Well, Mikey did provide us with a few “answers” to the earlier exegetical conundrums posed, but he took the easy route going for the basic verbal contradictions as opposed to the thematic contradictions (in philosophy) listed in the preceding paragraph. But we must be generous here and understand that when one does online bible school short cuts are more likely to be taken than the straight and narrow hard route!
Actually, his answers are very typical of neophytes who pick apart small verbal disparities and even complain on the inaccuracy of the quotes rather than looking at the big picture.
To remind readers, we presented the following passages to reconcile (as alternatives to the more difficult thematic contradictions):
According to the Gospel of John, Jesus says two different things about bearing his own witness:1)
“If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:3 1)and
2) "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)
Now, the first sign of the neophyte with a belligerent attitude is when he editorializes, opinionates and employs ad hominem, before setting to work. Thus, true to form, Mikey writes:
“Well , as I mentioned in my last few blogs - the Bible DOES have difficult passages . Sadly , many who encounter them are NOT seeking the truth to begin with , as more often than not , the truth of God's Word does NOT "agree" with THEIR beliefs , nor fit into their comfort zone , hence they quote from morons like Bart Ehrman who makes his rounds selling his anti-Christ books and pushing his atheist theology. From what I understand, he charges $5,000 to engage in debates, while others of similar popularity charge nothing . It's a shame so many people are all too willing to blindly accept what Bart Ehrman says, no matter how erroneous or how unscholarly it may be”
In fact, this is piffle and baloney, except for the first statement about the Bible having "difficult passages" (meaning Mikey can't reconcile them easily - or deal with the errors!) Prof. Ehrman, meanwhile, is one of the most respected biblical scholars and his lectures have been so erudite and popular they’ve even been packaged into best-selling commercial courses by The Teaching Company as Introductions to the New Testament, and The History of the Bible. If any of what Mike opines were valid, Ehrman would never have been picked for such courses! The REAL fact here is that Ehrman is a FORMER evangelical and that eats Mikey’s soul raw. He can’t abide that a “turncoat” could now be getting such gravitas and popularity in spreading a more authentic message than Mikey embraces.
Unlike Mikey, Prof. Ehrman uses a rigorous and methodical textual analysis approach to show the gospels and most of the Bible, especially the KJV, can’t be taken literally. This sticks in Mike’s craw so he consigns Ehrman to the “pits’ like he does so many others with whom he doesn’t agree. (Bear in mind Mikey's brain is a one-trick pony which revolves around one litmus test for reality: 'You believe KJV? No - then you be DEVIL!')
As for the red herring about Ehrman receiving $5,000 per debate, this is minimal compared to the $10,000 William Dembski (of the Discovery Institute) and Lee Strobel receive, or the $20,000 Jason Lisle gets per debate. (And none of them are remotely as accurate as Ehrman is when he appears).
Mikey claims “others of equal popularity charge nothing” – but again, one gets what one pays for. Do people want actual facts when a debate is put on, or do they want a side show with some bloviating clown (say like Mikey) making it up as he goes along?
When Mike finally settles down to the task at hand he blows it…big time, in reference to assessing the meaning of (1).
“Here , Jesus claimed to be equal with God ( 5:18 ) , to give eternal life ( 5:24 ) , to be the source of life ( 5:26 ) , and to judge sin ( 5:27 ) . These statements make it clear that Jesus claimed to be Divine - an almost unbelievable claim , but one that was supported by another witness , John the Baptist . Jesus recognizes that the Jews would not formally accept the claim ( witness ) of one person . Jewish law required two witnesses . On the basis of one witness , Jesus states that the Jews would accept that witness as NOT TRUE”
But this is tap dancing around the point! IF Jesus really claimed equality with God (5:18) and we know or are supposed to (and certainly Jesus IS supposed to!) – that GOD IS ALL - then only ONE witness is required! His own! In other words, if Yeshua indeed accedes to the Jewish need for “two witnesses” he is really saying he ISN’T the equal of God since an additional human witness is needed for him to be taken at his word. This also conforms with Oxford Scholar Geza Vermes analysis in his book, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, when he shows that Yeshua himself makes no claim at either Messiah-hood or being a “Son of God’ – these are all separate attributions of others.
As Vermes has resolved it (by reconciling the L and M traditions from textual analysis) it is the "Son of Man' sayings (with their origin in Daniel 7) that carry the most weight over the "Son of God" sayings which are mainly later syncretic additions.
That indeed, is why the claim is unbelievable – because it simply doesn’t conform with the actual textual analysis!
The argument that the Jews wouldn’t accept the claim of one witness (for equality with God) is also irrelevant as well as stupid. The fact is even if Yeshua produced a million witnesses the Jews would never have accepted his divinity! It would have been blasphemous to do so.
In respect of (2) Mikey blathers:
“Now , as for John 8:14 , first notice the surreptitious way this atheist injects the word "Even" when he ( deliberately? ) MISQUOTES John 8:14? Look CLOSELY again at his quote : "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true." ( my emphasis )”
But again, this doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference to the essential passage and words. We have (again!) to behold Mikey in his “Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee” routine. He tries to make a humongous issue of a word which doesn’t alter the primary thrust of the passage which is the matter of bearing witness to oneself. Mike here demonstrates he is practicing eisegesis and not exegesis!
Mike then blabbers:
“But NOW , let's look at the ENTIRE CORRECT quote from JESUS HIMSELF ! "Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go."How does this guy get "Even" from Jesus' word "Though"?
Errr…..maybe because I'm referencing the much more accurate Revised Standard Version of the Bible? But, of course, since Mikey worships at the altar of his KJV he won’t accept the quotations from other versions, never mind they’ve been shown to be more faithful to the original translations!
As Prof. Ehrman observes (Misquoting Jesus):
“The King James version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’ edition, which was based on a single twelfth century manuscript that is one of the worst that we now have available to us!”
Eliminating this distraction of Mikey’s, it's clear the contradiction of (1) with (2) remains. Yeshua is still claiming his testimony is sufficient though Mikey argues he needs more than himself as witness for (1). Yeshua is stating: “I bear record of myself, yet my record is true for I know whence I came and whither I do”
In other words, he’s asserting more than one witness isn’t really required in direct contradiction to (1). Then, true to the tactics of the eisegesist, Mikey tries to drag in an earlier passage:
“Anyway , to understand 8:14 in it's PROPER context , we MUST look at the preceding verse ( v. 13 ) : "The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."You see, the Pharisees thought Jesus was either insane or a liar . Jesus provided them with a third alternative : He was telling the TRUTH !”
But it eludes him that NO Jew would regard Yeshua as anything other than insane for making this claim. Geza Vermes' textual analysis again confirms this. Moreover, the Pharisees’ take would have been consistent with Yeshua’s own that he is not the Son of God - rather he's the 'Son of Man' (Son of Man Sayings Linked to Daniel 7 and Attributed to Jesus', p. 253, Vermes)
As for Mikey’s “third alternative” – not a chance! The reason is for the Jews (not just Pharisees!) to regard it as so, they'd have to accept an identity between Yahweh and Jesus! This simply wasn't on, no matter how much Mikey desires to make it so.
As one might expect, Mike fares no better in his exegetical foray with the next dichotomy:
According to Luke 23:43
Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise”
According to John 20:17
No. He said to Mary Magdalen two days later, “I have not yet ascended to the Father”"
Mikey’s solution?
As usual to begin with bombast, and ad hominem:
“Well , since we obviously can't trust this guy to be honest in quoting Scripture ( much less "interpreting" it ) , allow me to quote it”
Not realizing I was totally honest in the quotation – it just wasn’t from Mikey’s corrupted KJV! As for interpretation, I’ve already shown Mikey is the one deficient here, and his logic isn’t even consistent (which one also expects in proper exegesis) – as we saw with the first dichotomy.
Here he launches into an irrelevant discussion of Luke 39-43 before getting to any point.
When he finally does get to the point, he scribbles:
“In the verse above , the day He died , Jesus' SPIRIT went to be with the Father ( as Luke 23:43 , 46 records ; "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" Luke 23:46 ) . So His SPIRIT had been with the Father , but His BODY had "not yet ascended" into Heaven when He spoke to Mary . The BODILY ascension took place some 40 days LATER”
But this interpretation mixes apples and oranges. The reason is that we have two distinct situations. The latter about the claim of "not yet having ascended" transpired when Mary Magdalen approached to touch Yeshua. He warned her that his body was not truly touchable - which meant (logically!) it would not have been a PHYSICAL body! This is an incident and issue I thrashed out with the pretend pastor before, about the distinctions between spiritual and physical bodies.
He is hoist on a contradiction here, since he claims that when Yeshua forewarned Mary Magdalen he was in possession of his ("not yet ascended") physical body. But any joker with an IQ over room temperature knows all physical bodies are touchable! THAT is what makes them physical bodies! They possess properties of mass, volume, density and are composed of corporeal matter: atoms, molecules, electrons, quarks, and gluons. The fact that Mary was warned off touching therefore means the body with which she was confronted was NOT physical! For all we know, it may have been a finely tuned holograph, or even a mirage or hallucination of her own mind and the voice issued from within her mind. The basis of fundamental exegesis is that there is no physical body here, and the words were syncretic additions since they don't conform with the original Aramaic. It appears an early copyist was trying to interject or insinuate a condition that would be supposed to be physical, suggesting an "ascension" 40 days later- not appreciating the description was very unphysical!
Let's assume for the moment that the "body" seen by Mary Magdalen and which she attempted to touch was real, but as we've seen - not physical. Let us even grant the only other possible entity it might be: a "spirit" or ghost. Then this clearly means the spirit of Yeshua was still earthbound and hence the passage clearly contradicts the claim to the thief (in Luke 23:43) that he will be with Yeshua in paradise. But if Yeshua's spirit was still skulking around, this would have been impossible.
Again, to make Mikey's interpretation valid, one would have to assume or believe (despite all known evidence to the contrary) that a physical body is untouchable! THIS is total balderdash!
The only logical, proper conclusion is that IF the body visible was real, it was spiritual only - since one can't touch a truly spiritual entity.
Again, Mikey founders - leading me to suspect we need to give him a proper test on exegesis! We don't waste time on him further unless he can earn at least a 70%!
Actually, his answers are very typical of neophytes who pick apart small verbal disparities and even complain on the inaccuracy of the quotes rather than looking at the big picture.
To remind readers, we presented the following passages to reconcile (as alternatives to the more difficult thematic contradictions):
According to the Gospel of John, Jesus says two different things about bearing his own witness:1)
“If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:3 1)and
2) "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)
Now, the first sign of the neophyte with a belligerent attitude is when he editorializes, opinionates and employs ad hominem, before setting to work. Thus, true to form, Mikey writes:
“Well , as I mentioned in my last few blogs - the Bible DOES have difficult passages . Sadly , many who encounter them are NOT seeking the truth to begin with , as more often than not , the truth of God's Word does NOT "agree" with THEIR beliefs , nor fit into their comfort zone , hence they quote from morons like Bart Ehrman who makes his rounds selling his anti-Christ books and pushing his atheist theology. From what I understand, he charges $5,000 to engage in debates, while others of similar popularity charge nothing . It's a shame so many people are all too willing to blindly accept what Bart Ehrman says, no matter how erroneous or how unscholarly it may be”
In fact, this is piffle and baloney, except for the first statement about the Bible having "difficult passages" (meaning Mikey can't reconcile them easily - or deal with the errors!) Prof. Ehrman, meanwhile, is one of the most respected biblical scholars and his lectures have been so erudite and popular they’ve even been packaged into best-selling commercial courses by The Teaching Company as Introductions to the New Testament, and The History of the Bible. If any of what Mike opines were valid, Ehrman would never have been picked for such courses! The REAL fact here is that Ehrman is a FORMER evangelical and that eats Mikey’s soul raw. He can’t abide that a “turncoat” could now be getting such gravitas and popularity in spreading a more authentic message than Mikey embraces.
Unlike Mikey, Prof. Ehrman uses a rigorous and methodical textual analysis approach to show the gospels and most of the Bible, especially the KJV, can’t be taken literally. This sticks in Mike’s craw so he consigns Ehrman to the “pits’ like he does so many others with whom he doesn’t agree. (Bear in mind Mikey's brain is a one-trick pony which revolves around one litmus test for reality: 'You believe KJV? No - then you be DEVIL!')
As for the red herring about Ehrman receiving $5,000 per debate, this is minimal compared to the $10,000 William Dembski (of the Discovery Institute) and Lee Strobel receive, or the $20,000 Jason Lisle gets per debate. (And none of them are remotely as accurate as Ehrman is when he appears).
Mikey claims “others of equal popularity charge nothing” – but again, one gets what one pays for. Do people want actual facts when a debate is put on, or do they want a side show with some bloviating clown (say like Mikey) making it up as he goes along?
When Mike finally settles down to the task at hand he blows it…big time, in reference to assessing the meaning of (1).
“Here , Jesus claimed to be equal with God ( 5:18 ) , to give eternal life ( 5:24 ) , to be the source of life ( 5:26 ) , and to judge sin ( 5:27 ) . These statements make it clear that Jesus claimed to be Divine - an almost unbelievable claim , but one that was supported by another witness , John the Baptist . Jesus recognizes that the Jews would not formally accept the claim ( witness ) of one person . Jewish law required two witnesses . On the basis of one witness , Jesus states that the Jews would accept that witness as NOT TRUE”
But this is tap dancing around the point! IF Jesus really claimed equality with God (5:18) and we know or are supposed to (and certainly Jesus IS supposed to!) – that GOD IS ALL - then only ONE witness is required! His own! In other words, if Yeshua indeed accedes to the Jewish need for “two witnesses” he is really saying he ISN’T the equal of God since an additional human witness is needed for him to be taken at his word. This also conforms with Oxford Scholar Geza Vermes analysis in his book, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, when he shows that Yeshua himself makes no claim at either Messiah-hood or being a “Son of God’ – these are all separate attributions of others.
As Vermes has resolved it (by reconciling the L and M traditions from textual analysis) it is the "Son of Man' sayings (with their origin in Daniel 7) that carry the most weight over the "Son of God" sayings which are mainly later syncretic additions.
That indeed, is why the claim is unbelievable – because it simply doesn’t conform with the actual textual analysis!
The argument that the Jews wouldn’t accept the claim of one witness (for equality with God) is also irrelevant as well as stupid. The fact is even if Yeshua produced a million witnesses the Jews would never have accepted his divinity! It would have been blasphemous to do so.
In respect of (2) Mikey blathers:
“Now , as for John 8:14 , first notice the surreptitious way this atheist injects the word "Even" when he ( deliberately? ) MISQUOTES John 8:14? Look CLOSELY again at his quote : "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true." ( my emphasis )”
But again, this doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference to the essential passage and words. We have (again!) to behold Mikey in his “Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee” routine. He tries to make a humongous issue of a word which doesn’t alter the primary thrust of the passage which is the matter of bearing witness to oneself. Mike here demonstrates he is practicing eisegesis and not exegesis!
Mike then blabbers:
“But NOW , let's look at the ENTIRE CORRECT quote from JESUS HIMSELF ! "Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go."How does this guy get "Even" from Jesus' word "Though"?
Errr…..maybe because I'm referencing the much more accurate Revised Standard Version of the Bible? But, of course, since Mikey worships at the altar of his KJV he won’t accept the quotations from other versions, never mind they’ve been shown to be more faithful to the original translations!
As Prof. Ehrman observes (Misquoting Jesus):
“The King James version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’ edition, which was based on a single twelfth century manuscript that is one of the worst that we now have available to us!”
Eliminating this distraction of Mikey’s, it's clear the contradiction of (1) with (2) remains. Yeshua is still claiming his testimony is sufficient though Mikey argues he needs more than himself as witness for (1). Yeshua is stating: “I bear record of myself, yet my record is true for I know whence I came and whither I do”
In other words, he’s asserting more than one witness isn’t really required in direct contradiction to (1). Then, true to the tactics of the eisegesist, Mikey tries to drag in an earlier passage:
“Anyway , to understand 8:14 in it's PROPER context , we MUST look at the preceding verse ( v. 13 ) : "The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."You see, the Pharisees thought Jesus was either insane or a liar . Jesus provided them with a third alternative : He was telling the TRUTH !”
But it eludes him that NO Jew would regard Yeshua as anything other than insane for making this claim. Geza Vermes' textual analysis again confirms this. Moreover, the Pharisees’ take would have been consistent with Yeshua’s own that he is not the Son of God - rather he's the 'Son of Man' (Son of Man Sayings Linked to Daniel 7 and Attributed to Jesus', p. 253, Vermes)
As for Mikey’s “third alternative” – not a chance! The reason is for the Jews (not just Pharisees!) to regard it as so, they'd have to accept an identity between Yahweh and Jesus! This simply wasn't on, no matter how much Mikey desires to make it so.
As one might expect, Mike fares no better in his exegetical foray with the next dichotomy:
According to Luke 23:43
Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise”
According to John 20:17
No. He said to Mary Magdalen two days later, “I have not yet ascended to the Father”"
Mikey’s solution?
As usual to begin with bombast, and ad hominem:
“Well , since we obviously can't trust this guy to be honest in quoting Scripture ( much less "interpreting" it ) , allow me to quote it”
Not realizing I was totally honest in the quotation – it just wasn’t from Mikey’s corrupted KJV! As for interpretation, I’ve already shown Mikey is the one deficient here, and his logic isn’t even consistent (which one also expects in proper exegesis) – as we saw with the first dichotomy.
Here he launches into an irrelevant discussion of Luke 39-43 before getting to any point.
When he finally does get to the point, he scribbles:
“In the verse above , the day He died , Jesus' SPIRIT went to be with the Father ( as Luke 23:43 , 46 records ; "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" Luke 23:46 ) . So His SPIRIT had been with the Father , but His BODY had "not yet ascended" into Heaven when He spoke to Mary . The BODILY ascension took place some 40 days LATER”
But this interpretation mixes apples and oranges. The reason is that we have two distinct situations. The latter about the claim of "not yet having ascended" transpired when Mary Magdalen approached to touch Yeshua. He warned her that his body was not truly touchable - which meant (logically!) it would not have been a PHYSICAL body! This is an incident and issue I thrashed out with the pretend pastor before, about the distinctions between spiritual and physical bodies.
He is hoist on a contradiction here, since he claims that when Yeshua forewarned Mary Magdalen he was in possession of his ("not yet ascended") physical body. But any joker with an IQ over room temperature knows all physical bodies are touchable! THAT is what makes them physical bodies! They possess properties of mass, volume, density and are composed of corporeal matter: atoms, molecules, electrons, quarks, and gluons. The fact that Mary was warned off touching therefore means the body with which she was confronted was NOT physical! For all we know, it may have been a finely tuned holograph, or even a mirage or hallucination of her own mind and the voice issued from within her mind. The basis of fundamental exegesis is that there is no physical body here, and the words were syncretic additions since they don't conform with the original Aramaic. It appears an early copyist was trying to interject or insinuate a condition that would be supposed to be physical, suggesting an "ascension" 40 days later- not appreciating the description was very unphysical!
Let's assume for the moment that the "body" seen by Mary Magdalen and which she attempted to touch was real, but as we've seen - not physical. Let us even grant the only other possible entity it might be: a "spirit" or ghost. Then this clearly means the spirit of Yeshua was still earthbound and hence the passage clearly contradicts the claim to the thief (in Luke 23:43) that he will be with Yeshua in paradise. But if Yeshua's spirit was still skulking around, this would have been impossible.
Again, to make Mikey's interpretation valid, one would have to assume or believe (despite all known evidence to the contrary) that a physical body is untouchable! THIS is total balderdash!
The only logical, proper conclusion is that IF the body visible was real, it was spiritual only - since one can't touch a truly spiritual entity.
Again, Mikey founders - leading me to suspect we need to give him a proper test on exegesis! We don't waste time on him further unless he can earn at least a 70%!
No comments:
Post a Comment