Nine Things You Didn't Know About Christianity, and Some Are True!: Part IV

By -
This post represents the fourth in a series of responses to an article entitled Biblical authority reveals little-known facts about Jesus which is available through the online edition of the Wilmington Star. The first can be found here, the second can be found here, and the third can be found here. The article features nine little-known facts about Jesus as revealed by John Dominic Crossan, one of the founding members and best known stars of the Jesus Seminar. As will be seen, several of the "facts" when taken at face-value are, in fact, true about Jesus or Christianity. However, many of Dr. Crossan’s quotes following the facts show that Dr. Crossan doesn’t quite have a firm grasp on why they are true.

Fact 7. Jesus was not traveling to Jerusalem to provoke the Romans. Again, I find I am in complete agreement with the phrase used by Crossan. Sure, I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus' purpose in traveling to Jerusalem wasn't to provoke the Romans. The Bible doesn't suggest that "provoking the Romans" would have been the purpose. He went there in fulfillment of the things that were prophesied. According to Luke 18:31b-33, Jesus told the Disciples:

31b. Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. 32. For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33. and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.

Zechariah 9:9, which was probably written around 480 B.C., contains the prophesy that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey.

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout {in triumph,} O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Thus, it seems that Jesus specifically stated why He was going to Jerusalem -- to fulfill those things that had been prophesied about Him.

Moreover, it seems silly to me that Crossan should suggest that Jesus went to Jerusalem to provoke the Romans when the history shown in the New Testament shows he didn't provoke the Romans at all. Rather if Jesus went to provoke anyone it would have been the Jewish leaders. After all, they were the ones looking for the chance to kill Jesus and used the circumstances to have the Romans put Jesus to death.

Moreover, I suspect that Crossan doesn't even believe that Jesus went to die. Yet, it is clear that Jesus was born to die. The main purpose of His live was for his sacrificial death to atone for the sins of the world. So, to the extent that Crossan's language might suggest that Jesus wasn't looking to die at all, he is (as usual) mistaken.

Fact 8. Disciples had actual visions of Jesus. Here, I cannot even agree with the language because visions suggests that Jesus wasn't present bodily. Now, Crossan and I agree that what the disciples witnessed wasn't hallucinations. He makes it very clear in his comment when he says, "These were not hallucinations. When you've had a vision, you know you've had a vision." But it wasn't merely a vision of the risen Jesus that the disciples witnessed, but the actual real bodily manifestation of Jesus. According to The Bodily Resurrection of Christ Defended by Jason Dulle:

We know Jesus had a physical body upon resurrection because He could be touched (Matthew 28:9; John 20:27, 29); He Himself said He was a physical person and not a spirit (Luke 24:37-40); and He had the ability to eat (Luke 24:41-43; Acts 10:40-41). Although Jesus still retained His physical body, He had abilities not available to normal human beings. For example, on two occasions Jesus appeared to the disciples in the midst of a room without ever having come through a door (John 20:19; Luke 24:36). On another occasion He merely vanished before Cleopas' and another disciple's eyes (Luke 24:18, 31). He seems to have been released from at least some of the laws normal matter is subject to. Even Jesus' appearance was not always recognized (Matthew 24:16; Mark 16:12; John 20:14-15; 21:4,12). All of this demonstrates that indeed Jesus had a physical, but changed body.

Jesus' special abilities were not due too a lack of human flesh, but due to a different human flesh. Jesus' flesh had been glorified and was superseded by, and operated by higher laws so that He could not be bound to the same limitations of humanity as He was before He was glorified.

To hold the view that the resurrected Christ was merely a spirit not only denies the testimony of Scripture, but it also bypasses the very purpose of the resurrection. God made a covenant with David that He would establish his throne forever (II Samuel 7:12-16; Psalm 89:3-4, 20-37; 132:11; Jeremiah 33:22, 25-26). In Acts 2:30-32 Peter declared that Jesus was the king that is to reign on David's throne, referencing God’s promise to David that his seed (lineage) would sit upon the throne to rule (See II Timothy 2:8). By stating that it was David’s "seed" who was to rule demands that Jesus have a physical, human existence because David was human. Jesus' body had to be resurrected so that He could physically sit on David's throne and rule with a rod of iron as the Scripture foretold, and as the Lord promised to David.

Jesus' physical resurrection was also necessary so that He could destroy the human problem of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2; I Corinthians 15:12-22--focusing of 17-22, 21-26, 55-56; Hebrews 2:14-18; I John 3:8; Revelation 1:18). After He rose from the dead, thereby conquering sin, death and the grave, He received the power and authority to raise all those who died having their faith in Him (Acts 26:23; I Corinthians 15:20, 23; I Thessalonians 4:14-17).

While visions are an important part of many religious experiences, (notwithstanding the attempts of some to confuse the issue) the Biblical record is clear that Jesus had a bodily resurrection. Thus, to the extent that Crossan suggests that Jesus' resurrection was no more than a vision, he is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Comments

Jason Pratt said…
To clarify a point (well, sort of clarify it {wry g}): in the March 20, 2007 issue of _Christian Century_, Crossan and Marcus Borg wrote a synopsis of their book (released a week or two ago), _The Last Week: a Day-by-Day Account of Jesus' Final Week_. (A paperback version was released earlier this year with a discussion guide for group study.)

In this article, Crossan and Borg strenuously emphasize (with italics even!), "Jesus went to the capital city of his people to confront Roman imperial power and religious collaboration with it."

Not that they can come up with much for this 'confrontation' (in their synopsis anyway), other than Jesus entering Jerusalem from the east on a donkey's colt instead of (while?) Pilate entering from the west in a military procession. (Some 'confrontation'!) But the point, is that if it looks like Layman is flipflopping between saying that Crossan is saying that Jesus did and did not go to Jerusalem to face the Romans, you can thank Crossan for that: apparently Jesus went there (with italics! {g}) to _confront_ them, but not _provoke_ them. As if there could be a substantial difference in this. (He certainly provokes and confronts the Sanhedrin!--which is what the actual story is about, not what Crossan is imagining to be there.)


Why is Crossan going this route, then, when the actual evidence hardly points that way? The first sentence of his (and Borg's) final paragraph in that synopsis makes his reasoning (such as it is) clear enough, I think: "We ponder all of this very deeply this Lent when liberals sadly and conservatives gladly proclaim our America not only as an empire but as the new Roman Empire."


So, how many conservatives have I heard of, not only proclaiming America to be an empire, not only proclaiming America to be the new Roman Empire, but _gladly_ doing so?? I can count the number of instances on the fingers of no hand... {snorf}

That one sentence, in its ludicrous display, gives a pretty accurate idea of how seriously to treat their attempts. It isn't about accuracy to the facts: any such accuracy is incidental to their political marketing. And their freakish hypocrisy in trying to say such things with a straight face, frankly makes me want to vomit.

With italics even. {g}

JRP
4/07/2007 04:16:00 PM
Jason Pratt said…
Except BK, instead of Layman... {self-correcting g!} Sorry, I was running late to meet my parents for dinner.

JRP
4/07/2007 05:24:00 PM
Anonymous said…
There would be no need for a strong tradition throughout all the gospels of women finding an empty tomb if a vision or spiritual resurrection was the intended message.
4/07/2007 08:23:00 PM
Jason Pratt said…
I agree; though the revisionists would say "Why isn't the tomb itself mentioned then outside the Gospels?" And so they postulate that the tomb and thus the bodily resurrection (which clearly is being emphasized by a body missing from a tomb) were invented later--and then try real hard to squint something other than St. Paul _opposing_ the kind of thing they really need him to have been _teaching_ in 1 Cor 15, not to say elsewhere.

After which they stumble rather badly trying to explain why a bodily resurrection needed inventing if a vision or a spiritual resurrection was sufficiently sufficient, easier for Gentiles and/or even for Jews to take. {g}

And, too, they stumble badly trying to explain why, when this tomb story was 'invented', women are persistantly at the core of it. Yet still not expecting it themselves, either.

(To which personally I would add, that it looks extremely likely to me that the author of GosMark is trying to correct what he thinks to be a misunderstanding concerning _himself_, not unlike what the author of GosJohn does at the end of his own account, though the topics are different. Sceptical tomb-invention theories consequently stumble worse on trying to explain why someone would invent a tomb story along with a tacit correction about what people are already in the habit of thinking happened at the tomb story _he just invented_... {g!})
4/08/2007 01:58:00 PM
Anonymous said…
Of course the most reasonable reply to these revisionists (who in my most humble opinion ask this question to avoid a historically well-supported position) is to point out that these are already Christian communities Paul is writing to. They already know the traditions, for the most part they have already been convinced.

Also Paul isnt writing a biography or narrative about Christ's life. Paul never needed to mention an empty tomb and its implied from his background as a Pharisee and Jew that he intended resurrection to have the old body changed by God, leaving an empty grave. Proper exegesis of Paul yields this view.

Boy do I have a lot of beefs with revisionist and liberal NT scholarship. Agendas instead of evidence guiding theories. For the most part wholly unconvincing.
4/08/2007 04:00:00 PM
Jason Pratt said…
{{Paul never needed to mention an empty tomb and its implied from his background as a Pharisee and Jew that he intended resurrection to have the old body changed by God, leaving an empty grave.}}

Though even if we didn't have that background, I think a full accounting of the ideas in 1 Cor 15 would get that across as his intention as well.

{{Also Paul isnt writing a biography or narrative about Christ's life.}}

True; and he himself specifically says in 1 Cor 15 that he's only going to talk about an extremely limited topic, that of "first importance". A tomb per se isn't of first importance. (Nor women at the tomb, nor Joseph of Arimathea.)

From pulling together the first six chapters of 1 Cor, I think Paul is later (in chp 15) aiming specifically at Stepmom-Sleeping-Guy again. {g} SSG's problem was that a bodily resurrection didn't fit into his Epicureanistic philosophical system; consequently, that's what Paul is focusing on affirming over-against. It isn't about about story details.

(It's important to remember, I think, that ancient philosophical systems, whether in the Near East or the Far East, were--and in the Far East still are--more like cult religions, than what we tend to think of today, in our Christianized society, as a 'philosophical' system. When Paul shoots at 'philosophy', he isn't shooting at logical analysis per se. He's going after a lifestyle-cult kind of thing; the kind of thing represented by SSG.)

JRP
4/09/2007 07:11:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol
Read more

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

By -
Image
A few days ago I stumbled upon an article published on a website named Haaretz which appears to be a news site for Israeli news. The article entitled " Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live: A Murderous Translation ," discussed the correct understanding of Exodus 22:18. According to the Haaretz article (authored by Elizabeth Sloane), the word "witch" may have been an erroneous translation. And, to read into Ms. Sloane's argument just a bit, the erroneous translation contributed to the deaths of many innocent witches. Specifically, she notes: This quote, found in the King James Version of the Bible, has been widely held responsible for the witch burnings that plagued Europe, and later America, in the Early Modern Period (1450 C.E. – 1750 C.E.). But the murderous practice may have all been the result of a Biblical mistranslation. Now, as I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew, I need to approach translation issues such as this by accessing sources readily
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc
Read more