Continuing my review of the essay by Mark D. Roberts.
(Click on the title, above, to link to the essay.)
* * * * * * * * *
Part 4
This section describes how Greco-Roman culture may have influenced Christianity as it spread. This is, as he mentions, an argument with merit, but he doesn’t refute it at this point. It is worth noting that all cultures (is it reasonable to say that religion is not part of culture?) have been influenced by the cultures they come in contact with. To say that Christianity has always been immune from this requires one of the following:
1. Christian beliefs were well established from the moment Christ established the Church. In other words, there would have been an instructor’s manual, well defined and in place, i.e. the Bible (leaving aside any arguments about contradictions in the Bible).
However, the earliest writings date from at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, most were not written until more than a century after his death, and we know that the Bible did not take shape as it now is until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
2. The writers of the Bible were guided by the hand of God, and the resulting texts that became the Bible were perfected.
This idea is more plausible than the first, however, if this were the case, why would the various texts be written separately and sometimes in contradiction with each other?
Also, why would there have been so much trouble and discussion about what was true canon that led to a Council of Nicea to establish the Bible in 325? Does this mean that the other Gospels that were not included were all patently false? To believe that the bishops did not err in these decisions, it would require one to believe that God set aside the idea of free will long enough to guide the council to choose (by vote, even), specifically the correct texts from among those that had been circulating for three centuries. If God did specifically guide these bishops to establish what the true doctrine should be, then this raises difficult questions for Protestants…
Part 5
“the earliest Christians didn’t consider Jesus to be divine, but only an inspired man. These first Christians were, after all, monotheistic Jews who didn’t go around divinizing people.”
The phrase, “but only an inspired man”, minimizes the value of Jesus if not divine (more specifically, God in the flesh). It suggests an all or nothing attitude. I think it’s very possible that Jesus was sent by God, not just chosen by God, and that there are other things that set Jesus apart from the “inspired” men and prophets of the Old Testament.
I think it is reasonable to look at Paul’s letters as a good example of early Christian belief, but I don’t know if I am comfortable with giving Paul divine infallibility. I guess this rests on whether one believes the Bible is completely and litterally accurate, without any issues of human error, bias or misconception, or other issues of translation or culture, but that is another discussion.
Part 6
It is a somewhat plausible argument, but it seems to be given more credence out of desire for it to be true. Most notable, the possibility that “marana tha” means “Our Lord is coming”, which makes more grammatical sense than “Our Lord, come”. In this case, that would change the saying from a prayer to an affirmation. Also, I think it is a stretch to say that this phrase is very important because Paul taught it in the original language.
Part 7
Phil 2:5-11 seems to indicate that Jesus is not merely a man, and this may have something to do with “Wisdom”. It does not, however, state that Jesus and God are one and the same. Additionally, Isaiah 42:5-8 and 21-23, seems to be more related to God speaking against idols. As he points out, Philippians certainly seems to be intended to tie Isaiah to Jesus. He states that there is “no evidence” that Paul was influenced by Greco-Roman tradition; however, he certainly was aware of these traditions. Considering how Paul was converted, and the fact that he was not one of the original apostles, it is reasonable to consider that he may have had a different view of Jesus than the other apostles. In fact, I’ll have to check on this, but I seem to recall that there was a rather bitter disagreement between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, one of the original apostles and the head of the Church in Jerusalem. Additionally, considering the nature of Paul’s mission, which was to bring Christianity to the pagans, I think it is not unreasonable to consider that he may have had practical reasons to promote a concept of Jesus and God as one.
No comments:
Post a Comment