| OT Arguments | NT Arguments | Bedrock Issues |
BEDROCK ISSUES
What are 'bedrock' issues?? These are issues that are really quite difficult to 'scoot around'. I don't know if you agree if my selection of these issues is good or not. But they are issues that I have trouble sorting out in the overall picture.
100 AD REPRESENTS A 'WALL' THAT BLOCKS EARLIER VIEWS
Background: As you read the various 'apologetics' concerning the New Testament, no matter how you work the logic, the radar-screen goes blank with the 'last' book written [*]. The 'witnesses' seem to disappear except for two or three, over almost 150 years. Why? Only in the mid-3rd century does the story pick up again, with area bishops pulling the strings and arguing the theology.
The Hopi Indian Nation. Located an hour east of Flagstaff, they held onto their culture with tenacity. So today, they are quite unique.Issues: You can talk about the credibility of early Christians in attesting to the writers if you wish. But by the 4th century even Eusebius was waffling around quite a bit. Such a massive offering to save all humans for a joyous afterlife were consigned to a few letters and a hand full of memoirs. And then silence.
INSERTIONS. (aka 'INTERPOLATIONS')
Background: As the attackers and defenders tear into the Bible text, each argues with the assumption of text that came 'from the author'. But quite a number of verse-blocks sure 'look' inserted to an average reader. Complete shift in thought. Complete shift in vocabulary mix. Complete shift in syntax mix. And gratuitous to boot. Some impacting millions of believers. [*] What do you do, hold your breath and keep reading?
Problems: If you read my analyses of the greek text (as well as earlier hebrew) further on, insertions sure do look like a problem. Most appear to be theological adjustments to Jesus' missing return and consolidation into a formal church. That concerns me a little.
Issue: To be frank, I don't have any 'proof' of all of this. But as computer analysis becomes more and more sophisticated, I think this problem will become one of the most difficult to deal with.
MATTHEW CLEARLY THOUGHT MARK WAS WRONG
Background: Or maybe 'MARK THOUGHT MATTHEW WAS WRONG'? You could reverse this statement, depending on who you thought 'wrote first'. Mathematically and looking at the syntax mix, Mark clearly wrote first. But either way, if the second writer used the first writer's material and 'corrected' it, by definition, the first was believed to be wrong. Or the second writer was wrong. Someone was not correct. WITH INTENT..
Problems: If the changes were minor, you could probably rationalize divine inspiration as accomodating minor errors. But when the crucifiction, burial and resurrection details are changed, you really have to question 'why?'. Something SO CRUCIAL to the believers at the time, why?
Issue: The obvious answer is that the gospel writers didn't perceive their writings and personal memories to be 'inspired'. Indeed, their writings were termed 'memoirs'. [*] If so, then the relationship of Mark versus Matthew and Luke would 'work'. But then you would need a really loose definition of 'inspiration'. Personally, that's the only way I can reconcile the differences. The early Christians knew the witnesses, knew the story and were willing to risk their lives for those beliefs. Mark, Matthew and Luke were simply writing down what the early Christians had already heard in various ways. The specific details were (apparently) not critical.
THE JEWS DIDN'T BUY IT
Background: As you read through the gospels, with Jesus describing the coming 'reign of the heavens' (I like that phrase), the Jews oddly didn't believe it. Not to get too mathematical, but no matter how you cut it, the bulk of jews, whether leaders or everyday jews, just didn't see a messiah in their midst. And assuming that the story is correct, the leaders (at least), promptly had the messiah killed. What's even more hard to believe is that the jews, having successfully killed God's son, then proceeded to get Jerusalem and the temple completely blown up. What a coincidence (see Luke 19:44).
Problems: On the one hand, the miracles were to serve as the 'proof' ... or as John calls them 'signs'. Convincing proof. Honestly if I saw a man retrieved from death after 3 days, I'd be on-board in a heart-beat. This life and the next, sign me up! But they didn't sign up. In a way, the miracles and the limited response oddly serve to suggest a definite logical problem. On the one hand, proof of divinity. On the other hand, a question of the proof.
Issue: The subsequent writers spoke of the gospel being presented first to the jews and rejected. Therefore the gentiles got a chance (like me). But given unbelievable miracles of joy and eternal life, why such an unbelievable disbelief?
JESUS DIDN'T BOTHER TO PROVE HIMSELF
Background: When you're a believer, you don't 'bother' too much looking at the account details. But, take a minute and think about it ... after Jesus un-died, he 'could' have stopped in to say 'hello' with the jewish leadership. Or Pontius Pilate. Maybe even Ceasar himself. When you're divine, you can pop-in with anyone you choose, can't you? Why didn't he?
Problems: It's interesting, but I 'guess', the early Christians (and unbelieving jews) had similar questions. In Romans, Paul goes to truly contorted lengths to try to explain why the jews didn't believe. Apparently, they weren't supposed to, so the gentiles could save the jews ... right? But, today, if you heard about an unbelievable miracle, the first thing you'd ask is ... who were the witnesses? It is interesting in the gospels (maybe 30 years later than Paul?), again there are hints, though presented before his death ... 'for no one in secret doth anything, and himself seeketh to be in public; if thou dost these things -- manifest thyself to the world' (Joh 7:4 YLT).
Issue: Of course, you probably know there's almost no mention of 'Jesus' in the various histories at the time. Philo was a well-read historian at the time of Jesus. Complete silence. Josephus mentions James, but the Jesus attribution is likely second-century. I don't know ... if indeed you believe in Jesus, you have to assume the jews were clearly not meant to believe?
Oh, wait a minute. Jesus spoke about that. 'That seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they may turn, and the sins may be forgiven them.' (Mar 4:12 YLT). Jesus didn't want the jews' sins forgiven. Actually, the quote is from Isaiah 6:10, with the 'sins forgiven' new to Jesus (compare to Mat 13:15, where healing is substituted).
JESUS DIDN'T MAKE IT BACK" (not yet anyway)
Background: It's really hard not to conclude that Jesus promised his eminent return in the first century. More specifically, in the first half of the first century (if you assume the chief priest was 50 or so). [*] What happened? The traditional answer is that Jesus was speaking of his resurrection and ascension. That being so, however, the Jesus quotes would not fit each instance. Even with the ascension, Paul (who personally chatted with Jesus after his death) was still speaking of an eminent return. He was a man 'in the know'. By the time of the book of 'Peter', apparently there were 'scoffers' questioning if a return was even in the works. [*] Some sort of promise had been made. A sizable group of people weren't expecting to die. Were the promisers inspired?
Problems: I often think about what could drive the early Christians to often give up families, personal safety, and normality for an 'unknown man' who the Romans later strung up, few questions asked. It had to be the resurrection. Both Jesus' and their own. Then nothing happened. Jerusalem died. By the late 1st century, the story had moved on to 'when you least expect it' per the gospel writers. So by the time of Rome's death, it no longer mattered. Any time was a good time.
Issue: I don't doubt the divine option for timing. But the lengthy time has created a tremendous and ongoing discussion on exactly 'what' was promised in the first place. The languages are long dead. The original books long gone. Even the folks who knew folks who knew .... they're gone too. Now days, we run sophisticated computer programs (we think) on the old greek ... greek that expressed the excitement of Jesus' coming.