10 – Scholarly Scandal: the Truth withheld from Christians

‘This is the BIG ONE. Paul examines why the majority of Christians remain ignorant of their scriptures and what the underlying reasons for this ignorance is. A damning exposure into the two faced nature of the Church.’

‘If you like the work we do, then please do kindly consider subscribing to our channel, Dawah Digital, for more. We intend to bring you only the most original content. Made by Muslims, for Muslims.’

Peace be with you,

The Dawah Digital Team

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Scholarship

30 replies

    • Regarding this person’s statement, to be fair, the approach of the Catholic Church (which has never been “Bible only”) can be different from the approaches of Bart Ehrman and (pronounced critic of Catholicism) James White. I’m not sure James White said the story is “not true,” but if he did, I would wonder on what grounds he asserts such. It is one thing to claim a story does not have good extant early manuscript support in favor of it being part of the Biblical text, but it is quite another thing to claim a story is therefore not true.

      For the author of that post to then declare they found Islam, I have to wonder if we have imbalanced scales. How, precisely, would we measure the historicity of statements in, for example, the Gospel of John? Based on whether there is corresponding support in the Synoptics? How would we measure statements about Jesus in the Qur’an (e.g. that He spoke while an infant, or formed a bird from clay, neither of which I claim is untrue)? Also based on whether there is corresponding support in the Synoptics? If we lined up a bunch of secular scholars like Bart Ehrman, and asked them to vote on whether there is good “historical evidence” for whether Jesus spoke as an infant or made a bird from clay, should what the masajid teach be determined by that vote? Or if we took a vote, today, among secular scholars regarding whether there is good historical evidence for the virgin birth, should the churches and masajid likewise agree to kowtow to the decision of that vote, no matter what the outcome?

      Like

    • ‘How, precisely, would we measure the historicity of statements in, for example, the Gospel of John?’

      I recommend this solid introduction by a top Oxford NT scholar on this very topic. Incidentally, he is a believing Christian.

      https://www.amazon.com/Christology-New-Testament-Earliest-Followers/dp/0664224318

      Your other examples concern the supernatural about which historians can say nothing. But the passage at issue is the non miraculous story in John which does not belong in the fourth gospel. No one knows if it is historical. There are other passages like it in today’s Bible. These facts are not taught in churches. Hence the intellectual scandal.

      Like

    • I’m familiar with the work. In his ninth chapter, for example, he does open right up with a comparison of John and the Synoptics. But this begs a methodological question: is a presentation of Jesus which lacks corroboration from the Synoptics therefore unhistorical?

      Now I know Tuckett does not boil it down only to content (rather he also gets into differences in overall presentation [which I believe we have discussed in years past]), but the question still remains: is it really the case that historicity should be measured by the degree to which the Synoptics are mirrored?

      I’ll close with this: there is no place in Tuckett’s book where he gives a clear methodology for determining the historicity of any particular statement in John (or the Synoptics for that matter). And this is the case with all scholarly works that might speak generally about historicity (or interpretation, or even, bluntly, fiction) within John.

      Like

    • Tuckett does have a very clear and sophisticated methodology for assessing the likely historicity of the gospels.

      Is your position that Jesus actually said the long speeches attributed to him in John? And that he said the ‘I ams’? Or are they as most conservative scholars maintain, fiction?

      Like

    • Greetings Paul.

      Paul asked:
      «Is your position that Jesus actually said the long speeches attributed to him in John?»

      Yes, in reality, it is my faith based assumption that everything attributed to Jesus by the Bible was actually uttered by Him. But I think that assumption is irrelevant to my methodological question. Let’s assume this morning I lost my faith, and became an atheist. In this scenario, I’m not even sure there was an historical Jesus, but I’m willing to assume there might’ve been. Even under those conditions, I could say that Tuckett does not present a clear methodology for determining the historicity of any particular statement attributed to Jesus by any Biblical text.

      And, honestly, that thought experiment is not entirely fantastic, as I actually started reading Tuckett before I became a Christian (i.e. his book on Q dates to before I became a Christian, and his book on Christology dates to back when I was still an atheist [perhaps the Q book does as well, but I’m not sure]). So I’ve actually had the very real experience of reading Tuckett as a non-Christian, and while I enjoyed everything I read from him, it is nonetheless the case that I could see the amount of speculation in his approach (and the approach of seemingly every other NT scholar as well).

      Paul wrote:
      «Tuckett does have a very clear and sophisticated methodology for assessing the likely historicity of the gospels.»

      It’s a broad and general methodology (overlapping at times with stuff we have discussed in years past), but it remains the case that he presents no clear methodology for determining whether any particular statement is historical or not. And this is important, because if we cannot say with certainty whether any particular statement is historical or not, then broader declarations about entire corpora (e.g. the Synoptics, John) are more akin to general feelings than something tabulated or calculated.

      Now, mind you, agreeing with my position does not mean Christianity therefore somehow wins by default. As I tried to convey above, I could be an atheist and take the same position regarding the degree to which general speculation is a part of the scholarship of Tuckett and others.

      Like

    • “do Christians believe that Jesus was a man? We certainly do”
      Notice that a (man) = a created being.
      Jesus, therefore, is a created being.
      I ask Allaah(sw) refuge from worshipping a created being as christians do.

      Like

  1. I have a theory as to why clergy don’t teach these theories concluded by some scholars…they don’t believe them. My priest certainly doesn’t.

    Tonight I’m going to do a post responding to your analysis or the Christology of Acts. I’ll share it here.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Allen fried your argument, you cannot take one part of a sentence and reject the other that contradicts Islam. Surah 4:157 is false; which proves islam and the Qur’an are false.

    Like

  3. Allan Ruhl wrote: about Paul Williams comment on Acts 2:22

    “Interestingly, the final words this man are actually first two words of the next verse, verse 23. Why does Williams quote verse 22, then the first two words of verse 23 then stop? Perhaps if we read the rest of verse 23 and then verse 24 we’ll see why Paul Williams stopped where he did. The verse continues here:

    handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.

    Does Paul Williams believe in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus according to the foreknowledge of God? I don’t think he does. This simply shows that the early Christians weren’t Muslims.

    . . .

    First of all, do Christians believe that Jesus was a man? We certainly do. Perhaps if I were a monophysite this argument would carry some weight but the Catholic Church believes in Chalcedonian Christology and the Hypostatic Union. In other words, Jesus is both God and man. In fact, if we keep reading the speech of Peter, we find something interesting. In Acts 3:15 Peter says the following:

    and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

    Peter calls Jesus the Author of life! This is certainly a divine title because only God is the Author of life. This verse shows without a doubt that Jesus Christ is God and that the first Christians were not Muslims. They believed in the crucifixion, death, resurrection and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul Williams and all other Muslims deny this.

    One last verse for Paul Williams. When Stephen was being stoned in Acts 7, just before he died, he asked his Lord Jesus Christ to receive his spirit. Acts 7:59 reads as follows:

    While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

    When we look at the theology of Peter and the early Church we see clearly that they are Christians and not Muslims. They believed in the crucifixion, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ.”

    _______

    I was planning to write a similar response, but Allan beat me to it.
    Good job Allan.

    Like

    • “do Christians believe that Jesus was a man? We certainly do”
      Notice that a (man) = a created being.
      Jesus, therefore, is a created being.
      I ask Allaah(sw) refuge from worshipping a created being as christians do.

      Like

    • The eternal Son of God (John 17:5), God the Son, (same substance with the Father), the second person of the Trinity, became a man. John 1:1-5; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Luke 1:34-35; Hebrews 10:5 – “a body You have prepared for Me”

      Like

    • Why do you ignore the fact that Christian theology teaches that Jesus is both man and God by nature – that He is one person with 2 natures?

      Like

    • ken do you worship “fully god” and “fully man” which MAKES up 1 person?
      do you BREAK the person in your worship because you might be doing idolatry with the “fully man” part?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Revelation 19:10
      Revelation 22:8-9
      Matthew 14:33
      John 1:1-5
      John 1:14
      Philippians 2:5-8
      Revelation chapters 4-5
      John 8:56-58
      John 10:30
      John 17:5

      Like

    • ken , if a parrot mind took over your mind and you started to think like a parrot, would you be a “bird brain” or “fully human and fully bird” ?

      a human mind taken over by parrot mind can no longer be a human mind unless the human mind FULLY experience the parrot mind.

      a parrot mind taken over by a human mind, can no longer be a parrot mind, unless the parrot fully experience IN its mind a human mind.

      if your person thought like a parrot , then where did the human mind go? did it become PERSONLESS? what i am trying to say is that jesus the person IN his divine mind fully experienced being limited and weak in knowledge, sight and hearing .

      more clarification

      logos/person = A and B

      when logos is thinking like B, where did A go? did it become “logosless” ?

      Like

    • lol Ken no one will look up your lazy list. Quote in full. Dont be lazy.

      Like

    • “Why do you ignore the fact that Christian theology teaches that Jesus is both man and God by nature – that He is one person with 2 natures?”

      let me try to demonstrate to you something.
      imagine your human mind was able to become fully parrot mind and you started thinking like a parrot. now in the state of thinking like a parrot, your human mind, where did it go? did it become DISCONNECTED to the parrot mind?
      when your human mind became parrot mind, you can be in a THOUSAND different bodies, but you will be IDENTIFIED as a parrot

      if the parrot MIND became human mind, the parrot would be IDENTIFIED as human THINKER.

      now i am trying to tell you christians that the way out of this is for you christians to admit that the human mind fully experience the parrot mind IN its human mind.

      in this way BOTH minds are connected and EXPERIENCE each other.

      so when jesus the man says “i don’t know” this means the mind which says “i don’t know” is fully connected to the mind which says ” i do know” which implies the omniscient mind is experiencing the ignorant mind.

      in this situation the divine mind is not DISCONNECTED mind living in jesus’ body, it has full experience of what it is not to know. OTHERWISE if you says “no , no, no that’s the human mind”

      then you HAVE made the DIVINE mind WITHOUT PERSON.
      SINCE WHEN the person is IGNORANT , where did the divine mind go? has the divine mind become PERSONLESS?

      Like

    • quote :
      33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “ you are the fully man and fully god son of god.”

      how much person do you worship ken?

      Like

  4. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    2 He was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

    4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

    5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only unique one from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    John 1:1-5, 14

    consistent with Acts 3:15, that Jesus is “the author of life”

    Like

    • i think mark writings decades later is telling his gentile audience that jews like peter weren’t promoting a crucified jesus. mark even gives clues when he says “to those on the outside everything is said in parables….”

      Bart December 31, 2014
      I think it’s actually a major point that Mark wants to make. No one during Jesus’ life — not the townsfolk from Nazareth, not the Jewish leaders, not his own family, not even his disciples — understood that he was the messiah who, precisely, had to die. It was only an outsider, the centurion, a pagan, who saw it. That’s the way the Christian mission in Mark’s day was working. Only outside Gentiles were buying it.

      some very interesting comments here that the jewish followers were clearly not promoting crucified jesus

      http://vridar.org/2017/08/08/if-the-gospel-of-mark-condemns-peter-why-do-we-sympathize-with-him/

      with all this in mind, is it not possible the author of acts is trying to reconcile the jerusalem church with the beliefs of the gentiles who are promoting a crucified jesus?

      Like

  5. Dr. James White regularly equips his congregation (he is one of the elders / pastors of this church) in Textual critical matters, textual variants, and has a whole series on the manuscript of P-45. (now up to 19 messages)

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=phxrefbap&keyword=Papyrus+P45&keyworddesc=Papyrus+P45

    Like

  6. The main reason that believing Pastors don’t share on Sunday mornings/ Sunday evenings, or classes the unbelieving scholarship of skeptic and unbelieving scholars like Bart Ehrman, John D. Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, Rudolph Bultmann, Elaine Pagels, Walter and F. C. Bauer, James Tabor, etc.

    is because it is UNBELIEVING scholarship shot full of anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions and other false claims and false theories, speculations, false conclusions.

    But some do talk about how believing scholarship answers those questions and issues that scholarship brings up.

    Like

  7. Ken,
    We don’t igonre your nonsense.
    We simply say that if you cannot define Jesus except by saying that he’s fully man( i.e. a created being) & fully god, then you cannot escape from worshiping a created being when you worship Jesus.
    It’s a very simple equation.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: