Nuclear Testimony

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's the problem with the phrase "a Biblical worldview" as I see it. Some of the Bible is missing, and some of it's wrong, and some is corrupted. So what view should one take from the Bible?

Missing: When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, there was a verse in Psalm 145 that had long been missing that was found, and re-inserted in the "modern text", including, ahem, the RecV. The reason they knew it was missing was that the Psalm was an 'acrostic' with each verse starting with a new letter in sequence. But there it was in the DSS. This shows that the text has been remarkably well-curated if the 2,000 year-old DSS and the medieval copies agree so well, but one can't be too sure that some other bits aren't missing. We just don't know. So a bit of circumspection might be in order, in formulating and holding one's views.

Wrong: I already covered the fate of Judas in another post. He's listed as dying in two different ways, which doesn't seem possible.

Corrupted: I toted around the KJV for years as proof of my "orthodoxy". One day I read the verses from 1 John 5 aloud in my study group, and everyone looked at me blankly. Evidently this section was called the "Johannine comma" and most modern versions don't have it. Someone in the Middle ages tried to "prove" the trinity concept biblically and inserted it into the manuscript. Again, this is the exception not the rule. But corruption exists. Older texts have remarkable agreement. But there's evidence of deliberate corruption in at least some variants (e.g., KJV).

Another case is with Jewish historian Josephus. His text mentions that Jesus was the Christ and was seen on the third day, risen from the dead. "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249. Paula Fredricksen.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The text was probably corrupted by later Christians who wanted independent textual witness that Jesus was Christ and resurrected on the 3rd day. Of course any textual narrative, when copied by hand over centuries, will endure some unintentional corruption. But the question is, how much deliberate corruption was done at the hands of Christian apologists? I see two cases, outlined above. There may be more, some even egregious. So circumspection is in order.

That's all I'm trying to say here. A "Biblical worldview" doesn't mean that you have to believe that every single word is literally true. Some fundamentalists work that way, and I feel bad for their children who must put up with such nonsense to survive. Just to cite one case, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has produced a sea-change in Biblical studies, but other than supplying one verse to the RecV, it's had no discernible impact in the LC. If that's what's meant by the phrase above I agree. But there are Biblical worldviews that differ greatly from the LC variant. Some are quite obliging to scientific methods.

I remember serving in a children's meeting, and the elder's wife scoffed, "Everybody knows dinosaurs didn't exist" and I was like, "Huh!?" But of course I didn't say anything because in the LC one didn't profitably argue with the elder's wife.

Thanks for the tip on "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." I think I'll put that on my future life reading. My reading load is full up right now.

"SerenityLives" has me reading a very sweet book : "The Forgotten Creed." The basis of the book is Galatians 3:28 : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (ESV) ; no ethnicity, no race, no gender ; "All are Children of God in Christ." This creed, the author, Patterson, says, Paul borrowed from an earlier baptism liturgy, meaning this is how earlier Christians than Paul saw concerning being in Christ. It's really beautiful when you think about it.

And concerning the Bible being questionable, due to meddling down thru the manuscript copies, I hope you continue your studies. There are more variations in the manuscripts of the NT, than there are words in the NT. Yes, a lot of them are innocent human error. Scribes are human too.

But then there are deliberate changes, besides the Johannine comma in 1 John 5 -- again scribes are human -- there's also the adulterous women (throw the first stone), and the last 12 verses in Mark. Also, almost half of books attributed to Paul are disputed. Most scholars consider them pseudepigraphal.

Bro aron, you might want to add to your reading list : "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."

[aron]

In Jesus' day, there were Pharisees and Sadducees in Jerusalem, both with "Biblical worldview" but quite different from each other. And out in the desert were the Essenes, who'd withdrawn so that they could be alone with their Biblical worldview, which was different still.

This continued upon the spread of Christianity: some in the Corinth church apparently didn't believe into the resurrection from the dead, to hear Paul in 1 Cor 15:12. Some Jerusalem disciples remained Pharisaic with their legalistic requirements per Acts 15:5: "You must be circumcised".

Now, having said that, I suppose one who doesn't believe in God can simply reject a Biblical view in any shape or form. But to reject God simply because their past Biblical worldview engaged imaginary schema with little critical basis is perhaps to sell oneself short. I think the LC really set themselves up in this regard. They insisted on such monolithic and implausible schema that many of their children leave, where they not only reject the LC but also God. When they get the conceptual rug yanked out everything's gone, except implacable and resolute denial.

[aron]

Anything that makes a claim must have some evidence that it's in fact so. I asked earlier, how does one know something's actually fact and not an imaginary figment? How to know Julius Caesar really crossed the Rubicon, or Hannibal really took elephants across the Alps? Are these myths, or historical facts? My answer is to look for witnesses to the claim, which themselves are vouchsafed for legitimacy by other witnesses, which are themselves proved reliable by similar means, and so on. There should be, as it were, an overlapping network of claims, a "chain of testimony" that can ultimately persuade one that it's more likely to be so, than not so.

Many witnesses don't make a fact. Many witnesses can all be biased, or deluded. My case in point is the Mormon faith. There are perhaps millions of adherents, but this doesn't over-ride the fact that there's no credible DNA evidence that the Native American tribes were in fact the "lost tribes of Israel" as Joseph Smith claimed. Any dispassionate investigation into Mormon claims and they fall apart quickly. One Mormon believer had these kinds of questions which he directed to the LDS Church Authorities and it was titled the "CES Letter". Somewhat like the Jo Casteel letter on Facebook, it caused a stir.

https://zelphontheshelf.com/the-mill...he-ces-letter/

My point is this: asking one to believe something, like the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, should have some compelling reasons beyond, "If you don't believe then you will be in torment for eternity." Or, "Accept our religion or we'll burn your village down." I don't have any problem with questioning religious claims. As I said earlier, I think it's helpful for my faith to converse often with the likes of Richard Dawkins. Is God tough enough to handle critical inquiry? He made us with brains - why not use them, occasionally. Or try, anyway. Talk to someone who doesn't believe what you do. Why do they hold their ideas? Are their ideational bases more solid than yours?

Here's a typical response to the CES Letter from the within the Mormon community. "It's too long. Why bother". Like the Full-Timer who says, "I sense death, so I won't read it. It's against WL, so how could it possibly be true?"

Originally Posted by LDS Member

For a couple years I had an office at UCLA in a building called Engineering IV, a much nicer building than the utilitarian name might imply. My office and those of most I dealt with were on the fourth floor, but many mornings I would first ride the elevator up to the fifth floor to look out a large floor-to-ceiling window toward the southwest. Now and then the haze was light enough that I could see the ocean. There were no classrooms or lecture halls in this building, only offices and lab space, but it was a public building on a public university campus, so the hallways were open to the public, and we were told not to kick any strange people out, just call campus security if there was a problem.

I never saw any strange members of the public in the building, but one day I came upon a manifesto of sorts pinned to a bulletin board. Someone had done the favor of laying out in a dozen typed pages of Descartes-like reason and observation that we academics in our ivory tower were all wrong about thermodynamics. Work-heat equivalence, second law of thermodynamics, heat conduction? A bunch of fables passed along from teacher to student since Joule, Carnot, and Fourier.

I made a copy for myself, thinking it would be an interesting exercise sometime to identify where the errors were that led to such conclusions, but I never found the necessary conjunction of time and interest to dig into it. It’s probably still lying in a box in the attic packed when we left Los Angeles fifteen years ago. I still think it would be a mildly worthwhile intellectual exercise to analysis it, but I strongly doubt there would have been any value at all in debating its author, for either myself or him.

Pulling up the 84-page CES letter, I find its author did not once invoke Galileo, so it has that going for it.

This is someone who had an office in UCLA Engineering building, supposedly intelligent, educated, and successful. But the attitude is "why bother, I'm too busy." Well, what if that screed you took off the bulletin board and tucked away in your boxes and never read, got published in the physics journals and the author got a position at Caltech? Would you read it then? The writer notes the semi-ocean view from his building on the campus, yet never attempts to address the issue at hand. You know, the reason he's writing this reply.

This is similar to the response by Minoru Chen to the Jo Casteel letter on Facebook: "All this has been answered before". No it has not - it's been evaded, obfuscated, denied and covered over. MC's "it's already been answered" is supposed to be an answer? Or, "the letter is too long, too complicated, why bother". Yes, you have given your entire life to something that shouldn't be examined or defended on its merits because why bother. Or the subjective fall-back, "They have a bad attitude". And you don't?

I know this thread was on Nuclear and their unwillingness to accept a "Biblical worldview" versus a scientific one, but my reply here is that the Biblical worldview can be subject to the same skeptical inquiry that every other view gets. If it doesn't survive, too bad. If Richard Dawkins wants to chat with you some morning and you're afraid to let him in, what do you base your life on? Or Jo Casteel or whomever. Or the LDS Church with the CES Letter. If your faith survives it will be stronger and better for it. If it doesn't then it probably shouldn't.

The Roman Church tried the same tactic with Galileo and Luther, as the LDS church and the LSM Local Church later tried with their questioning and skeptical members. "We're big, powerful, well-established and have a lot of money. Who are you? How dare you critique us?" Or, "How dare you critique God' oracle? Who are you?" Or, "It's too long, all they do is whine and complain. I can't be bothered to stoop to reply." Okay, enjoy your comfy status, and don't bother to stir. Wave goodbye as your disillusioned members exit in droves.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

In Jesus' day, there were Pharisees and Sadducees in Jerusalem, both with "Biblical worldview" but quite different from each other. And out in the desert were the Essenes, who'd withdrawn so that they could be alone with their Biblical worldview, which was different still.

This continued upon the spread of Christianity: some in the Corinth church apparently didn't believe into the resurrection from the dead, to hear Paul in 1 Cor 15:12. Some Jerusalem disciples remained Pharisaic with their legalistic requirements per Acts 15:5: "You must be circumcised".

Now, having said that, I suppose one who doesn't believe in God can simply reject a Biblical view in any shape or form. But to reject God simply because their past Biblical worldview engaged imaginary schema with little critical basis is perhaps to sell oneself short. I think the LC really set themselves up in this regard. They insisted on such monolithic and implausible schema that many of their children leave, where they not only reject the LC but also God. When they get the conceptual rug yanked out everything's gone, except implacable and resolute denial.

My Chinese wife dropped it all. She went back to her cradle beliefs, or non-beliefs ... atheism. When our son died, she went to a spiritual reader, to get in touch with him. She was told that he had work to do here, finished it, and had work to do in the afterlife. That provided comfort during her grieving period.

And I have a very good friend from Jr. high days, who lived with me back in the day. My mother took her in for about a year. For the record I never 'knew' her in the Biblical sense, and have never -- tho friends of mine did, before the LC and afterwards. After I got the boot she considered me a serpent. Five yrs later she and her husband got the boot just like me -- for the same reason : Lee MOTA. After she left the LC she dropped it all. And she's bubbly happy all the time. Let's face it, the supernatural world is hard and a lot of work to keep up with. It's suppose to bring happiness, but instead can get you down. Isn't this natural life overload enough?

But most that I know, don't drop it all. Like me, they try to find other believers to meet with. If that doesn't work then they start dropping things. But I'm here to tell you, whichever you do, it ain't easy dropping the local church. From what I've seen there's like a deprogramming period, that may take years ... with thousands of questions, doubts, and all, plaguing you.

And dropping all that may result in dropping God. Otherwise it could drive one crazy.

I don't see it as a big deal to drop God. After all, the same needs and impulses that drew you to God in the first place, still exist. Those will still plague you. In the end God is much harder to drop than the LC. If you do He'll likely be back.

Then, like the differing Biblical worldviews, as you say, during Jesus' day, what shape will your worldview take, Biblical or otherwise? Like this postmodern age, everyone's will be different. I find that to be true for exLCer's that I know, and have known, too. They go ever which way.

I still love them, no matter what, atheists or not (even to in the LC loving each other was forbidden as soulish -- I guess I've dropped that ... thank God).

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

And dropping all that may result in dropping God. Otherwise it could drive one crazy.

I don't see it as a big deal to drop God. After all, the same needs and impulses that drew you to God in the first place, still exist. Those will still plague you. In the end God is much harder to drop than the LC. If you do He'll likely be back.

Then, like the differing Biblical worldviews, as you say, during Jesus' day, what shape will your worldview take, Biblical or otherwise? Like this postmodern age, everyone's will be different.

I will try to answer this in my next post.

Originally Posted by awareness

The basis of the book is Galatians 3:28 : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (ESV) ; no ethnicity, no race, no gender ; "All are Children of God in Christ." This creed, the author, Patterson, says, Paul borrowed from an earlier baptism liturgy, meaning this is how earlier Christians than Paul saw concerning being in Christ. It's really beautiful when you think about it.

The phrase, "There is neither Jew nor Greek" doesn't efface all ethnic or cultural distinctions. It just means that both Jews and Greeks can enter into God's family, God's house. Some kids are fat, some are stupid, some are lazy, but they all are God's children, and all loved equally by God. Likewise, some believers in Jesus are Jews and some are Greeks, some are male and some female, some are slave and some free. But they all believe. Star differs from star in glory. It's okay. Really.

Witness Lee tried to teach that we all should be "exactly identical, with no differences whatsoever". But that doesn't look like God's creation to me. Some stars shine brighter than others. A faceless white-shirted and black-tied proletariat doesn't look like God's family to me. Sorry.

Jews are Jews and Greeks are Greeks and males are males and females are females. But nobody should be proud of what they are, nor scornful of any others. But if someone wants to erase all distinctions then they're on the wrong path.

[aron]

I've made the point that I don't defend "God" as a teleological position of itself, but what I defend is my faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the glories which followed. If God didn't resurrect Jesus from the dead on the third day, then I've fallen prey to mass delusion or hoax and God's existence (or not) becomes moot point. Likewise, if Jesus actually rose from the dead, then the answer's settled to my satisfaction.

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

I say that if Jesus rose from the dead, then God is not only real but is known.

Okay, then, where's the proof of Jesus' resurrection? Where's the evidence? I'll now provide my reasoning. I've already established (to my satisfaction) that most scholars, Christian and not, have adduced the existence of a man 'Jesus', and a man 'Paul'. There's simply too much secondary literature around the nascent Christian movement in the centuries that followed. Someone existed and something happened, for all this mass of literary accretia to assemble itself. If Jesus were an absolute 100% literary fabrication it would be quite impressive. Easier for me to think that a bunch of people (like Paul) were convinced of Jesus' Messiah-ship and went around and gained converts and established various congregations.

Pliny the Younger, for example, writes of the Christians in the year 112-113 CE. And Pliny is attested by other witnesses, and believe me [!!] he's no Christian!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_..._on_Christians

For a group following a non-existent person to be that widespread and established in 80 years is less plausible than that someone - Jesus - actually existed. Similarly a person 'Paul' is attested to, in epistle and Acts, and most objective viewers, even non-Christians, think that he actually existed - how else could the faith be spread so far and so firmly? Easier to imagine a Saul the Pharisee from Tarsus being converted and becoming Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, as documented in the NT, than: A) he was a purely literary creation; and B) some other unknown and un-named person(s) did all that heavy lifting and proselytized so widely and successfully.

Like I said earlier, there are also secondary apologetic Christian witnesses like Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, all testifying of each other, and Paul, and the Twelve. And of course Paul and the Twelve (i.e. the NT) testify of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So to imagine that all of this was manufactured whole-cloth some centuries later is less plausible than imagining that the faith, and the faithful, actually existed.

But I'd like to focus in on one apostle: Peter. Did he exist, or was he merely a literary creation? If he was drawn out in so much detail and it's all lies, I'm very impressed -- I've been taken by a hoax but I daresay it's a good one. You have massive detail in four Gospels, in the Acts, the letters of Paul, and the letters of Peter. All fake.... wow, very good. I've been snookered by what is probably the forgery of all time. My bad.

Or, Peter actually existed. And Peter, of course, testified to Christ's resurrection.

Now I come to this: it is easier for me to believe in the existence of Peter the Galilean fisherman than to believe that he was a made-up literary creation. And he testifies that he saw Jesus alive from the dead. Now, that is not in and of itself "evidence" per se, which is why it's called faith. And if someone doesn't believe then they obviously have their reasons. But I believe: I review the NT, in toto, and the secondary literature, such as Pliny, Josephus, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc and see enough confluence of "witness" that I believe.

Others feel comfortable with "no God" or a different God, well I'm fine with that. I don't think faith is something to be proved in some Descartes-like fashion. Either one believes or they don't. But I think it's worth taking the time and effort to understand, and actually sift through the documents, in the face of others who think differently, and who also sift. Ignoring or pooh-pooh-ing (or threatening) everyone who doesn't agree with your faith doesn't seem very robust.

And there's a great mass of literature to sort through, much of it emanating from the "Second Temple Judaism" era. Late Antiquity, as it were. Daniel Boyarin is another example I use besides Dawkins. The Christians and Jews both don't like him because he doesn't "toe the line" in either camp. But boy does he know his primary source material! You could do worse than hang out for a few hours with Boyarin, whatever your disposition. Whatever you hold dear, he can wreck it in a heartbeat. And I love the guy. He makes my Christian faith so ... enjoyable. Maybe I'm perverse that way, I dunno. But if you survive Boyarin it really puts a bounce in your step.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I've made the point that I don't defend "God" as a teleological position of itself, but what I defend is my faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the glories which followed. If God didn't resurrect Jesus from the dead on the third day, then I've fallen prey to a hoax and God's existence (or not) becomes moot point to me. Likewise, if Jesus actually rose from the dead, then the answer's settled to my satisfaction.

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

I say that if Jesus rose from the dead, then God is not only real but is known.

Okay, then, where's the proof of Jesus' resurrection? Where's the evidence? I will provide my reasoning. I've already established (to my satisfaction) that most scholars, Christian and not, have adduced the existence of a man Jesus, and a man Paul. There is simply too much secondary literature around the nascent Christian movement in the centuries that followed. Something happened there. If Jesus were an absolute 100% literary fabrication it would be quite impressive. Easier to explain that a bunch of people (like Paul) were convinced of Jesus' Messiah-ship and went around and gained converts and established various congregations.

Pliny the Younger, for example, writes of the Christians in the year 112-113 CE. And Pliny is attested by other witnesses, and he's no Christian!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_..._on_Christians

So for a group following a non-existent person to be that widespread and established in 80 years is less plausible than that someone - Jesus - actually existed. Likewise we have 'Paul' attested in epistle and Acts, and most objective viewers think that he, or someone quite like him, existed - how else could the faith be spread so far and so firmly? Easier to imagine a Saul the Pharisee from Tarsus being converted and becoming Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, as documented in the NT, than: A) he was a purely literary creation; and B) some other un-named person(s) did all that heavy lifting and proselytized so widely and successfully.

Like I said earlier, there are secondary apologetic Christian witnesses like Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp all testifying of each other and of Paul and the Twelve. And of course Paul and the Twelve testify of the resurrection. So to imagine that all of this was manufactured whole-cloth some centuries later is less plausible than that the faith, and the faithful, actually existed.

But I'd like to focus in on one apostle: Peter. Did he exist, or was he merely a literary creation? If he was drawn out in so much detail and it's all lies, I am very impressed -- I've been taken by a hoax but I daresay it's a good one. You have four Gospels, you have the Acts, and you have the letters of Paul, and the letters of Peter. All fake.... wow, very good. I've been snookered by the forgery of all time. My bad.

Or, Peter actually existed. And Peter, of course, testified to Christ's resurrection.

Now I come to this: it is easier for me to believe in the existence of Peter the Galilean fisherman than to believe that he was a made-up literary creation. And he testifies that he saw Jesus alive from the dead. Now, that is not in and of itself "evidence" per se, which is why it's called faith. And if someone doesn't believe then they obviously have their reasons. But I believe, and confess, and attempt to live my life as if it were true. I take the NT, in toto, and the secondary literature, such as Pliny, Josephus, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc and see enough "witness" that I believe.

Others feel comfortable with "no God" or a different God, well I'm fine with that.

My problem is : I wasn't there. For all I know, as some has claimed, Jesus had a twin.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

My problem is : I wasn't there. For all I know, as some has claimed, Jesus had a twin.

Or, he got carried off in a space-ship and is returning on the Halle-Bop Comet. Oops, sorry, someone tried that.

Seriously, the great mass of literature is well established. That's why I stay away from people like Witness Lee, who don't have any peers to vet their ideas. You really don't have to be that obscure to follow Jesus. Everything is in plain sight. "Nothing has been done in a corner" said Paul. ~Acts 26:26. Obscurantism is not attractive spirituality. Don't let people pull you into dark holes.