I've delayed responding to Steve Matson, so I could give some attention to writing a response. However I find that I still can't respond to everything in detail, since that would call for a complete treatise on apologetics and theology. So I'm going to pick a few things that seem like critical issues. I see two things in his posting. One is a set of intellectual problems, primarily with the believability of Scripture. But what I see underlying these questions is a question that isn't really intellectual: how, in a world where we seem to be able to explain everything scientifically, can we still believe in things like spirits? This posting is going to deal with the primary intellectual issue: whether the Bible is simply "made up" stories. I'll try to come up with something useful to say about the deeper issue next weekend. I think you're caught in two problems: (1) your contact with Christianity seems to be with the fundamentalist type. I think some of their claims really are unbelievable, so I don't fault you for finding them hard to swallow. (2) I think many of the things you say you have "learned" are just plain wrong. I'm not sure where you learned them. What I'd like to convince you is that Christians can hold realistic scientific and historical views. This may require adjustments both in your idea of Christianity and your idea of history. It may require an adjustment in your idea of Christianity if you think Christians have to reject evoluation or any other science because of the Bible. It may require an adjustment in your idea of history, because you seem to have come up with ideas about the Bible that are more sceptical than even non-Christian scholars. If you've been reading this group for a while, you'll know my position on the Bible: I believe it is a good historical source, and best where it's most important: for the Resurrection. However I do not believe it is in principle free from error. From what I know of Biblical and historical studies, both the OT and the NT stand up well as historical documents. In general those scholars with the most objective ways of checking it -- archaeologists -- have a more positive valuation of it than those that are using speculative methods. In a widely known essay, C.S. Lewis commented that the types of analysis that have led scholars to the most negative conclusions about Scripture have led to demonstrably incorrect conclusions when applied to his works. There was also a hilarious parody showing that works by the critical scholars themselves must have been written by multiple authors. I have no reason to doubt that the OT historical books are, in the later periods, based on records of the doings of various kings. (They are often cited in the text.) This doesn't mean they are perfect, but they seem to be better than most other historical documents from the period. Typically contemporary chronicles were produced by royal historians, and had as a primary goal to glorify the king. Thus they exaggerated victories and didn't report defeats. The theology behinda the OT led its authors to be honest about defeats as well as victories. To the extent that relatively late OT history, i.e. Kings, can be checked against archaeology, it comes out fairly well. That God was responsible for victories, that God gave the Law, etc., is not a matter that archaeologists can comment on, of course, and there will of course be differing evaluations of that aspect of the record. I'm speaking only of what the OT says about history. Where things get harder to be sure about is in earlier periods, where it's unlikely that there were written historical records available to the authors. Archaeologists now believe that the historical backgrounds in the stories of the patriarchs are fairly accurate. This implies to me that those stories are not simply made up, but are based on real memories from the time. Thus I believe there were historical Abraham, Moses, etc. On the other hand, many scholars believe that accounts from that period have been somewhat "idealized". E.g. the process of taking over Canaan is generally believed to have been more complex than what is shown in the OT. (Exactly how accurate the OT account of the entry into Canaan is is the subject of lively debate among scholars at the moment.) For history before Abraham, frankly I am very sceptical. The creation and flood stories look to me like remakes of the myths that Abraham would have brought with him from Ur. (In fact we have documents that give Babylonian versions of these stories.) This is not surprising. Since the Jews didn't exist before Abraham, they wouldn't have their own traditions for older periods. It would be natural for them to base their primeval history on what the most advanced scholars in the world believed, i.e. on what we would consider Babylonian mythology. This means that you do not have to reject evolution in order to be a Christian. Every time I read a posting like yours I get more upset at the fundamentalists. They are trying to convince people like you that you can't be a Christian without giving up your scientific knowledge. I do not blame you for being thrown into confusion by this. I can only say that there are plenty of Christians who do not buy that. I think the view I'm summarizing here would be accepted by most "middle of the road" Biblical scholars, i.e. those that are not fundamentalists and who don't go for the more extreme methods of scpeculative literary reconstruction. I'm reasonably familiar with the range of Biblical scholarship, and can assure you that most scholars, even non-Christians, believe that there is a lot of good history behind the Bible. It's not just "made up". Where the disagreements come is in the details. That is, there is some reason to think that although the basic outline in the Bible is right, some of the stories got "embroidered" as they were handed down. I'm going to talk primarily about the NT, because that's probably most important to Christians. However you should recognize that it's also somewhat of a "best case", because the NT was written much nearer the events than the OT. Probably Paul's letters are from 20 to 30 years after the crucifixion, and the Gospels 40 to 60. (Incidentally, we have very good textual evidence for the NT. Current translations are done from 4th Cent. documents, but there are enough ancient pieces to provide a good cross-check back to the 2nd Cent. Now and then you see claims on Usenet that the Bible has been continually adjusted through the medieval period. That is simply silly.) I don't know any scholars -- Christian or non-Christian -- that doubt Jesus' existence (though there are some people posting to various Usenet groups that do). If you're serious about this, I can try to find detailed responses. See my comments below on the Resurrection. Basically, we know that Christians were going around proclaiming that Christ had been crucified and resurrected, and I think our evidence is within about 10 years of the events. It's a bit hard to believe that such preaching could happen, and that Jesus' words could be preserved through such a variety of sources, without there having been an actual Jesus. It's also nearly inconceivable that if a group of Jews were going to make up a story about the Messiah, they would have him get crucified. The question is not whethe Jesus existed, but how accurate a portrait of him we have in the NT. Let me try to set some limits on the possibilities. On one side we have the claim by fundamentalists that we have completely accurate accounts, that the words in the NT are his actual words and that every miracle reported actually happened as reported. This simply can't be. On the other hand, we have people who seem to believe that the whole NT account is fiction. The truth is somewhere betweeen. Let's look at Jesus' teachings. The NT can't be reporting his exact words, as if we had a tape recorder there. This is obvious if you simply compare accounts of the same episode in Mat, Mark, and Luke. On the other hand, there's a limit to how far it is reasonable to carry scepticism. Norman Perrin wrote a book where he analyzed Jesus' teachings, based on the assumption that the Church adjusted his teachings to fit its own conceptions. Thus he started with only Jesus' teachings that were opposed to the known beliefs of the early Church. I don't want to go through a detailed analysis of what he did. But I think the point that is relevant here is that even using this sceptical methodology, the teachings we come up with are still recognizably Christian. The actual truth is surely somewhere in between the concept of the Gospels as tape recorder accounts and Perrin's exercise in scepticism. In fact Jesus' teachings don't seem to be a big matter of debate between Christian and non-Christian scholars. Next I'd like to comment on Jesus' miracles. This is an area where I think there is the largest disagreement. Again, I'd like to try to place some limits around the area of disagreement. There are obvious reasons to have qualms about Jesus' miracles. Aside from biases that miracles just can't happen, note that most of Jesus' miracles involve healing. Nolan's book "Healing" is a recent investigation of miraculous healers. They range from Phillipine "psychic healers" to a well-known "Christian" healer, Kathryn Kuhlman. (I use quotes around Christian because she also seems to have been involved in astrology, so I have some qualms about her orthodoxy. But when I was in Pittsburgh, her healing ministry was well-known.) Nolan shows that even honest witnesses can believe a healing occured where it did not. I believe the reports of healings in the NT are historical, in the sense that they are based on memories of Jesus' ministry. But I think Nolan's work suggests that at least some of the reports we have are probably in error. Note that Jesus himself is reticent about healing, both in the sense that he seems to be far more interested in preaching and in dealing with people's spiritual situation, and in the sense that when a healing happens, he normally attributes it to the person's own faith. So on one side, I'd have to say that it's reasonable for Christians to have some scepticism about the healings reported in the Gospels, while still believing that the Gospels are based on actual memories of Jesus. It doesn't seem like there's much I can do on the other side. Sceptics generally seem to reject all of the miraculous aspects of the Gospels. This doesn't necessarily mean they regard the Gospels as entirely made up after the fact. It's probably more typical to suggest that there was a combination of healings of psychosomatic illnesses with stories getting exaggerated as they are retold. By the way, I don't want to be understood as saying that I think all the miracles have natural explanations. This sort of approach was common in the 19th Cent., but has generally been abandoned by modern scholars. I'm simply saying that it's OK for Christians to realize that if we were there at the time with modern medical equipment we might have alternative explanations for at least some of the events. (And example of where I think there would not be a natural explanation is the raising of Lazarus.) The most important example of miracle is the Resurrection. This is worth treating separately both because of its importance to Christianity and because there's better evidence for it than for the other miracles in the Gospel. The earliest evidence is I Cor 15:5ff. There is no question among scholar that Paul actually wrong I Cor. Nor does there seem to be any serious doubt that it was written by the mid-50's. If you place the crucifixion at about 30 AD, this makes I Cor about 25 years after the fact. However I Cor 15 is clearly quoting a creed, i.e. a stereotyped formulation of the faith used in worship and/or teaching. Scholars generally believe that this creed is much earlier than I Cor itself. It's hard to be sure how much earlier, but if you take seriously that it's what was passed onto Paul, then it sounds like something he learned either when he was converted or three years later when he met with Peter and James. This is within a few years of the Resurrection. Note a couple of things about it. One is that it quotes at least two people that Paul says he spoke to: Peter and James (Gal 1:18ff). So although this is not a direct eyewitness account of the Resurrection, it is at only one remove, and we know the people involved. It's not like the Gospels, whose authors are not known and whose sources of information can only be inferred. Some other comments on the passage: There is some concern about Paul's experience of Christ. It has been claimed, based on both the account in Acts and Paul's words, that Paul's experience was a "vision", not contact with a physical person. Thus the disciples might have had what amounts to a hallucination, and the empty tomb story grew up later. However I Cor 15 -- while not referring directly to the empty tomb -- seems to presuppose it. It says that Christ was buried and raised. This is the way you talk about his body, not a vision of some sort. Another comment is that the creed refers to a simultaneous appearance to 500 people at one time. 500 people don't see a hallucination. There is certainly room for debate on these issues. I do not claim that the Resurrection is proven beyond doubt. But I believe we can make a good case that Paul knew of a number of eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, and had talked to 2 personally. Natural explanations really aren't that attractive. I think we can count on the Romans to have made sure Jesus was dead. A hallucination in the normal sense doesn't seem too attractive. Cognitive dissonance can explain lots of strange things. People can imagine they have seen what they want to see, as any magician can testify. However that requires you to think that the disciples were in a frame of mind where they expected to see Jesus raised, which I personally don't think likely in this case. At any rate, I don't think you require a proof of the Resurrection. You're more concerned that it's somehow been disproven. I don't think that's the case. Subject: Is there a God? Message-ID: Date: 6 Mar 91 05:29:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO Lines: 55 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Lately I've been having disturbing doubts about the existence of God. First a little history; I was raised in a household that never went to church and had a Bible simply for the sake of having one. My parents always said their was a God and I know they really did believe in his and Christs existence. However I would not call them Christians in the sense I've come to know what a Christian is. Anyway, Shortly before getting married my future wife and I started to attend the church we planned on getting married at. In short order I grasped the gospel became a Christian and was immersed. I could not get enough of Gods word and I consider that the time of my life I felt best about everything. My wife and I moved out of state and stopped going to church, stopped reading the bible and entered a pro-longed period of backsliding. Nineteen months ago my daughter was born and soon after my wife felt the need to practice our faith again. About ten months ago we started to attend a local church and soon became members. Now my problem; I just don't feel the comfort I had before. When I first became a Christian I never questioned the existence of God. I just took it for fact that there was a God, that Christ was his son and that the Bible was solid truth. Now I find inconsistences in the Bible, can't seem to make it fit my life and our times. It feels more like legend to me now then the word of God. I find that I believe more in the scientific account of how the universe and earth were formed and I believe in some form of evolution. I can't believe that earth is the only place with life and I now realize that the 'demons' of old are the mental diseases of today. I learned that their is no historical evidence of Jesus's existence and if there was I would still wonder if he was just a charismatic nut or a super-natural being. I've learned that it was a group of men who made decisions about what would and would not go into the compilation of books called the 'Bible' and I wonder if I can trust them. I mean I would not trust someone in todays day and age who came to me and said " Hey, look here, we put together a bunch of these old writings in to this book and, you know what, its the holy word of God". So how can I believe these long dead folks? That is not even addressing the people who wrote the books in the bible. Is it divine inspiration that caused the creation of the books of the bible? Or is it the fanciful stories of people who did not understand the way the natural world around them worked. I wonder if the Bible is not a compilation of wishful thinking, exaggerations or pure story telling. This is just skimming the surface of the doubts that creep into my mind. What about the Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, super-novas and galaxies. Why are there no outright miracles anymore? No earth standing still, no seas parting, no visions and no thundering voices from heaven. Why no non-biblical record of Christ? Why no demon possessions anymore? Why is my religion correct but the thousands of others wrong? I don't mean to sound anti-Christian, I just seriously have these doubts. I don't know what to do. I want to believe in God, Christ and life after death. I just can't keep from wondering if its all a pipe dream. Then again I look around and I know this didn't all 'just happen'. -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*LIVE FREE OR DIE*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Matson ***COLORADO***