Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;(1 Peter 3:1 KJV)

It says nothing about what you are saying.

There is no doubt that Christianity has a very strong logical basis. In fact, people such as C.S. Lewis and Modern day Apologists like William Lane Craig, for example, have proved this time and time again.

However, some things just can’t be explained, but only experienced. But even if we could explain and prove everything, there would still be a number of people who wouldn’t accept it, because they love doing evil; and to accept the truth about who and what they are, would put them in a situation of having to give up what they love to do. But they don’t want to do that. Thus, they would rather believe a lie than to accept the truth…

I have repeatedly presented these passages to priests and theologians over the last decade, but in vain. Nobody seems able to explain the “resurrection” theory as taught to the world through Christianity. One priest pointed out that Jesus himself prophesised that He would rise on the third day. I do not deny that — however, Jesus said He would rise. He didn’t say that His body would rise. Jesus spoke in the spirit, and he obviously meant that His spirit would rise on the third day.

I may add here that this question has resulted in considerable hostility and, if some people had their way, I’d have been burnt at the stake a decade ago. But I maintain that it is a logical question, and one that calls for an answer. Unfortunately, in my quest for the truth (which will set me free), all I have managed to do is stir up one hornets nest after another as I repeatedly discover that bigots are a dime a dozen in the Christian world.

I have now come to the conclusion that, in my own inimitable blundering way, I may have stumbled over one of the most catastrophic contradictions that stand beween The Bible and the Church.

If you believe that, you’d have to accept that God is not fair because there are many who never hear the gospel. Is God just? Some see this as mutually exclusive arguments.

Paul

With that said, I have a question for you: Do you belief one can find salvation only through Christianity? I wuold love t here back from yo. Thanks.

Does one have to prove that the Gospel accounts are “truth” per se in order for them to be considered legitimate works to shape the life of faith for a believer. I find that the first question most people ask (is this true?) is simply not the right first question. The right first questions about any Biblical text are: what does it teach about God and what does it teach about humanity and their relationship with one another? These are the questions that the Bible seeks to answer. Questions about historical accuracy are secondary questions.

Historicity becomes important in answering the two questions I have listed above because the texts should be studied within their socio-cultural context.

When we do this what we find are texts that were being written to communities of faith to shape the lives of those communities. The Bible cannot, in my estimation, be sufficiently interpreted by those who are asking the wrong questions first. The Bible is not a history book or a science book. It is a book of faith for communities of faith.

This is not to say that people can’t ask questions about historical “truth”. We can do that. But it does not really get at the core issues dealt with in the Bible.

I happen to believe that many of the writings of the Bible reflect the predelictions and the socio-cultural biases of their authors. But I also believe that the Canon is the inspired word of God which means that I – as a member of the faith community – must deal with scripture within this canonical framework. Others may want to deal with historicity. I can play that game, too. But historicity should not be the primary issue within the community of faith. The interpretation of the inspired word as it relates the life of the faith community in today’s cultural context should be the primary concern for the communities of faith that call scripture “holy”.

Within the movements that try to sort out the historicity of scripture, there is a desire to believe that scripture is somehow a guide for the life of the faithful, but rather than dealing with the text as a whole, it is often preferable to cut out the portions of the text that do not align with our own sensibilities about our contemporary spirituality and morality.

The Bible becomes a significantly more challenging text when we set aside our desire to pick parts out of it as true or untrue and begin dealing with it as a whole.

We can quote scholars all day long. For many of those that were listed above, a quick pull of some books off of my shelf could refute all that MT has said above and some of what Novato has said. And then you will tell me why my scholars are wrong and I will tell you why your scholars are wrong. I just don’t think that’s profitable.

Have you ever noticed how these apologetic conversations usually only drive people further into the positions they had when they began?

You said, “I do not understand people who claim that the Bible is the center of their lives,…”

Yes, you clearly don’t understand spiritual things.

Novato

The lack of external witnesses doesn’t prove anything. Drawing any conclusions based on the lack of external witness requires conjecture. Granted, other witnesses would strengthen the argument for the veracity of Mark’s account, but the absence of them isn’t PROOF of anything.

I never said it was PROOF of anything. There’s no such thing as PROOF except in mathematics and logic, Novato. In the scholarly and scientific disciplines we go where the weight of evidence lies. The silence in the outside sources is powerful evidence in conjunction with everything else I have mentioned.

(2) the creation of specific verses off of the OT (Neh 13);

Could be coincidence. In any case, conclusions based on this HYPOTHESIS require more conjecture and speculation. Are you forgetting that this is a supernatural book? God could inspire any parallel or coincidence he chooses. He chooses the foolish things to confound the wise.

Unfortunately “this is a supernatural book” is an unsupported assertion of yours and further, no scholar can make an argument that way (after all, I can claim any argument is supported by the supernatural. My Tibetan Buddhist wife believes Christianity is demon worship and my arguments are supported by her supernatural beliefs). Doing good scholarship requires that we renounce the idea that the supernatural has explanatory power. This position is called methodological naturalism, and was developed by Christians and Deists during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries as part of the development of modern science and scholarship. It’s what makes progress possible.

Specific verses in the Temple Ruckus are drawn from Neh 13 and also from Isa and Jer. i can give you the relevant citations of the scholarly literature (they are on my website where you can get them easily). But you haven’t read my article yet, have you?

(3) the presence of Mark’s style in all non-OT verses;

This is your interpretive opinion. Regardless of how expert your (or other’s) opinion may be, it’s still just an opinion and not evidence or proof of anything. Again a weak and subjective argument.

Alas, no, for redaction critics have identified the hand of Mark very clearly in 11:15-19 in verses not drawn from the OT. See, for example, the summary in Ludemann Jesus After 2,000 Years. It’s not my speculation, Novato. Arguments from style may contain an element of subjectivity, but it is a rather widely shared subjectivity.

(4) the low historical plausibility of Jesus being able to attack the money changers without any retaliation, and to interrupt traffic in the Temple (for any length of time);

Low plausibility? You’re speculating. This is a weak argument requiring more conjecture. It certainly isn’t proof of anything. Just a hunch. If Jesus was just a mere man, it’s still arguably plausible that he did what Mark claims. If he’s the miracle worker the scripture paints him to be, this would be no problem at all.

Novato, here is an argument you have utterly failed to grapple with, so I’ll simply repeat it again. (1) Roman soldiers stationed nearby specifically to prevent any trouble with the Temple (2) moneychangers naturally had own guards and far outnumbered Jesus & followers. They were performing a valuable religious service and there is no way a crowd would permit interference in their work (3) Temple had its own guards (4) Temple was so huge and packed with pilgrims at festival that there is no way Jesus’ demonstration would be noticed, let alone effective. All that applies double.

A further problem, as Buchanon (1991) points out, is that the Temple was not merely the main religious institution of the Jewish religion, it was also the national treasury and its best fortress. The Temple’s importance should not be underestimated: all three sides in the internal struggle during the Jewish War fought to gain control of the Temple. Not only is it highly unlikely that Jesus could have simply strolled in and gained control of the Temple, it is also highly unlikely that anyone would have permitted him to leave unmolested after such a performance.

(5) the story appears to echo the Onias story in Maccabees (whose appeared to his followers after his death, and whose brother’s name was Jesus)

Appears to echo…? Are you guessing again? Appearances and echos are not evidence; just more fodder to feed the conjecture mill of your mind.

Hmmm…let’s see. Onias III tried to prevent the vessels from being moved out of the Temple. Onias III was betrayed and killed. Onias III appeared to his followers after death. Are you saying that none of these parallel any events in the Jesus story? Oh, and Onias III had a brother named Jesus. Mark also offers us other Maccabee parallels, but that is neither here nor there.

(6) the fact that the Temple story appears to fall in sequence with the Elijah-Elisha stories from 2 Kings that also structure other Markan events.

Appearances are only facts in your imagination. The appearance of anything requires more conjecture and speculation in order to draw a conclusion.

Novato, there’s a couple of issues here you appear to be unaware of. The use of the word appear is scholarly idiom; it is simply a politeness form that prevents strong statements from being made. The fact is that Jesus’ career closely parallel’s Elijah’s, a fact known to scholars since the previous century (see Abbott’s entry in 1899 Encyclopedia Biblica or Goodspeed’s 1937 introduction. I believe William Sanday’s 1876 Introduction to the NT also mentions it, but I am not sure as have not read it in a while). Point is, that this is a known factoid and not conjecture on my part. So please stop using the word “conjecture” to describe something that has been known to scholars for a century or so. Here’s Edgar Goodspeed (1937, p125-6):

“Much closer parallels to the Gospel of Mark, at least, are afforded by the Elijah and Elisha cycles of the Books of Kings: I Kings, chapter 17-II Kings, chapter 2; and I Kings 19:19, II Kings chapters 2-13. It is a striking fact that almost everything Jesus is reported as doing in Mark has parallels in these cycles, which it is plain had a great influence on the writer. Indeed, the shadow of Elijah or Elisha falls on almost every page of the Gospel of Mark“

Do you think that all these scholars for the last century are “conjecturing”? Or what?

The best explication of this is Brodie’s A Crucial Bridge which is very affordable.

I guess I didn’t say this well. I’m hypothetically saying that even if your assertion that this scripture indicates that Jesus shut down the temple, just because you can’t find any further corroborating evidence that it happened, doesn’t prove that Mark’s account is fiction. I don’t agree with your assertion because Mark doesn’t say that the Temple was shut down, and to arrive at that conclusion requires more speculation.

Novato, I don’t think you quite understand the problem. The lack of corroborating evidence is not a problem for my claims, it is a problem for yours. You want to maintain that Jesus did this — prove it with evidence and argument. You can’t say that “He did it!” is the default position that I must bring down. That is not how scholarship works. The reality is that NO position is the default position and each must be supported by evidence and argument. I’ve supported mine with relevant citations from the scholarly lit. Your entire argument consists of calling this “conjecture.” See the problem here? When pressed for evidence for what you believe, you keep saying: but it could be true, and anyway, it is all miraculous, so Jesus could have done it. I argue from evidence, you argue from what looks like “faith” but is really more like a stubborn refusal to think about the issues.

Here’s the problem I alluded to earlier: you don’t know why you believe it, but you are certain you are right. If I press you for reasons, you tell me that you are certain scholars have solved these problems although you cannot name even a single one who has. The problem is not my unwillingness to engage with the material or with the people write about it. The problem is not my unwillingness to read and learn. It is not me who retreats into stubborn truculence when confronted with problems. It is not me who is certain he is right even though he has no idea why.

If you have time, head over to some of the websites I’ve mentioned and read, read, read. I do not understand people who claim that the Bible is the center of their lives, yet have put less effort into reading about it than they do into reading about the claims on food packaging.

Michael Turton

Your argument is:

(1) lack of external witnesses, including other Christian writings;

The lack of external witnesses doesn’t prove anything. Drawing any conclusions based on the lack of external witness requires conjecture. Granted, other witnesses would strengthen the argument for the veracity of Mark’s account, but the absence of them isn’t PROOF of anything.

(2) the creation of specific verses off of the OT (Neh 13);

Could be coincidence. In any case, conclusions based on this HYPOTHESIS require more conjecture and speculation. Are you forgetting that this is a supernatural book? God could inspire any parallel or coincidence he chooses. He chooses the foolish things to confound the wise.

(3) the presence of Mark’s style in all non-OT verses;

This is your interpretive opinion. Regardless of how expert your (or other’s) opinion may be, it’s still just an opinion and not evidence or proof of anything. Again a weak and subjective argument.

(4) the low historical plausibility of Jesus being able to attack the money changers without any retaliation, and to interrupt traffic in the Temple (for any length of time);

Low plausibility? You’re speculating. This is a weak argument requiring more conjecture. It certainly isn’t proof of anything. Just a hunch. If Jesus was just a mere man, it’s still arguably plausible that he did what Mark claims. If he’s the miracle worker the scripture paints him to be, this would be no problem at all.

(5) the story appears to echo the Onias story in Maccabees (whose appeared to his followers after his death, and whose brother’s name was Jesus)

Appears to echo…? Are you guessing again? Appearances and echos are not evidence; just more fodder to feed the conjecture mill of your mind.

(6) the fact that the Temple story appears to fall in sequence with the Elijah-Elisha stories from 2 Kings that also structure other Markan events.

Appearances are only facts in your imagination. The appearance of anything requires more conjecture and speculation in order to draw a conclusion.

I said:

Secondly, if Jesus did shut down the temple, the fact that you can’t find any corroborating evidence doesn’t prove that it didn’t happen.

I guess I didn’t say this well. I’m hypothetically saying that even if your assertion that this scripture indicates that Jesus shut down the temple, just because you can’t find any further corroborating evidence that it happened, doesn’t prove that Mark’s account is fiction. I don’t agree with your assertion because Mark doesn’t say that the Temple was shut down, and to arrive at that conclusion requires more speculation.

Novato