The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both?

quote:

---

Essentially he is saying that it could have been that way or it could just be them doing their best to put into words something they had no language for.

---

No, he is saying that it was that way. Read the article.

quote:

---

In a sense this goes to the heart of my understanding of the NT accounts. Yes the books of the NT are either specific letters or as in the case of the Gospels they are compilations of earlier writings and oral accounts put together to form a complete narrative. Yes, there would have been interpretation of what it all meant and there would be disagreement.

---

The point is that Christian use of the OT need not be in agreement with Jewsih thought at all.

quote:

---

We read through the Gospels and see consistently that the disciples just didn’t get it. We have them arguing over who is going to sit at His right and left hand where they clearly have the idea that Jesus is going to lead them in a successful revolution with the help of Yahweh. There are times when they seem to be getting it but in a sense they are projecting on to Jesus their own aspirations.

---

I will agree that the disciples understanding of Jesus' mission while Jesus was alive is quite different from the view taken by later Christians.

quote:

---

Initially there didn’t seem to be a great need to write about things as the eye witnesses would still have been around, but as the years passed it became obvious that they would require the stories to be documented. In these stories they would be influenced by their own understanding of what was to be understood about the meaning of the resurrection was and what message it was that Jesus taught and how they were to react to it. I’m sure there are some stories that were distorted with the result that there are inconsistencies in the various accounts. As I’ve said before I would be far more distrustful of stories that were completely congruous.

---

Another important reason that little was written down early on is that the end of the world was thought to be imminent. And in that time the story grew, and grew - and carried on growing, as we can see just be comparing Mark to Matthew.And let's be honest your "reason" for trusting the Gospels is just a hollow excuse based on ignoring the facts.

quote:

---

Things haven’t changed today. Just as our knowledge of the natural world continues to grow it is my belief that through good scholarship our knowledge of what Christ’s life meant for the world continues to grow. Just as modern scientists build their knowledge on the findings and even the errors of their predecessors, modern theological scholars build on the work of their predecessors.

---

So far as I can tell Jesus life meant nothing much to the world today. Even his failure and death meant. Wry little in themselves.

quote:

---

I don’t agree that there was a violent side to His ministry unless you are talking about knocking around a few tables. He did agree that His message would result in divisions even in families.

---

And telling his disciples to arm themselves.And don't forget that the view of the Gospels is anti-Jewish and largely pro-Roman. It is entirely likely that the violent side is played down.

quote:

---

Our thoughts on Judas are mere speculation but I think that there would be a strong likelihood that He viewed Jesus as someone who would be a thorn in the side of the revolutionaries. Of course maybe he was just being mercenary.

---

I don't think that you can justify that claimEqually, until N T Wright can actually address my idea of events, I can't take his claim that there is no viable alternative seriously. Indeed it looks to me as if he's just another apologist, and his opinion has much more to do with his biases than any scholarship.

quote:

---

It is not that I’m ignoring them. I do however understand that the accounts are written by fallible humans doing their best to convey the truth of what happened.

---

Of course the problem is that you ARE ignoring them...

quote:

---

Interesting article and there is no doubt it happens. The question of course is that what happened to the disciples.

​

I just don't think that the argument for it being the case holds up. I don't see it as something that they would have imagined to be the case, or even something that they would have desired to have happen.

---

Obviously the disciples would have been in a state where they would have been suffering from cognitive dissonance.Equally obviously the idea that Jesus was somehow alive and would return to fulfil the Messianic prophecies would have resolved that dissonance.It is also true that quite common events could have lead to the idea that Jesus was still alive.Where do you think the case falls down?

quote:

---

I also believe that if it was a case of cognitive dissonance that the eventual narratives would read very differently. For example it wouldn't show the disciples as being such dolts and for that matter in showing Peter, one of their primary spokesmen, as behaving so cowardly.

---

In fact if cognitive dissonance were involved it might well do precisely that. The old understanding - held while Jesus still lived - would be portrayed as foolish and wrong.The "cowardice" is also exactly what we might see if the disciples WERE suffering from cognitive dissonance. Things had gone badly wrong, they don't know what to do, their faith is shaken...Not to mention the obvious fact that the Gospel writers might have an agenda of their own, which you would need to take into account...

Relevant to what issue? Surely one of the issues at stake is the accuracy of the Bible. We have here an example of GDR acting like the Inerrantists, closing his mind and inventing excuses to maintain his false belief (in this case that the evidence strongly supports the claim that there must have been a literal bodily resurrection).

If you can't be bothered to follow the conversation you can't expect to understand it.

Perhaps you could show where I made that claim, if I did, it certainly wasn't in any of the posts you replied to?

If you had been following the conversation you would understand the point. Of course you would also not have made the error of thinking that I was talking about GDR.However, if you accept that the Disciples strongly believed that Jesus was the MessiahAnd if you accept that Jesus was arrested and executed by the Romans instead of fulfilling the Messianic prophecies.Then it follows that they would have been suffering from cognitive dissonance at that point.

So let's get this straight. Like GDR you reject my argument out of hand for no valid reason.Well that was really worth butting into the conversation to get me to repeat points already made...

quote:

---

Actually, I did not reject your argument out of hand although I'll admit using my hand to hide my laugh.

---

In fact you did reject it out of hand. But then I've seen no sign that you even understand it.

quote:

---

I also thought I did give valid reasoning in a simple step by step fashion.

---

As far as I can tell your argument is that the Disciples' cognitive dissonance was resolved by the Resurrection, therefore they didn't suffer from cognitive dissonance. And without bothering to offer any reasoning to support the idea of an actual Resurrection. That's not valid reasoning.

quote:

---

I've read you posts in the thread and gotta say that I don't see where you did make the points you seem to think you've made, which is why I asked to try to get you to clarify your position.

---

The evidence of your posts says that you haven't bothered to do that. And I've been giving you the clarification you have actually asked for, but apparently it contradicts your beliefs so it must be wrong...

quote:

---

That was one step I covered but not related to any 'cognitive dissonance'. And whether or not there was an actual resurrect is irrelevant, of course, since we are dealing with what writers said in their narratives they believed happened.

---

Wrong on both points, as you would know if you had actually followed the discussion.Please don't respond to my messages unless you are prepared to discuss the issues in good faith.

If you can't be bothered to read my posts it's a waste of time replying to you.

Anyone actually following this thread can see that you are just ignoring my points. Until you are prepared to honestly address my posts there is nothing more to say.

Yes, the dissonance is between Jesus being dead, and Jesus being the Messiah who would restore the kingdom of David and rule over it.However I feel the need to stress that I do not believe that they were consciously making up ideas to solve the problem, and that I believe that genuine, although mundane, experiences helped persuade them that Jesus somehow still lived.

quote:

---

IMHO cognitive dissonance makes no sense. In order for them to have experienced cognitive dissonance they would have required some previous idea of what it was they were describing.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me explain the idea very simply. The Disciples strongly believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he would fulfil the Messianic prophecies. But on the other hand Jesus had just been executed and the prophecies remained unfulfilled. They needed to find a way to deal with the facts that allowed them to retain their beliefs. The idea that Jesus was still alive in some sense and would return to fulfil the prophecies did that.

quote:

---

Jesus often referred to Himself as The Son of Man which He drew from Daniel and particularly Daniel 7. We then go to read in chap 10 and read about a Christ like figure.

---

Of course this is another problematic issue. The figure in Daniel 7 is described as "one like a Son of Man" - and by implication not even A Son of Man. "Son of Man" simply means "a human being".

quote:

---

This would have been the type of experience that we would expect if they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. There is no Gospel account of a face like lightning etc.

---

I don't know what you are talking about. I have NEVER suggested that any experiences were arrived at through cognitive dissonance, and to the best of my knowledge cognitive dissonance doesn't DO that. It simply encourages the acceptance of beliefs that resolve the contradiction.

quote:

---

This would have been the type of experience that we would expect if they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. There is no Gospel account of a face like lightning etc.

---

Of course I am suggesting that the post-resurrection appearances are elaborations of ordinary post-bereavement experiences, which explains them a good deal better.

quote:

---

Again, in the story of the transfiguration we have an account of Jesus whose face shone like the sun’ and His clothes turning white. Instead of that we have Jesus eating fish and being very physical.

---

And your point is ?

quote:

---

I cannot see any evidence that an experience of cognitive dissonance that would lead them to the experiences that they describe. They would have had no anticipation expectation or even hope that Jesus would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I just do not see cognitive dissonance as being at all plausible.

---

OK, the idea that you made up makes no sense. Perhaps you would like to start addressing my position instead of beating up on a strawman ?

quote:

---

Cognitive dissonance is more than that. It isn't just finding a way to keep the movement going. It is about them actually believing something that is born out of a desire for it to be true, but is in contravention of the facts.

---

I don't believe that it HAS to be in contravention of the facts - indeed, it's important that they don't KNOW it to be in contravention to the facts. Aside from that, you're just agreeing with me.

quote:

---

The point is though, that if this were the case they would at the very least come up with something that would be consistent with existing scriptures or something that they would have in some way anticipated. There was no thought that anyone would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I quoted Daniel 7 because Jesus often did particularly in calling Himself "Son of Man". They would come up with something like the transfiguration but they would have no reason to come up with the resurrection stories that are in the NT.

---

If they were consciously making up stories, they might well have done that. But that isn't what cognitive dissonance is about - because if they were making up stories about experiences they had never had in reality, they would KNOW that they were false!Also I'm NOT claiming that the appearance stories that we have were produced by the Disciples OR the product of cognitive dissonance. As I told you in the post that you are replying to!When you can't even make valid objections to your own blatant strawman you've got real problems.The only things that I attribute to cognitive dissonance is a willingness to believe that Jesus was somehow alive, based on normal post-bereavement experiences, and the concept of the Second Coming.And again, I need to remind you of the point that even if Jesus did call himself "Son of Man" (which we can't know) he may have been simply emphasising his own humanity, rather than claiming to be an entity that is implicitly NOT a Son of Man.

quote:

---

The "son of man" may well be human but he is also anointed by God.

---

But Daniel 7 doesn't talk of "a son of man" - it talks of "one like a son of man". i.e. Daniel 7 only tells us that this being LOOKS human - and no more. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If it is based on fact it isn’t cognitive dissonance but of course it is important that they don’t know it contravenes the facts. I think we likely do agree on that.

---

"Based on facts" is rather too loose a phrase. There likely will be SOME basis for any belief produced by cognitive dissonance, the point is that the belief is accepted almost entirely because it resolves the cognitive dissonance - which requires only that the basis is quite inadequate to rationally support the conclusion.

quote:

---

So you are saying that they experienced some form of vision or hallucination of Jesus after the crucifixion.

---

Or saw him in dreams, or "felt his presence", or mistook people they saw for him. The story of Mary's encounter with Jesus in John 20:14-18 could be derived from an event of the latter sort.

quote:

---

Even if you are right it sure seems to me that it would be a case of cognitive dissonance to get from that to a Jesus who they believe is physical and eats fish.

---

Since the disciples aren't responsible for the final form of the stories that we have, their cognitive dissonance can't be the entire cause of that form. We have decades of elaboration - and in that particular case, perhaps even a desire to refute opposing ideas of a purely spiritual resurrection - to consider as well.

quote:

---

Which is the point I’m making.

​

I am saying though that in order for cognitive dissonance to occur there has to be some expectation of what it is that they have come to believe and in this case that expectation doesn’t exist.

---

I didn't mention any need for prior expectation and I don't believe that there is such a need and you haven't given me any reason to suppose that there is.

quote:

---

You are splitting hairs.

---

Wrong. I am making an important point. We don't know if Jesus actually did claim to be the supernatural entity appearing in Daniel 7 or not. The entity in Daniel 7 is not described as even a Son of Man while the phrase "son of man" just means "human being". Even if Jesus did use the phrase to refer to himself (and we can't even be certain of that) it's ambiguous enough that we would need to understand HOW he used it, which is tough when all we have is the translations of distant - and likely second hand - memories.

quote:

---

All of the Gospels use the term Son of Man repeatedly and if you go to Revelation you can see the term used as well. For example: Rev 14:14: I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

---

Which only tells us of Christian usage of the phrase decades after Jesus died. That's not splitting hairs, that's an important consideration. You have GOT to remember that there is a a temporal distance - and almost certainly a significant theological distance - between the NT writings and Jesus.