The Narrow Path Ministries

Emmet wanted to answer the following PM in the public forum so as to benefit others who might be curious about such things. The context of the following discussion is "evidence of a personal God and evidence of the New Testament scriptures." Emmet rejects the claims of the New Testament but accepts the evidence for a personal God. I found this a curious paradox and asked him to explain his views. I'll quote the most intriguing part of his answer below, then add my response to him.

I approach relationship with God as romantic (in both the broad sense and the narrow); it is not about argumentation. Which is not to say that romantic relationships should not be submitted to rational critique - they must be so, as a safeguard - but they are not so much grounded in rationality.

I must admit that your answer to this question startled me, though not in a bad way. I find it interesting that you tackle the issue of God with romantic subjectivism and the issue of his revelation to mankind as merely empirical. Though I would never argue this way when debating the scriptures with a skeptic, I myself believe the writings about Jesus primarily because I follow his commands and find them to be true. The observations he made about life and mankind also match what I observe as well. Unlike most people in my camp, I don't believe Jesus came to start a new religion. Rather, I believe he came to abolish religion and set people free from the constraints of such things. His goal was to start a family that resembled their Father. Some Christians understand this and some don't. It's been that way for two thousand years.

Although I do enjoy debating the scriptures, the arguments I present to you and others are not the reason I became a follower of Christ. It just so happens that objective argumentation is the only realm in which those discussions can take place. There's a Chinese man named Brother Yun whose biography I read a while back. His story parallels the miraculous nature of the events we read about in the book of Acts, yet these events took place in the past decade. Better yet, the Chinese government has corroberated much of what he said, though they exiled him to Germany in the late nineties.

I only bring this up to say that I believe subjective experience is indeed a powerful thing and I don't discredit this form of argumentation out of hand. Likewise, my faith comes first and foremost from the fact that when I follow the teachings of Christ I feel closer to God in a subjective way. The arguments from fulfilled prophecy, textual criticism, archeology and the like simply set me apart from the homeless guy on the corner who had an expeience with God and now deems himself a prophetic voice. In other words, I have a subjective (primary) and objective (secondary) reason for believing the scriptures.

I'd like to pose a rather difficult question, if you don't mind. You obviously reject the New Testament writings as fabricated or otherwise deluded, but I'm curious if there are any stumbling blocks that still remain? In other words, are there things about the New Testament scriptures that ever make you pause and think that maybe they are true, before you "come to your senses" once more and reject them? You may wonder why I'd ask a Jewish man to defend the New Testament. I live by a principle I read from Proverbs that says, "The first man to plead his case always seems right, until another comes along and cross examines him." For this reason, I always look at arguments for and against my preferred (yes, preferred) position. There are things that stumble me. I'm curious what stumbles you.

Thank you for your time and honesty. God bless.

Hello, JC,

Thank you for posting this and for your willingness to share more broadly.

Emmet rejects the claims of the New Testament but accepts the evidence for a personal God.

To clarify: it's not, actually, so much a matter of "accept[ing] evidence" for a personal God; it's not so much an evidentiary thing for me, but a romantic thing.

I must admit that your answer to this question startled me, though not in a bad way. I find it interesting that you tackle the issue of God with romantic subjectivism and the issue of his revelation to mankind as merely empirical.

The difference between a personal God and the bible is that the latter is more susceptible to empirical inquiry. It is virtually impossible to determine on an empirical basis whether there is a personal God or not. Human experiences that seem to confirm such a being may be chalked up to psychological factors; a personal God may be a useful projection of the human mind. Other phenomena that seem to confirm a personal God (e.g., answered prayers) could be attributable to coincidence - or even to impersonal spiritual dynamics that human thought has personified, much as natural dynamics were personified in ancient human mythology. Yet, then again, it is hardly possible to disprove the existence of a personal God.

By contrast, it is much easier to engage the biblical text on empirical terms. It is a concrete entity that is comparatively easy to examine for internal and external consistencies. And even though there are a great many people who nurture a romantic relationship with the bible, I do not feel that romantic relationships should be spared from rational critique - as you quoted from my earlier posting, "they must be [submitted to rational critique], as a safeguard...."

Though I would never argue this way when debating the scriptures with a skeptic, I myself believe the writings about Jesus primarily because I follow his commands and find them to be true. The observations he made about life and mankind also match what I observe as well.

(1) In the first place, thank you again for being willing to share this perspective more broadly. I wonder how many other people orient their understanding this way. It seems like much of Christianity is oriented the other way around: believe in the message because of the writings.

(2) Beyond this: in the vein of substantiating things experientially, allow me to recommend the commandments of the Torah! Daniel asked for ten days, no? For my part, I would lobby for a ten-week trial, especially around the fall holydays so as to maximize the experience.

(3) When it comes to observations and ethical teachings, Jesus of Nazareth left a didactic legacy that is a rightful inheritance of Jewish people today; he is a predecessor in the Jewish tradition, like Akiba ben Joseph and Yeshua ben Sira. Like numerous others, his wisdom remains valuable, though possibly imperfect; like numerous others, the better part of his legacy is admixed with questionable legend and adulation from his admirers.

So I will caution against wedding validation of Jesus' wisdom in your personal life to acceptance of the entire Christian paradigm. It is not necessary to buy the whole cow. Rather (to mix metaphors) it is important to learn how to eat the fruit and spit out the pits.

Unlike most people in my camp, I don't believe Jesus came to start a new religion. Rather, I believe he came to abolish religion and set people free from the constraints of such things.

The latter theme is common enough amongst American Christians in recent times, but it is naive, just as the conventional despising of tradition in some Christian circles is naive.

Religion is a basic part of human culture, and when it is healthy, humanity enjoys a mighty helpmeet. People can benefit immensely from common paradigms of belief, discipline, and celebration. These are the fundamental components of religion, and (if one is inclined to accept the New Testament accounts) Jesus, for his part, does not shrink from providing his followers with each.

The arguments from fulfilled prophecy, textual criticism, archeology and the like simply set me apart from the homeless guy on the corner who had an expeience with God and now deems himself a prophetic voice.

Hmmm.... "Homeless" ... "experience with God" ... "deems himself a prophetic voice".... How many people in the bible does this description fit?

In other words, are there things about the New Testament scriptures that ever make you pause and think that maybe they are true, before you "come to your senses" once more and reject them? ... I live by a principle I read from Proverbs that says, "The first man to plead his case always seems right, until another comes along and cross examines him." For this reason, I always look at arguments for and against my preferred (yes, preferred) position. There are things that stumble me. I'm curious what stumbles you.

I can appreciate your point from Proverbs, and a responsible concern for truth will give a fair hearing to different views and critiques.

As with many things, my understanding of the New Testament evolves; each time I revisit it I bring a different backlog of resources/experience/personal growth, and new things can come to mind. When I come to a new (or fresh) awareness or understanding of a particular component, that can prompt a review of my broader stance.

And the New Testament can have a certain power to it. But then again, reading the autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda had a remarkable effect on my consciousness, too. In such cases, it can be important to take a step back and regain a broader perspective; it is possible to become intoxicated by a strong piece of literature, and to mistake that for enlightenment.


If I may ask, what things "stumble" you?


Shalom,
Emmet

Thank you for responding, Emmet.

The difference between a personal God and the bible is that the latter is more susceptible to empirical inquiry. It is virtually impossible to determine on an empirical basis whether there is a personal God or not.

I must admit that I'm personally influenced (and impressed) by the philisophical works of Francis Schaeffer and William Craig. I agree with them that certain facets of our creation give way to a personal God, so a fair deduction can be made. A deduction is not evidence but I'm satisfied with the conclusions we can draw from the hard sciences as well as philisophical ponderance. This, more than anything else, is what drew Anthony Flew to finally reject Atheism after building his career on it.

The latter theme is common enough amongst American Christians in recent times, but it is naive, just as the conventional despising of tradition in some Christian circles is naive.

Actaully, my views on this are not as common as you might think. I serve as an area leader and teaching pastor for a large church with a varied body. The distinctive of our church is that we're multi-cultural. You'll meet people from Egypt, China, Iran, Africa and the Philippines each time you visit. This mesh of different cultures has given me some perspective on the issue. I can assure you that I hold a minority opinion on my views of religion. That's possibly another topic altogether.

Hmmm.... "Homeless" ... "experience with God" ... "deems himself a prophetic voice".... How many people in the bible does this description fit?

Since I was trying to draw a parallel, quite a few. But I can test their claims a lot easier than a guy on the street who says Mary spoke to him through the bun of his Big Mac and wants him to murder Klingons.

If I may ask, what things "stumble" you?

Thank you for asking. What stumbles me more than anything is actually the church. I often look around and feel very depressed that this is what Christ purchased. I try very hard not to be judgemental since we all have our faults, but the "cultural Christianity" in America greatly stumbles me and makes me wonder why this body of people can't get it together. I hope this isn't offensive to you, but it reminds me of Israel in Jeremiah's day. The Jews had special revelation from God and trampled on it, causing God to look very silly among the other nations because of their obstinance. The church has fared no better throughout much of history.

I'll conclude with this: Whenever I dwell on the state of the church to the point of discouragement, God always beings a person (prophet?) into my life to shift my thinking and give me hope. When I see a brother succumb to adultery, later I'll witness another brother act with rightousness amidst overwhelming temptation. This kind of thing brings discouragement, then encouragement. It's a roller-coaster of spiritual highs and lows, but it's worth stepping into the ride... in my opinion.

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

Quote: The difference between a personal God and the bible is that the latter is more susceptible to empirical inquiry. It is virtually impossible to determine on an empirical basis whether there is a personal God or not.

I must admit that I'm personally influenced (and impressed) by the philisophical works of Francis Schaeffer and William Craig. I agree with them that certain facets of our creation give way to a person God, so a fair deduction can be made. A deduction is not evidence but I'm satisfied with the conclusions we can draw from the hard scienes as well as philisophical ponderance. This, more than anything else, is what drew Anthony Flew to finally reject Atheism after building his career on it.

Certainly, reasons can be introduced to support belief in God, though they are not utterly determinative, and even intelligent design does not necessitate personhood. (Mr. Flew, for his part, does not posit an interpersonal God.) Though I myself appreciate the concept of homologous creation, God could be something unimaginably other than what we might extrapolate from the world around us.

Anyhow - perhaps you will agree that God cannot be put under the microscope (so to speak) like the bible can?

Actaully, my views on this are not as common as you might think. I serve as an area leader and teaching pastor for a large church with a varied body. The distinctive of our church is that we're multi-cultural. You'll meet people from Egypt, China, Iran, Africa and the Philippines each time you visit. This mesh of different cultures has given me some perspective on the issue. I can assure you that I hold a minority opinion on my views of religion. That's possibly another topic altogether.

I was referring to your comment: "Unlike most people in my camp, I don't believe Jesus came to start a new religion. Rather, I believe he came to abolish religion and set people free from the constraints of such things." You may have a distinctive church, but this seemed a common enough opinion - at least in my part of the country (I should not assume that everywhere the climate parallels the Pacific Northwest). Perhaps you may wish to flesh it out a bit more?

What stumbles me more than anything is actually the church. I often look around and feel very depressed that this is what Christ purchased. I try very hard not to be judgemental since we all have our faults, but the "cultural Christianity" in America greatly stumbles me and makes me wonder why this body of people can't get it together. I hope this isn't offensive to you, but it reminds me of Israel in Jeremiah's day. The Jews had special revelation from God and trampled on it, causing God to look very silly among the other nations because of their obstinance. The church has fared no better throughout much of history.

Perhaps you will pardon a rather Jewish response: this might not be such an embarrassing issue, if the church were not theoretically supposed to be better than Israel. But I appreciate your recognizing this; it is obnoxious when Christians point out the failings of Israel, without noticing how the church likewise is dressed in rags.


Shalom,
Emmet

Anyhow - perhaps you will agree that God cannot be put under the microscope (so to speak) like the bible can?

The most obvious answer would be, "Yes, I agree." However, the issue contains great nuance. For example, the bible claims to give us direct information about the supernatural world, which can't be tested in a laboratory. However, it also claims a great number of historical facts and details about real people. Proving that Jesus walked the Earth and led people to believe he was a miracle-worker isn't hard evidence that the claims of Christianity are true. Therefore, historical arguments, even when proven, can only take us so far. But, of course, your contention is that modern scholarship has proven the bible's historical claims are false. I've concluded just the opposite. Of course, we'll have to see what James Cameron has recently uncovered.

You may have a distinctive church, but this seemed a common enough opinion - at least in my part of the country (I should not assume that everywhere the climate parallels the Pacific Northwest). Perhaps you may wish to flesh it out a bit more?

Actually, I wasn't making the claim that my church is distinct in it's view of religion, only that it's culturally diverse. It's my own personal view of religion that is not widely held today. Modern people are indeed rebelling against the religion of their parents and all the hymn books, stained glass windows, bake sales and everything assocaited with 1950's cultural Christianity. I have nothing against any of those things. When I say that Jesus set us free from religion I'll get a thousand "amens" from church-goers. However, it's just a word game with most people. To me, it's an astonishing thing that God only looks at the heart. While the phrase itself is well-worn, the concept is revolutionary for the person who actually believes it. I can develop this further if you're interested.

Perhaps you will pardon a rather Jewish response: this might not be such an embarrassing issue, if the church were not theoretically supposed to be better than Israel. But I appreciate your recognizing this; it is obnoxious when Christians point out the failings of Israel, without noticing how the church likewise is dressed in rags.

There is actually a way I reconcile all this and it makes a great deal of sense to me. You will no doubt accuse me of being "overly convenient" in my explaination so I proceed with great caution. Some of this is semantics but there's nothing I can do about that.

I believe that since the beginning of creation, some have walked with God in faith and obedience and others have not. At one time those people who walked with God were primarily Jewish, even though Israel and Judah, as a whole, did not maintain their faith and obedience. That portion of Jews and gentiles who tried to maintain a pure heart before God were the real "church," in my opinion. Since the time of Christ, I believe many more people are walking with God in faith and obedience and these people are also the real "church." As Steve Gregg is fond of saying, God looks down and sees all who are his. Some of them are in institutional churches and some are not.

When I say the church stumbles me, it should be obvious that I don't mean the spiritual church that has always existed. I'm stumbled by the cultural institution called the church and the fact that it claims to speak on behalf of God and his Christ. The difficulty is compounded in that I must deal with false believers and hypocrites in order to commune with the real saints since they all congregate at the same places. It further angers me because many people I meet automatically assume me to be a hypocrite and my words are judged by the actions of others. I'm embarrassed to be associated with such a stigma but I'm afraid I don't have a solution. For now I'll try my best to follow Christ with a pure heart of obedience and love for all people and let the Father of Creation sort all this out. I'm one who likes to simplify things if at all possible, but religion is a mess and frankly, it's beyond me right now.

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

For example, the bible claims to give us direct information about the supernatural world, which can't be tested in a laboratory. However, it also claims a great number of historical facts and details about real people. Proving that Jesus walked the Earth and led people to believe he was a miracle-worker isn't hard evidence that the claims of Christianity are true. Therefore, historical arguments, even when proven, can only take us so far. But, of course, your contention is that modern scholarship has proven the bible's historical claims are false. I've concluded just the opposite.

I would balk at treating the bible as a whole, which many Christians are wont to do. The shortcomings of Matthew as a document are on a different magnitude of scale from those of John, for example.

I also would generally refrain from such diction as "proven ... false." Given the limitations of our historical inquiries into events two millennia or more removed, we must often admit things are "questionable" or "incongruous," rather than strictly proven.

Christians often engage evaluation of their bible as a trial, with the American ethic of innocent-until-proven-guilty superimposed. This, of course, benefits their bias, as it places the benefit of doubt in favor of that which they earnestly wish to conserve. But evaluation of the bible is not an exercise in American jurisprudence; it is a review of an investment prospect. It is not necessary to prove guilt here; it is enough to notice when things have a disturbing odor about them, and to buy lunch from a different vendor.


On another point, even when it comes to supernatural things, the claims within the bible can be compared to one another to gauge internal consistency. They may also be correlated with their historical context(s), shedding light on the potential for profane (rather than sacred) influence(s).

When I say that Jesus set us free from religion I'll get a thousand "amens" from church-goers. However, it's just a word game with most people. To me, it's an astonishing thing that God only looks at the heart. While the phrase itself is well-worn, the concept is revolutionary for the person who actually believes it. I can develop this further if you're interested.

I will agree that the heart is essential. But please do elaborate upon your earlier comment that Jesus "came to abolish religion and set people free from the constraints of such things." The essentiality of the heart does not preclude the ongoing value of religion, nor does it demonstrate Jesus' abolition of religion; on the contrary, Jesus validates religion (as I have mentioned previously).

Shalom,
Emmet

On another point, even when it comes to supernatural things, the claims within the bible can be compared to one another to gauge internal consistency. They may also be correlated with their historical context(s), shedding light on the potential for profane (rather than sacred) influence(s).

This is, of course, correct. However, you're fully aware that there are valid arguments supporting the notion that the scriptures are God's revelation to mankind. You disregard those arguments or find them to be weak or incredulous but I feel the same way about the arguments of those who freely critique the scriptures.

When I read Pslam 22 or Isaiah 53 I see fulfilled prophecy. Although many contrary opinions can be posited when it comes to interpreting these passages, I find them all lacking. This has nothing to do with a court of law or the American notion of innocent until proven guilty. It's simply that I've heard several opinions and have chosen the one I feel is likely correct. Am I wearing rose-colored glasses when I come to the issue? Perhaps no more than anyone else.

You say that judging each book of the bible on its own merits is a wise thing. I tend to agree. Where we disagree is on the matter of the historical details concerning Jesus. You may find portions of Luke to be historically accurate but then decide that parts about Jesus rising from the dead are fictionalized. Notice, I didn't use the word "exaggerated." Either someone rose from the dead or they didn't. This means Luke either lied or someone lied to him and he believed it without evidence, which would be contrary to his opening remarks. You don't "kind of" raise up from the grave so I believe it took extraordinary evidence to convince these men that a ressurrection occured.

[edited to address something I forgot to mention earlier]

I will agree that the heart is essential. But please do elaborate upon your earlier comment that Jesus "came to abolish religion and set people free from the constraints of such things." The essentiality of the heart does not preclude the ongoing value of religion, nor does it demonstrate Jesus' abolition of religion; on the contrary, Jesus validates religion (as I have mentioned previously).

In an effort not to chase our tails, allow me to define my terms. When I used the word "religion" above I'm speaking of one's efforts to obtain salvation through ritual observance. James 1:27 defines religion as taking care of orphans and windows and keeping oneself from being corrupted by the world. It's obvious that I don't mean Jesus abolished this kind of religion. The religion Jesus abolished is the shell of outward adornment without the inward intent. Martin Luther King was fond of saying, "To do the right thing for the wrong reason is to miss the mark."

Here's an example from real life. Joe took half his income and gave it to a homeless shelter. Bill likewise took half his income and gave it to the needy. In terms of outward appearance, both men come out squeaky clean. However, Joe gave away his money because he embezzled from others and the cops were hot on his tail. By contrast, Bill gave his money away because his heart was broken for those in need. Both men did a good and charitable act, but which one has dealt righteously before God? Obviously, it's the one who had the right motives.

In other ways, many people think their outward deeds will fool God into overlooking their motives. I know people who only do charitable deeds when others can see them. Their motive is to gain the attention and respect of others. They do the right thing for the wrong reason. I don't believe God accepts such people because their hearts are corrupt and they are "white-washed tombs" as Jesus said. He was speaking to Pharisees but could've very well been speaking to most modern people who consider themselves religious.

My point is not that culturally religious acts are somehow repugnant to God. When I say Jesus set us free from religion, I'm saying he removed the external "show" and pulled back the curtain to reveal our hearts. Non-Christians often misinterpret us when we say people are not saved by their works. When we say that we mean good works are not divorced from faith, but work in unison. Trying to have one without the other is a failed experiment.

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

However, you're fully aware that there are valid arguments supporting the notion that the scriptures are God's revelation to mankind. You disregard those arguments or find them to be weak or incredulous but I feel the same way about the arguments of those who freely critique the scriptures.

Are "weak or incred[ible]" arguments really "valid"?

When I read Pslam 22 or Isaiah 53 I see fulfilled prophecy. Although many contrary opinions can be posited when it comes to interpreting these passages, I find them all lacking. This has nothing to do with a court of law or the American notion of innocent until proven guilty. It's simply that I've heard several opinions and have chosen the one I feel is likely correct. Am I wearing rose-colored glasses when I come to the issue? Perhaps no more than anyone else.

Psalm 22 is not, of course, a prophecy - as is plain on the face of it. And if Isaiah 53 is fulfilled prophecy, it is fulfilled in the paradigms of its own context - as is the case with every prophecy. The passage does not quite fit your New Testament, anyway (q.v., 53:7, as opposed to John 18:19-23 & 33-38 ).

Besides which, the early church had full access to both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, so correspondence between the martyric narrative of Jesus and these passages is less than compelling.

Either someone rose from the dead or they didn't. This means Luke either lied or someone lied to him and he believed it without evidence, which would be contrary to his opening remarks. You don't "kind of" raise up from the grave so I believe it took extraordinary evidence to convince these men that a ressurrection occured.

It does not require extraordinary evidence in a culture that was superstitious and credulous. If Christian tradition is correct, the disciples already believed that they had seen Jesus raise people from the dead, so his own resuscitation was not a major leap of faith beyond this.

Neither are men who have deep psychological investment in a religious movement difficult to convince; they already have emotional and social momentum to propel them into credulosity. For example, we may consider Adventists in the nineteenth century, who found ways to persevere despite stunning disappointment in their vector of tradition.

Which leads to the proposition of lying - so very popular in present society, and so inappropriately polarizing. Men who state what they honestly believe are not liars, even if they are in error. Luke and his source(s) may have been earnestly convinced, and earnestly in error.

As for Luke's "evidence," we may wonder what evidence he was privy to for the resurrection. He does not enumerate it for our benefit, but his own reference suggests that he depended upon eyewitness testimony - which is to say that he is dependent upon the impressions of others.

In an effort not to chase our tails, allow me to define my terms. When I used the word "religion" above I'm speaking of one's efforts to obtain salvation through ritual observance.

It is helpful that you have explained your diction. We are not allowed the prerogative of defining terms to suit our whim, however. English already has a category of thought for the word religion, and it does not correspond to your chosen definition. Religion is a human sociological phenomenon, which consists of disciplinary systems of belief and ritual/ethical praxis. Christianity, even in its populist American form, does not fall outside of this category.

James 1:27 defines religion as taking care of orphans and windows and keeping oneself from being corrupted by the world. It's obvious that I don't mean Jesus abolished this kind of religion. The religion Jesus abolished is the shell of outward adornment without the inward intent.

It seems like what you are referring to here is a distinction between "religion" and "true religion." If so, you should not be so careless as to say that Jesus has set people free from religion. One might as well say that Christians are hypocrites - but you would object that such persons are not "true Christians," right? So if Jesus has set people free from anything, then it would be hollow superficiality. And actually, that does not so much seem like "setting free," but simply an indictment.

Non-Christians often misinterpret us when we say people are not saved by their works.

Not only non-Christians.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

Thank you for engaging me, Emmet.

Are "weak or incred[ible]" arguments really "valid"?

By "valid" I simply mean that a reasonable argument can be brought forth. It's reasonable to believe a group of Middle-Eastern men told the truth about spectacular things that took place in thier midst. To assume, out of necessity, that they were mistaken is to hedge your bet. I don't automatically assume they were not mistaken so why do textual critics (lay or otherwise) such as yourself make this a necessary starting point? It seems as though you simply cannot allow for this possibility.

As for Luke's "evidence," we may wonder what evidence he was privy to for the resurrection. He does not enumerate it for our benefit, but his own reference suggests that he depended upon eyewitness testimony - which is to say that he is dependent upon the impressions of others.

Luke was a close friend and travel companion of Paul so he would've had access to all the right people. I think your argument here is rather weak because it assumes eyewitness impressions are always faulty. If you allow that they are sometimes accurate to the events that took place then you can't continue using this line of reasoning.

It is helpful that you have explained your diction. We are not allowed the prerogative of defining terms to suit our whim, however. English already has a category of thought for the word religion, and it does not correspond to your chosen definition.

I'm sorry but I can't let you off the hook with this one, although your attempt to be coy is highly amusing. You are surely aware that a single word can have multiple meanings, even in the same language. I defined religion as observing rituals as a means of salvation, which is completely fair. You know exactly what I'm getting at and it isn't a matter of semantics but a rather obvious part of Jesus' teachings. I met Jesus through reading his words and he turned out to be a lot different than what I was told.

It seems like what you are referring to here is a distinction between "religion" and "true religion." If so, you should not be so careless as to say that Jesus has set people free from religion. One might as well say that Christians are hypocrites - but you would object that such persons are not "true Christians," right?

The world at large tends to define a Christian as a person who affirms Christian belief, which leads to the type of confusion in which you are currently entrenched. I simply define a Christian the way Jesus did in John 15. Jesus said those who follow his teachings belong to him and those who don't are quite mistaken (Luke 6). It's only fair that the leader of the movement should define what constitutes a follower. You act as though I'm making up my own definitions. I'm simply adhering to what Jesus taught on this matter.

And actually, that does not so much seem like "setting free," but simply an indictment.

The reason, my dear friend, that Jesus set us free from the constraints of ritual observance is to give us peace. "My peace I give to you." Sure, it was an indictment to those who practiced this form of religion in vain (false motives) but it also set free those who were observing rituals with a pure and righteouss heart, but found it rather burdensome. This wasn't just an issue with religious Jews... just look around today. You see it everywhere. I often fault people in the church who confess their sins to a priest to gain peace of mind, though they have no intention of repenting. Muslims recite a certain prayer three times a day and feel incredible guilt if they miss one of these appointments. Certain Hindus feel convicted if they associate with a lower caste.

Quote:
Non-Christians often misinterpret us when we say people are not saved by their works.


Not only non-Christians.

Fair enough.

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

By "valid" I simply mean that a reasonable argument can be brought forth. It's reasonable to believe a group of Middle-Eastern men told the truth about spectacular things that took place in thier midst. To assume, out of necessity, that they were mistaken is to hedge your bet. I don't automatically assume they were not mistaken so why do textual critics (lay or otherwise) such as yourself make this a necessary starting point? It seems as though you simply cannot allow for this possibility.

This line of argumentation seems a bit myopic. Even if we were to limit this to only "Middle-Eastern men," then we would have to embrace "truth" that has been told about Zoroastrian, Islamic, and a variety of pagan experiences. But why only limit this to "Middle-Eastern men"? What, then, should we do with the "reasonable" belief that groups of African or Indian or Native American men (or women!) have "told the truth about spectacular things that took place in their midst"? An assumed posture of credulity floods the landscape with a menagerie of chimerae and pegasii and geese that (purportedly) lay golden eggs.

Beyond this, it is obvious that the Christian scriptures are not limited to a mere recounting of spectacular things observed. They also include commentary and theological interpretation, attributing significance to spectacular things.

Given that the vast majority of human beings are mistaken to some extent about verifiable phenomena, it is not unreasonable for critical scholarship to hold human fallibility in mind when engaging the sacred material of any human religious experience. And is this not the default understanding of Christians, when engaging any religious experience outside of those which they have canonized?

Quote: As for Luke's "evidence," we may wonder what evidence he was privy to for the resurrection. He does not enumerate it for our benefit, but his own reference suggests that he depended upon eyewitness testimony - which is to say that he is dependent upon the impressions of others.

Luke was a close friend and travel companion of Paul so he would've had access to all the right people. I think your argument here is rather weak because it assumes eyewitness impressions are always faulty. If you allow that they are sometimes accurate to the events that took place then you can't continue using this line of reasoning.

To begin with, it is challenging to demonstrate whether "all the right people" were even alive during the time of Luke's activities; neither can we assume that potential access resulted in actual access. Luke does not list his sources, and we are hardly in a place to enumerate them for him.

Beyond this, your further line of argumentation is problematic. Acknowledging that some eyewitness accounts are sometimes accurate hardly negates the point of concern. As those who work in the field of jurisprudence can vouch, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, even when given by persons with good intentions. Your stance here seems an example of engaging an issue with an "innocent-until-proven-guilty" paradigm, which is hardly appropriate to a comprehensive pursuit of truth; if we were obligated to extend credence to everything that could not be disproved, we would once again be fielding a menagerie. Allowing that sometimes eyewitness testimony is accurate may afford some opportunity for charitable doubt, but it hardly removes the occasion for critical concern.

As it is, we may acknowledge that Luke's written output is in large part a secondary piece of evidence, being one stage (or more) removed from first-hand accounts. As such, we not only face the challenge of engaging the personal filter of eyewitness testimony, but also the subsequent filters of interpersonal transmission and edition by a non-witness.

Quote: It is helpful that you have explained your diction. We are not allowed the prerogative of defining terms to suit our whim, however. English already has a category of thought for the word religion, and it does not correspond to your chosen definition.

I'm sorry but I can't let you off the hook with this one, although your attempt to be coy is highly amusing. You are surely aware that a single word can have multiple meanings, even in the same language. I defined religion as observing rituals as a means of salvation, which is completely fair. You know exactly what I'm getting at and it isn't a matter of semantics but a rather obvious part of Jesus' teachings.

Single words may have multiple meanings, but I challenge you to find your definition in an English dictionary. If you find my objection to be pedantic, well, I am a scholar of religion, so I am naturally sensitive to such things; I have found the cavalier (ab)use of "religion" in some Christian thought to be annoying. But in any case, your messiah is reported to have said that humans will be accountable for every idle word that they speak [Matthew 12:36], so you might expend the effort to use diction that is adequately suited to communicate your actual thought. Idiosyncratic or esoteric definitions often fail to yield real communication.

Besides which, I criticize diction as a means for cracking people out of their conceptual cocoons. Many Christians dismiss "religious" things, being fully blind to the religious character of even their putatively religionless Christianity. They despise ritual, oblivious to the fact that the Lord's Supper and baptism and even their worship conventions are rituals; they denigrate theology, ignorant of how their own beliefs and the ways they articulate them are the end-product of theological enterprise. Such short-sightedness is obnoxious, and an obstacle to mature engagement of religious matters.

Quote: It seems like what you are referring to here is a distinction between "religion" and "true religion." If so, you should not be so careless as to say that Jesus has set people free from religion. One might as well say that Christians are hypocrites - but you would object that such persons are not "true Christians," right?

The world at large tends to define a Christian as a person who affirms Christian belief, which leads to the type of confusion in which you are currently entrenched.

Perhaps you have misconstrued my thought here. I was illustrating imprecise diction by way of parallel.

I simply define a Christian the way Jesus did in John 15. Jesus said those who follow his teachings belong to him and those who don't are quite mistaken (Luke 6). It's only fair that the leader of the movement should define what constitutes a follower. You act as though I'm making up my own definitions. I'm simply adhering to what Jesus taught on this matter.

A person who follows Jesus' teachings as articulated in the New Testament will find that they are living out the fundamentals of religion: belief; discipline; and celebration. And someone who simply adheres to what Jesus taught will not trumpet a rejection of religion when Jesus plainly validated it by his own paradigms.

The reason, my dear friend, that Jesus set us free from the constraints of ritual observance is to give us peace.

And yet your New Testament indicates that Jesus commanded the observance of at least two rituals: viz., baptism; and the Lord's Supper.


Shlamaa,
Emmet