sharing the same understanding of the boundaries.

[Freedom]

Apparently you have never hears eye witness testimony in a court. 

I think you are reading too much into missing details. I suspect if I got a hold of your personal journal, if in fact you even keep one, that there would be huge gaps. Those gaps do not prove the events did not occur, it simply means that you did not understand the significance of them at the time. You perceive the birth of the savior is important, but may be due to centuries of ingrained western tradition celebrating Christmas. I do not see much significance in how  person was born, I see significance in how he lived his life. 

[Honorentheos]

17 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Apparently you have never hears eye witness testimony in a court. 

I think you are reading too much into missing details. I suspect if I got a hold of your personal journal, if in fact you even keep one, that there would be huge gaps. Those gaps do not prove the events did not occur, it simply means that you did not understand the significance of them at the time. You perceive the birth of the savior is important, but may be due to centuries of ingrained western tradition celebrating Christmas. I do not see much significance in how  person was born, I see significance in how he lived his life. 

The point is that when Matthew and Luke have Mark to use as a source to describe Christ's birth and resurrection, they follow it closely. When they don't, they not only diverge but also contradict one another. So called "eye witness testimony" that can be shown to be collaborating and also contradictory when they can't collaborate is self-defeating testimony. It's not reading too much into the text. Quite the opposite, really.

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The point is that when Matthew and Luke have Mark to use as a source to describe Christ's birth and resurrection, they follow it closely. When they don't, they not only diverge but also contradict one another. So called "eye witness testimony" that can be shown to be collaborating and also contradictory when they can't collaborate is self-defeating testimony. It's not reading too much into the text. Quite the opposite, really.

Again, apparently you have never heard eye witness accounts in a court. If you have siblings, have them each write about an event from your childhood then compare their recollections and see how many contradictions you can count. If they agreed the way you want them to, this would be proof that they are not eye witness testimony. 

[Duncan]

Read this book by Bauckham

"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony "

[Honorentheos]

The argument will have to be with the context of the text. Critically, it seems there is weakness in assuming the NT can be trusted as a source regarding it's most important messages related to Christ's birth and resurrection. If the argument against this weakness is one should expect to find inconsistencies when the reality is one can predict where those inconsistencies are likely to occur it's more problematic than your example acknowledges. To correctly apply your analogy - If you were to ask someone to provide testimony of an event and your opposition was able to say, "I know your witness was collaborating with this other witness up to this point, but after that they were not in communication. So see if their stories match up after they no longer were able to collaborate." And it turns out they indeed contradict one another after that point, you ought to know they aren't trustworthy witnesses.

[theplains]

On 22/08/2016 at 11:44 PM, Honorentheos said:

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically based on the evidence.

The book "Simply Jesus" might address some of your concerns.  The author is N.T. Wright.

Thanks,
Jim

[Honorentheos]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The book "Simply Jesus" might address some of your concerns.  The author is N.T. Wright.

Thanks,
Jim

Perhaps. But from what I've read of Wright to date, perhaps not.

 

Do you have an example from something you read there that addresses the concern raised in the OP?

[CV75]

On 8/22/2016 at 11:44 PM, Honorentheos said:

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically based on the evidence.

Human beings are known to have more than mere reason in our toolkit, and the capacity for "non-reason" serves us well, most commonly when we use it in conjunction with reason to form a more complete and united picture and vision. For example, finding the problem with the media is balanced by finding the value of the central message it conveys. That way, more important problems are resolved, usually with beneficial, non-rational drivers framing the rationale for uniting and doing things that the whole determines are "good" using agreed-upon subjective and objective, and rational and non-rational, assessments.

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 11:02 PM, Freedom said:

Again, apparently you have never heard eye witness accounts in a court. If you have siblings, have them each write about an event from your childhood then compare their recollections and see how many contradictions you can count. If they agreed the way you want them to, this would be proof that they are not eye witness testimony. 

None of the four accounts are eye witness testimony.  they are written many years after the eye witnesses were dead, as far as we can tell, by anonymous authors who might not have even attributed their works to the four men we like to think.  And it's apparent in each case, as the OP faintly alludes to in some ways, they were seemingly products of certain agendas.  That's not to say the Jesus story didn't happen, that there is no use to the gospels at all.  It means in terms of how we view, piece together, confirm and define history...they are problematic accounts. 

 

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 9:44 PM, Honorentheos said:

 

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically based on the evidence.

I would question what we do know.  Mark was likely the first gospel written and the others likely were derivative of Mark to some extent or another.  It's likely each gospel and their variations and points all had purpose in the mind's of the authors or from those who told the stories.  1 Cor. 15 is interesting because it has Paul say he too has witnessed the risen Christ.  It is not just that he is teaching what he calls the gospel as passed to him by James and Peter, but that he too has witnessed a living Christ. 

If people are believers the central message is assumed as a given.  if not then it's not.  Years ago I read the Case for Christ as a recommendation and was less than impressed. 

[Storm Rider]

On 8/24/2016 at 1:14 AM, Honorentheos said:

The argument will have to be with the context of the text. Critically, it seems there is weakness in assuming the NT can be trusted as a source regarding it's most important messages related to Christ's birth and resurrection. If the argument against this weakness is one should expect to find inconsistencies when the reality is one can predict where those inconsistencies are likely to occur it's more problematic than your example acknowledges. To correctly apply your analogy - If you were to ask someone to provide testimony of an event and your opposition was able to say, "I know your witness was collaborating with this other witness up to this point, but after that they were not in communication. So see if their stories match up after they no longer were able to collaborate." And it turns out they indeed contradict one another after that point, you ought to know they aren't trustworthy witnesses.

I think in some ways on the gospel story I tend to observe from 30,000 feet the story of the scriptures without attempting to drop down to ground level and question all things previously observed from high up.  When I read scripture I don't consciously read the text as a revelation of detail, but of concepts and/or principles.  The differences in the gospels have been acknowledged, but not utilized to cause doubt about the Bible per se.  For me it was a sign that scripture demands two or more witnesses to the same story.  The need for the Book of Mormon was to lend credence, strength, to the Bible story and vice-versa.  Without the Book of Mormon some individuals could be left to wonder about the Bible's veracity, but with the Book of Mormon the story is assured.

 

[Honorentheos]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Human beings are known to have more than mere reason in our toolkit, and the capacity for "non-reason" serves us well, most commonly when we use it in conjunction with reason to form a more complete and united picture and vision. For example, finding the problem with the media is balanced by finding the value of the central message it conveys. That way, more important problems are resolved, usually with beneficial, non-rational drivers framing the rationale for uniting and doing things that the whole determines are "good" using agreed-upon subjective and objective, and rational and non-rational, assessments.

I won't argue with the general comment you made. I agree that the more we understand how our brains work, the more it reveals that the subconscious and subjective/intuitive means of deciding are millennia more evolved than are our abilities for executive rational analysis. Both are necessary. 

That said, I think it's important to be cognizant of when we are allowing our subjective/intuitive sense of a thing to hijack our executive/rational abilities into confabulating excuses for our beliefs and pretending these confabulations are reasoned arguments.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I would question what we do know.  Mark was likely the first gospel written and the others likely were derivative of Mark to some extent or another.  It's likely each gospel and their variations and points all had purpose in the mind's of the authors or from those who told the stories.  1 Cor. 15 is interesting because it has Paul say he too has witnessed the risen Christ.  It is not just that he is teaching what he calls the gospel as passed to him by James and Peter, but that he too has witnessed a living Christ. 

If people are believers the central message is assumed as a given.  if not then it's not.  Years ago I read the Case for Christ as a recommendation and was less than impressed. 

Hi stem (good to see you, btw. Hope things are well with you and your family)

You make good points, that there is so much we really don't know. And we all probably do decide how to proceed using tenuous positions regardless of our assumptions. Was Paul an eye witness of Christ, per se, and if so only by miraculous means of seeing a reveal resurrected living Jesus? A difficult question to answer definitively using the text. I think whatever one's position, one of acknowledgement that some skepticism is warranted is most easily justified. We can express hope, if that is our personal feeling on the matter. But I don't think we can express unequivocal knowledge.

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi stem (good to see you, btw. Hope things are well with you and your family)

Hey Good.  We're doing fine.  Thanks for asking. 

29 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

You make good points, that there is so much we really don't know. And we all probably do decide how to proceed using tenuous positions regardless of our assumptions. Was Paul an eye witness of Christ, per se, and if so only by miraculous means of seeing a reveal resurrected living Jesus? A difficult question to answer definitively using the text. I think whatever one's position, one of acknowledgement that some skepticism is warranted is most easily justified. We can express hope, if that is our personal feeling on the matter. But I don't think we can express unequivocal knowledge.

I agree.  Taking Paul at his word is not easy because of that.  The scriptures are really quite interesting when you actually study them.  Church doesn't give you much in that regard.  I think your OP is great in that it intends to discuss the difficulty of taking scripture for what it says.  As a Church, we're going to need to really change our view of scripture one of these days.  But for today, we get what we get, I guess. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Timely that Jeff Lindsay recently started a series about the evidence for Mark's short ending being the original.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-book-of-mormon-versus-consensus-of.html

Quote

Fortunately, in spite of an ongoing scholarly "consensus," there is surprisingly impressive evidence that the longer ending of Mark is authentic. Before I explore some of those details, let me first point out that over 95% of the existing ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have the longer ending of Mark. The problem came with the relatively recent discovery of the two oldest extant manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, both of which end at Mark 16:8 and lack the longer ending. These manuscripts, though, differ from our canon in many other ways and need not be assumed to be the best and most accurate manuscripts.

They are the oldest extant manuscripts, yes, but they were not the oldest manuscripts used and quoted by early Christians, and that's the area where things are especially interesting. Dozens of ancient sources provide evidence that at least multiple portions of the longer ending of Mark were in place before the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus came into existence. 

Interesting, don't you think?.  And regarding the Infancy narratives, I quite like Barker's Christmas: The Original Story, which looks at the Temple context, and includes consideration of the Infancy Gospel of James.  

And I'm impressed with the things like this on the context into which Jesus arrives.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/JesusAndTheJubilee.pdf

And what are the implications of being the expected anointed, the Melchizedek High Priest?

Quote

Scholars sometimes wonder how Christianity developed so quickly into such a sophisticated  theological system, especially as the first disciples are often portrayed as uneducated fishermen from Galilee. The answer to that question is very clear in the New Testament, if it is read it with eyes accustomed to the world of the original temple. When St Peter wrote to the scattered Jewish communities in Asia Minor who had become Christians, he said: ‘Like living stones, be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ’8
 The Christian community was the temple of the Messiah, the original temple restored, and it was a living temple. The fact that we call Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, which means the Anointed One, shows that Christians live and think in a world where the lost anointing oil and everything it stood for has been been restored. 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/OurGreatHighPriest.pdf

In the Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, (p 109) she has this:

Quote

what Jesus believed about himself was identical which what the young church preached about him, even though he had been imperfectly understood at times.  It makes Jesus himself the author and finisher of the faith, rather than the early communities, a supposition which has been fashionable for some time.  The great message of atonement was not just a damage limitation exercise on the part of a traumatized group of disciples who could find no other way of coming to terms with the death of their leader.  The sources do enable us to see how Jesus understood his own death, if only we listen to what they are saying and do not sit in judgement upon them with preconceived notions of what could and could not have been the case.

There are different kinds of evidence to consider, besides the Gospels and just picking out differences in the accounts, usually against the assumption that such accounts should not have differences, despite being written by different people from a different culture than ours, for different audiences at different times and then translated and transmitted by other people, as well as different approaches to evidence, including the Gospels.  If it's obvious and inescapable that my own knowledge and experience own limits, it should also be obvious and inescapable that the same applies to other people.  Some of what I know would be very difficult for me to transfer to someone else, though, truth be told, it would also be intellectually dubious for me to ignore when considering other perspectives.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I won't argue with the general comment you made. I agree that the more we understand how our brains work, the more it reveals that the subconscious and subjective/intuitive means of deciding are millennia more evolved than are our abilities for executive rational analysis. Both are necessary. 

That said, I think it's important to be cognizant of when we are allowing our subjective/intuitive sense of a thing to hijack our executive/rational abilities into confabulating excuses for our beliefs and pretending these confabulations are reasoned arguments.

Alma 32 describes how faith and knowledge (and the things that are like unto the) work together so as not to hijack each other, in other words, correctly identify "what is real."

Pretending, which entails both instinctive and intentional application of the rational and non-rational, is a very successful survival mechanism in both nature and in human learning. Even animals create tools, which are pretend limbs and digits but extremely effective in their survival. In religion, symbolism and ritual are forms of pretending that harness and leverage the power of spiritual faith and knowledge.

So if it is suggested that the New Testament is a pretense, that doesn’t make it any less reliable for delivering the message it is conveying. The impact on the rational and non-rational mind of the receiving agent determines its reliability. And even the best scholarship is never done and rarely all that conclusive (except in the mind of the scholar or the student).

[mfbukowski]

On 8/22/2016 at 8:44 PM, Honorentheos said:

 

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically based on the evidence.

FWIW, I see this question as no different than the question of Book of Mormon historicity.  The bottom line is whether or not evidence is relevant

I do not look at Kant's ideas or where he wrote them or where he lived at the time, or if he really wrote them or a student forged them as relevant to the ideas.

I see the scriptures as collections of ideas about God.  I don't care who wrote them, when or where or if.  For me none of that is relevant to the ideas they contain.

The only evidence which is relevant to me is the effect that these beliefs have in my life.   I hold the idea of the atonement as precious, sacred, and perhaps the greatest concept idea or story ever conceived.   The idea that it was possible for a God to care about me enough to become human - a perfect sinless human- and vicariously take my punishment upon himself so that I could give up my guilt if I do all I could to repent is highly comforting and helps me make tangible the harm that my sins cause others.

I believe on a religious basis- not a historical basis- that these things "really happened" historically.   That means my belief in the history is dependent on a religious belief, not a scientific one.   I choose to believe the history because I have had a religious experience telling me "it really happened"

I believe it is perfectly rational to maintain that religious experience justifies religious belief and that that has been shown by William James and others since him.

Of course religious beliefs should be treated skeptically.  

But if one understand the arguments for their rationality and their basis for justification, and can discuss that justification then there is no reason to doubt their veracity, once one understands what that means.

Many atheists understand this perfectly well, Rorty among others.  These are major philosophers who head departments and are widely read and understood.

Their arguments are not to be swept under the rug or ignored by amateurs.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I won't argue with the general comment you made. I agree that the more we understand how our brains work, the more it reveals that the subconscious and subjective/intuitive means of deciding are millennia more evolved than are our abilities for executive rational analysis. Both are necessary. 

That said, I think it's important to be cognizant of when we are allowing our subjective/intuitive sense of a thing to hijack our executive/rational abilities into confabulating excuses for our beliefs and pretending these confabulations are reasoned arguments.

Only if we are Cartesians of course.

Religious matters ARE PRECISELY about "the subconscious and subjective" and therefore are about the most important things humans can think about.

Everything else is about mechanics.  Do you worry more about your life, your family, politics, ethics and morality than what makes your car work?

That is the difference between what is subjective and what is objective.

That is what you do not understand.

Your very idea that such matters are or should be governed by "rational arguments" shows that perhaps YOU are the one doing the "confabulating"

Edited August 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

Perhaps when I jump into my "sense of compassion" to get to my place of employment to dutifully punch out "aesthetic appreciation" widgets I'll find myself agreeing that the divide is so fuzzy one has no obligation to account to society for the justification of one's beliefs when they take form.

We've discussed before that there are boundaries to how subjective one is allowed to take their beliefs. When those beliefs become the rational for public actions, support of law, or political position (such as in the debate over marriage equality for example) if one is inventing the ethical justifications for this post hoc due to one's acceptance of dubious claims to having divine foundational truths at their core, one is acting irresponsibly in said society.

If only it could be as comical as watching someone pretend to drive to work in their sense of compassion, though.  

Edited August 26, 2016 by Honorentheos

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Perhaps when I jump into my "sense of compassion" to get to my place of employment to dutifully punch out "aesthetic appreciation" widgets I'll find myself agreeing that the divide is so fuzzy one has no obligation to account to society for the justification of one's beliefs when they take form.

We've discussed before that there are boundaries to how subjective one is allowed to take their beliefs. When those beliefs become the rational for public actions, support of law, or political position (such as in the debate over marriage equality for example) if one is inventing the ethical justifications for this post hoc due to one's acceptance of dubious claims to having divine foundational truths at their core, one is acting irresponsibly in said society.

If only it could be as comical as watching someone pretend to drive to work in their sense of compassion, though.  

Who is this addressed to?

Metaphorically, we do jump into our sense of compassion, which by definition entails a sense of oneness with others (society), which entails mutual and informal obligations that have evolved in that society. It really doesn't matter who is inventing what or how; societies (on both the macro and micro scale) settle into an agreed-upon norm. Granted, some may have more compassion than others, but even the most rudimentary form is what binds the basic units of society.

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Who is this addressed to?

Metaphorically, we do jump into our sense of compassion, which by definition entails a sense of oneness with others (society), which entails mutual and informal obligations that have evolved in that society. It really doesn't matter who is inventing what or how; societies (on both the macro and micro scale) settle into an agreed-upon norm. Granted, some may have more compassion than others, but even the most rudimentary form is what binds the basic units of society.

It was addressed to Mark, and done somewhat tongue in cheek. We've had many discussions on the topic.

[Honorentheos]

17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Timely that Jeff Lindsay recently started a series about the evidence for Mark's short ending being the original.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-book-of-mormon-versus-consensus-of.html

Interesting, don't you think? 

...

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I apologize for missing your post earlier.

I expected a challenge to the Marcan Appendix would arise at some point. Lindsay's covers territory similar to what one hears from Biblical fundamentalists who defend the ending because it's in the Bible, and it seems Lindsey finds common ground there because the Marcan Appendix is quoted by Jesus in the Book of Mormon (not unlike the Deutero-Isaiah problems).

First off, please keep in mind that part of the evidence in the OP is supporting the Marcan Appendix more so than relying on it. By illustrating that Matthew and Luke diverge from one another precisely at the point that we lose Mark's account which they are widely believed to have relied on, supports that they did not have a common account at that point from which to draw.

Second, Lindsey avoids the problem that early Church fathers are in conflict here with some quoting from the longer ending and others not making use of it. Eusebius made note that many manuscripts of their time lacked the longer ending and called it into question.

The arguments for the Marcan Appendix being original aren't decided and, given that the evidence in my OP is supportive of it being the case rather than reliant on it being the case, I think it stands unmolested by Lindsey's taking the fundamentalist position on it being original despite the broad consensus among scholars. 

Quote

There are different kinds of evidence to consider, besides the Gospels and just picking out differences in the accounts, usually against the assumption that such accounts should not have differences, despite being written by different people from a different culture than ours, for different audiences at different times and then translated and transmitted by other people, as well as different approaches to evidence, including the Gospels.  If it's obvious and inescapable that my own knowledge and experience own limits, it should also be obvious and inescapable that the same applies to other people.  Some of what I know would be very difficult for me to transfer to someone else, though, truth be told, it would also be intellectually dubious for me to ignore when considering other perspectives.

Taking this at face value, I'd think you missed the point of the OP which isn't to point out differences. It's to point out how the internal reliance of Luke and Matthew on shared sources gives us insight into how they behave when they lack those common sources.

And how they behaved was to insert different, sometimes contradictory attempts to make sure their audience understood Jesus was the Messiah that results in conflicts in the narratives. 

In short, the argument is that one should be cautious of sources that collaborate but then contradict when they can't collaborate. The synoptics do this.