Jesus, the missing years

[Cosima___J]

OK. Goodnight. Sleep tight.

Cosi

[living_stradivarius]

OK. Goodnight. Sleep tight.

Cosi

You too...

Now I lay me down to sleep...

[jack stowaway]

I'd like to propose another take on the God vs No-God argument. Rather than try to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God from scripture, why not attempt the somewhat easier task of determining if scripture is 'true' or 'false'? For when we are discussing belief, are we not in fact discussing scriptural belief --in the case of Christians, belief in the ultimate authenticity of the Old and New Testaments, the Gospels and Revelation?

If scripture is indeed the basis for doctrinal belief then a particular belief paradigm is dependent on the truth or falsity of its sources. By 'falsity' I mean the accuracy and probability of those sources.

One may respond by saying that biblical authorship is 'human but divinely inspired'. But such an answer hardly accounts for the errors, contradictions, contrasting accounts and fabulations identified by religious scholars from the fields of archaeology, exegesis, history, linguistics etc.

Islam short-circuits such inquiry by insisting that every singer letter of the Koran, including periods and commas, is the literal word of God. Christians are not so ideologically oppressed and have a long tradition of critical inquiry into scripture.

Critical examination of biblical sources, especially in a comparative context, has established the multitude of creation-myths, flood motifs, immortality, redemptive sacrifice and other themes that pre-date or co-exist alongside, and even within, the Bible. Such scholarship is sufficient to deny the Bible its singularity as a religious document. It is hard to understand the Noahic Flood as a uniquely 'Biblical' event, for example, once one is aware of similar stories in Babylonian and Sumerian cultures.

And if it is taken to be 'authentic' (either on a literal or metaphorical level) then why is it any more authentic than the one found in the 'Epic of Gilgamesh'? Why is one 'true' and the other 'myth'?

There is a category of philosophy/rhetoric known as 'perfomative utterance' to indicate a class of statements that simply declare something to be true; the declaration provides the proof. Applied to the Bible, one can see much of the text is performative. 'God created men and women' is a performative statement. Believers accept it as true. Why? Because it says so in the bible. There is a circularity of reasoning which is inimicable to proof or disproof. 'God exists?' How do we know? Because He says so. Or, rather, because the Bible/Torah/Koran tells me so --without offering any remotely definitive evidence for the statement.

Doesn't this sound a little like a parent telling a child to do something 'Because I said so'? Children accept such a catechism, but adults require a reason.

In which other area of life does one take such vital and fundamental meaning on faith alone? If my accountant says 'You are worth a million dollars' I would immediately ask for evidence or proof of that statement.

This is where non-believers have such difficulty with sectarian belief: If we accord performative truth to one class of religious utterance, then why not extend it to all such statements, in whatever language, culture or tradition? Why is the Bible 'true' but the Koran 'false'? I.e. why not believe the one as fervently as the other --particularly as we must extend the same standard of evidence (faith/belief) to either text.

I have no doubt that the Catholics on this board would be equally religious Jews or Muslims if raised in those traditions, and vice versa. Does this not suggest that a specific set of religious beliefs is a cultural construct entirely dependent on family, community and history?

Note, I am not privileging one religion over another or disputing the possibility of a creator-spirit --and certaintly not denying the religious impulse, which is self-evidently real. But I do question the authenticity of any particular religious belief predicated on any particular cultural tradition or foundational document.

In sum, I think the religious impulse is real (and a great comfort to many) but I do not think that any single text-based system of belief deserves any more credence than any another. Either they are all true or none of them are true. If the former is the case, then we should all be polytheistic; if the latter, atheist.

And if, like me, you throw up your hands in despair at the entire argument then you are a card-carrying agnostic.


Edited to change 'agnostics' to 'non-believers' (para 10, above)

[Mark Harwood]

Jack, the claim that "every single letter of the Koran, including periods and commas, is the literal word of God" is nonsensical. The Koran was heavily revised in its early years, and at one time there were several competing versions around.

[jack stowaway]

You'll get no argument from me on that point. Islam is notably reluctant to allow any real critical inquiry into the Koran or its sources. Critical inquiry is almost always miscast as 'criticism'.

From Wikipedia:

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God as recited to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. Criticism of the Qur'an generally consists of questioning traditional claims about the Qur'an's composition and content.

It is a central tenet of Islam that the Qur'an is perfect, so criticism of the Qur'an is considered criticism of Islam.

[living_stradivarius]

Great post jack. That's precisely what I mean by religion having no place in reason (the T/F question about scripture) and rather having a place in inspiration (religious impulse).
Thanks for clearly articulating performative utterance.

[jack stowaway]

You're welcome, Henry. I came across the term only recently; but it immediately made sense as a way of critiquing statements that offer no proof or evidence to back their claims.

[Agnes Selby]

Jack, thank you for your lucid summation of religious beliefs.
I also agree with you that deep belief depends on religious
inculcation from within the family unit.

Religious belief based on fear and wonder is also part of
our genetic make-up, going a long way back in history and even
as far back as to the Neandethals who may have believed in after-life
as they buried their dead facing East and covered their bodies
with flowers and offerings.

Religion is a great source of comfort to believers with its promise
of eternal happiness in after-life. It is also a great reason for
doctrinal wars and, only too often, an excuse to murder.

[keaggy220]

As has been said before there are plenty of scientists who believe in God and many, including Einstein, who honestly grapple with the idea over their entire lifetime. As far as Christianity goes, believers are required (and want) to share their faith - not keep it private.

Yup, another arbitrary requirement for believers to follow. Well if Christians are required to proselytize then all the more reason for non-Christians to inject rational, scientific criticism and discussion into topics concerning religion.

Funny how atheists comprise of proportionately less of the prison population than Christians.

Absolutely love the debate... Spreading Good News is not a requirement - it's a joy... Yes, there are those that do not do it, but it has nothing to so with their salvation. The only requirement for salvation is to release the crutch of humanism and accept the reality of Christ.

It's absolutely wonderful that Christians make up a larger proportion of the prison population as compared to Atheists. Do you know how much investment Christians are making in time and money in our prisons? It's absolutely huge. Do a wiki on Chuck Colson for a good idea on a national ministry, but almost every decent sized church has their own local outreach as well...

By the way, most of the converts in prison come from people who have never been to a church so the tired old argument about "learning religion in the family unit" just doesn't hold water.

[jack stowaway]

Hi Agnes.

Yes, the 'fear and wonder' aspect of being is very powerful, almost inevitably directing us towards seeking the source of life in the hope of catching some glimpse into its meaning.

The essential difference between the nature worship of the Neanderthals and our own, of course, is that as society developed, the Abrahamic religions evolved a complex ethical and literary framework together with an elaborate ritualistic observance that, in many instances, subsumes the simple act of worship.

The elemental flower-placement of the Neanderthal, with all of its implicit awe and wonder may well be a purer act of devotional worship than all the laws, commandments, stipulations and prohibitions that characterise Judeo-Christianity. The Neanderthal lived among his gods in a daily communion with the natural world that is light-years away from our scriptural, doctrinal and mediated understanding of the spiritus mundi.

This may explain why so many people are attracted to Buddhism, with its non-doctrinal emphasis on enlightenment, harmony, and being-in-the-world.

[smitty1931]

I thank you all for your posts to my questions, but no one answered why the bible is silent about the missing years. If Mary knew that her son was special (Matthew1:20) would he not receive special attention? Again at 12 when he attracted the attention of the rabbis at the temple, would this not call special attention to him? 18 years living the life of a common workman seems a bit mundane for the son of God. Do these huge gaps in the life of Christ bother readers of the bible? Is it possible that Jesus did not know that he was the son of God until God spoke to him (Matthew3:17)?

[keaggy220]

I thank you all for your posts to my questions, but no one answered why the bible is silent about the missing years. If Mary knew that her son was special (Matthew1:20) would he not receive special attention? Again at 12 when he attracted the attention of the rabbis at the temple, would this not call special attention to him? 18 years living the life of a common workman seems a bit mundane for the son of God. Do these huge gaps in the life of Christ bother readers of the bible? Is it possible that Jesus did not know that he was the son of God until God spoke to him (Matthew3:17)?

I don't know. I thought I answered your question, but now you've added a twist regarding the fact that Mary knew her baby was special. The gospel account tells us that she did tell people close to her that her baby was special. But how many people are going to take a 14 year old girl serious if she tells them that her baby is the Son of God? Also, there was the King Herod thing which was a problem.

[lennygoran]

>The only requirement for salvation is to release the crutch of humanism and accept the reality of Christ. <

I was out planting hostas this morning and a car drove up to the front gate--2 younger kids got out and tried to sell me on Jehovah's Witnesses--I politely said no and the fact I had a large pitch fork in my hand may have persuaded them not to press the issue! The girl did ask about my accent--where was I from--I told her Brooklyn--didn't tell her I was Jewish! Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

>The only requirement for salvation is to release the crutch of humanism and accept the reality of Christ. <

I was out planting hostas this morning and a car drove up to the front gate--2 younger kids got out and tried to sell me on Jehovah's Witnesses--I politely said no and the fact I had a large pitch fork in my hand may have persuaded them not to press the issue! The girl did ask about my accent--where was I from--I told her Brooklyn--didn't tell her I was Jewish! Regards, Len

We just baptized a former Orthodox Jew in church two weeks ago. Never say never!

[lennygoran]

>We just baptized a former Orthodox Jew in church two weeks ago. <

Wasn't it the guy who used to be in our forum? Regards, Len [fleeing]

[jbuck919]

>We just baptized a former Orthodox Jew in church two weeks ago. <

Wasn't it the guy who used to be in our forum? Regards, Len [fleeing]

[evokes regrettable thoughts of what might happen to him in an immersion situation]

[keaggy220]

>We just baptized a former Orthodox Jew in church two weeks ago. <

Wasn't it the guy who used to be in our forum? Regards, Len [fleeing]

If Saul were here I don't think I would have shared that little tidbit of information. I was told never to throw gas on fire.

[Donald Isler]

And my synaagogue, and others, accept as converts former Christians. People move in both directions.

[living_stradivarius]

[keaggy220]

And my synaagogue, and others, accept as converts former Christians. People move in both directions.

People move in my than two directions - there are people who have professed Christianity in the past who are now Muslim extremist. Jesus sums this up nicely with his parable of the sower.

[John F]

I thank you all for your posts to my questions, but no one answered why the bible is silent about the missing years.

Actually, I did, or tried to.

the purpose of the Gospels is not biographical but religious; they are about Jesus being the son of God, and about His miracles and teachings. So what Jesus may have done with his time before he was baptised and took up his ministry is apparently beside the point.

I'm no expert in Biblical studies, so this is just a guess. But it's a pretty safe guess that Jesus's life during those years involved no events that are very important to Christianity, or else the Gospel authors would have included them.

Which is probably as good an answer as any of us here can give you. The authors of the Gospels are nearly 2,000 years dead, so you can't ask them. The authorities who decided on the contents of the bible are maybe 1,500 years dead, so you can't ask them. And if the Bible is taken to be the word of God, He hasn't been answering questions lately.

There's a massive literature devoted to the "historical Jesus," that is, to Jesus of Nazareth and the events of his mortal life. You can get an idea of this from the Wikipedia article "Historical Jesus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus). But anything different from and added to the story told in the synoptic Gospels is speculation, however well informed and reasoned, and may well be fiction, for all anybody knows. Still, maybe this will give you what you're looking for.

[jbuck919]

the purpose of the Gospels is not biographical but religious; they are about Jesus being the son of God, and about His miracles and teachings. So what Jesus may have done with his time before he was baptised and took up his ministry is apparently beside the point.

I'm no expert in Biblical studies, so this is just a guess. But it's a pretty safe guess that Jesus's life during those years involved no events that are very important to Christianity, or else the Gospel authors would have included them.

What you wrote pretty much matches every commentary on the subject I've seen. But it is typical of ancient biography that it begins at the beginning of the figure's "career" with perhaps an anecdote or two from the early life. And even most modern figures have little of interest in their life, or much to distinguish them from thousands of others, up to the point where they completed their schooling.

[Mark Harwood]

I thank you all for your posts to my questions, but no one answered why the bible is silent about the missing years. If Mary knew that her son was special (Matthew1:20) would he not receive special attention? Again at 12 when he attracted the attention of the rabbis at the temple, would this not call special attention to him? 18 years living the life of a common workman seems a bit mundane for the son of God. Do these huge gaps in the life of Christ bother readers of the bible? Is it possible that Jesus did not know that he was the son of God until God spoke to him (Matthew3:17)?

It may be that the missing years were considered less important as the New Testament was being compiled.
Perhaps, though, the life of Jesus (Yoshua) had elements and episodes that argue against the way that the early Church wished to portray him. It's not hard to find historians and commentators who argue for a Jesus who was born in betrothal rather than wedlock, whose claim to the throne of David was therefore less sound than that of his younger brother James, and who caused a lot of trouble by wishing to combine his royal lineage with the role of rabbi. His preparartion for that role would have included learning a trade & raising a family, and there are those who interpret the scriptures to the effect that he was married to Mary (a name denoting respect) Magdalene, and had several children. From the point of view of these writers, such as Barbara Theiring, those years had to go missing in order to portray a less worldly man.

[Daisy]

No great man in history has such huge gaps in his life?

On the contrary, huge gaps are the normal state of things for ancient biography, even for very important figures.

What you say is true. There are kings and princes from ancient times with very little documentation of their lives. Compared to many ancient personalities, we know a great deal about Jesus, yet no one is either doubting the existance of these other people or worrying excessively why we know so little about them. Yet whenever someone from the Bible is involved, immediately the skeptics surface to challenge their authenticity. This is especially true for Jesus.

[jbuck919]

No great man in history has such huge gaps in his life?

On the contrary, huge gaps are the normal state of things for ancient biography, even for very important figures.

What you say is true. There are kings and princes from ancient times with very little documentation of their lives. Compared to many ancient personalities, we know a great deal about Jesus, yet no one is either doubting the existance of these other people or worrying excessively why we know so little about them. Yet whenever someone from the Bible is involved, immediately the skeptics surface to challenge their authenticity. This is especially true for Jesus.

Once in a great while one still runs into something in writing that questions the historical existence of Jesus as if this is still (or ever was) an open question. Usually this is not some polemical anti-Christian, but a serious thinker who is merrily expounding his own philosophy (often making good points), who then feels some gratuitous need, when he mentions Jesus in passing, to state "there is some doubt as to whether he existed at all," or words to that effect. Since nothing about Jesus (or non-Jesus) is relevant to the author's thinking, one wonders why he went out of his way. I hasten to add that I think it reasonable to question the necessary veracity of every single story in the gospels, thought this has its limits as well.

But there are also serious as well as, ahem, less serious thinkers who question Shakespeare at the level of whether he wrote his plays, whether he was a man of the theater at all or a front for others through and through, or whether there ever was a person named William Shakespeare at all. This in spite of the fact that we actually know much more about him than about any late-Renaissance English playwright except Ben Jonson (who happens to be an important source for Shakespeare research).

Part of this phenomenon, I think, is owing to the desire of ordinary people to have a sense of control over the influence of extraordinary people. We can be glad that music is not in the same generally populated realm as religion and literature, or people would be attempting the same kind of perverse "damage control" with some composers, starting probably with Bach. (Come to think of it, Bach has been worn away at the edges in every way in which he might be slightly vulnerable to this kind of treatment.)

[John F]

Compared to many ancient personalities, we know a great deal about Jesus, yet no one is either doubting the existance of these other people or worrying excessively why we know so little about them.

Few seriously question whether Jesus existed. Its his divinity that's in question, not only by atheists and agnostics but by just about every religion in the world except Christianity. If there are any other ancient personalities who are claimed to be the son of God, literally, no fooling, I expect their divinity is questioned too.

[living_stradivarius]

Compared to many ancient personalities, we know a great deal about Jesus, yet no one is either doubting the existance of these other people or worrying excessively why we know so little about them.

Few seriously question whether Jesus existed. Its his divinity that's in question, not only by atheists and agnostics but by just about every religion in the world except Christianity. If there are any other ancient personalities who are claimed to be the son of God, literally, no fooling, I expect their divinity is questioned too.

At least with atheists/agnostics you have a lesser risk of false prophets e.g. the Book of Revelation coming true