ottilie.org blog

Before coming to the question it is essential to examine the background of Jewish socio-political teaching.

In the OT there is strong opposition among the prophets to those who expand their holdings of land (Is. 5:8) ; those who deny justice and rights to the poor (Is.10:2) ;and those who crush and grind the poor by exacting the full measure of their debts (Is.3:5).   Amos castigates those who oppress the poor, deny basic humann dignity and exact their debts harshly (Am. 2:7, 4:1, 5:11).   The oppression of the poor and needy is a crime for which Yahweh will destroy the kingdom (Ez.22:29}

Ps.82:3-4 refers to the duty of judges to render justice to the poor and needy and to protect them from oppression and the Psalms frequently refer to the oppression of the poor by the rich (e.g., Ps.10:2, 9, 17f.) Yahweh does not forget the cry of the poor (Ps.9:13,19).

In the NT the attitude of Jesus towards wealth was simple: it is an obstacle to the Kingdom of God.   His refusal to accept any income, even by earning, is a striking feature of His public life.   (Unlike St. Paul)

The story of the widow’s mite (Mk.12:41-44) is less a praise of the poor than a condemnation of the rich.   The story of the rich young man who would not renounce his possessions to follow Jesus is found in the three synoptics with slight variations (Mk.10:17f.; Mt.19:16f. Lk.18:18f.}.

Other examples of Jesus’ strictures on wealth include the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk.16:19-31); the difficulty a rich man has in getting into the kingdom of heaven compared to a camel getting through the eye of a needle; and “blessed are the poor” in Mt. 5.Jesus’ injunction “Love your neighbour as yourself” implies equality.

In Acts 2:44 the early Church all lived together and owned everything in common.”Love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim 6:9f.)   James says that the rich man ought to rejoice when he is impoverished because of the fate of the rich (Js.1:10f.).   The rich who humiliate the poor forget that the poor are God’s chosen (Js.2:1-9).   A dreadful vengeance will overtake the rich who have deprived the poor of their wages and who live in luxury (Js.5:1-6).

Coming back to the question at the head of this article it is apparent that Jesus and His early followers reflect socialist attitudes.

(With acknowledgements to Dr. J.McKenzie)

• The simplest expression of this in the New Testamenet is contained in 1 Cor.15:3:”Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scripture”.
• The oldest explanation is set out in Lk.18:31.   Jesus realised the time for His death had come and so He set Himself to go to Jerusalem to fulfil God’s will: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and everything  that is written of the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished
• The New Testament uses various metaphors to describe Jesus’death:
• JESUS’ DEATH WAS A BATTLE: Jesus saw the whole of His life as a battle with the  powers of evil (Lk.11:21f.).St. Paul also regarded the cross as the final and decisive struggle.   Despite Jesus’ apparent defeat the struggle resulted in a complete victory (Col.2:8-15).
• JESUS’ DEATH WAS AN EXAMPLE:  Both St. Paul and John say that on the cross Jesus revealed God’s love: Romans 5:8: “What proves God’s love for us is that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners”; 1 John 4:10: “God’s love for us when he sent his Son to be the sacrifice that takes away our sins”.      They both suggest that we ought to be challenged to share such sufferings ourselves.In 1 Pet 2:21 we have “because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps”.
• JESUS’ DEATH WAS A SACRIFICE:   It was natural for Jewish people to use the picture of animal sacrifice.   Sacrificial language is used in connection with His death throughout the New Testameent. John the Baptist exclaimed when he saw Jesus: “Behold the lamb of God” (Jn.1:29);   St. Paul speaks of “Christ our Passover lamb” (1 Cor.5:7); Peter speaks of Jesus as “like a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet.1:19).
• JESUS’ DEATH WAS A RANSOM:   Jesus explicitly said that His intention was to be a ransom (Mk.10:45).   The ransom was the price paid to set a slave free. Throughout the NT it is emphasised Christians are the property of  God.   They have been “ransomed from futile ways” (1 Pet.1:18);  ” you are not your own; you were bought with a price so glorify
  God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).
• JESUS DIED IN OUR PLACE:  In 1 Pet.2:24 we are told that Jesus “bore our sins in his body”, In 1 Pet.3:18 that “had died once for sins”.
• PENANCE:   The Cross cannot be looked at in isolation.   It is very much associated wiith Penance:
  Mt.3:2, 4:17; Acts 2:38; Jn.20:21 and Joel 2:12f.

(With acknowledgements to Dr. J. Drane)

This section concentrates on arguing against Professor Richard Dawkins, the world’s best-known atheist, thanks to his book “The God Delusion”.  

Dawkins’ main aims are to expose religion and to show that Science and Theology are incompatible.
America ‘s leading evolutionary biologist,Professor Stephen Jay Gould, has stated: “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism”,   Dawkins is livid with Gould.

Sir Peter Medawar, a Nobel laureate, suggests that scientists need to be careful about making pronouncements agout religion.   He fears that they may lose the trust of the public.

Dawkins is a believer in Scientism, the view that Science can or will explain everything.   This is rejected by most academic disciplines.

Professor Francis Collins, an evolutionary biologist, heads up the famous Human Genome Project.   He says “The principles of faith are complementary with the principles of science”.

The cosmologist, Professor Paul Davies, argues for the existence of  “fine-tuning” in the universe.   For Davies the bio-friendliness of the universe points to an overarching  principle that pushes the universe towards the development of life and mind.

Back in 1916 active scientists were asked whether they believed in a God who actively communicates with Humanity and to whom one may pray.   Roughly 40% said “Yes”; 40% said “No”.   In 1997 the survey was repeated with similar results: 40% said “Yes”, 45% said “No”.

Professor Freeman Dyson, a physicist who has done groundbreaking work in quantum electrodynamics, on being awarded the Templeton Prize in Religion in 2000, gave an acceptance speech celebrating the achievements of religion, while criticising the downside.   He was also clear about the downside of atheism, noting that the individuals who epitomised the evils of the Twentieth Century, Hitler and Stalin, were both atheists.   Dawkins’ reply? “He was just pretending to be religious, when,in fact, he was really an atheist”.

When Pope John Paul II wrote a letter endorsiing Darwinism, Dawkins commented: “The pope is a hypocrite”.
The President of the Skeptics Society in the USA , is Michael Shermer.   He says that while religions have been implicated in some human tragedies, such as holy wars, “for every one of these grand tragedies there are ten thousand acts of personal kindness and social good that go unreported”.

——————————————————————————————————————

A slight alteration in the initial heat of the universe or in its total mass or any other factor would have prevented its formation.  Without a fine adjustment of heat in the shrinking core of a hot star, carbon would not have been produced.   Our planet swept up from debris of an exploding star; on this all life systems depend.    A further co-incidence relates to the formation  of the atmosphere and oceans.   There are self-regulatory mechanisms which have kept the climate almost constant over 3 billion years despite a 25% increase in the Sun’s luminosity.   Life emerged in the oceans; however, the salinity of the living cell’s internal fluids or external environment must never exceed 6% for more than a few seconds.   Conditions on Earth have been almost always optimal for life.

Other co-incidences include:  Just the right distribution of gases in the early universe;  the primitive dynamic  equilibrium; the right heat of the universe; the relative weight  of neutrons, protons and electrons; the fine balance between gravity and electro-magnetism; the precise  value  of the strong nuclear force;  and all the necessary ingredients were already in place at Time Zero, able to come together for the Creation.

(With acknowledgements to Bishop Hugh Montefiore for this section.)

Over the centuries Christian philosophers have felt it possible to prove the existence of God.

Some of the points made by Professor Richard Swinburne of Oxford University in this connection are:

It is fundamentally reasonable to believe in God
When a rational person finds all the cards in the pack are the same or all the flowers in some neighbourhood are exactly the same,he/she says: “There must be an explanation for this”.   When lookig at the universe, the enquirer must say: “I can explain why everything in the universe behaves the same if it has one Being who created it and gave it that power”.
An argument for the existence of God has as its premise the order of the universe; this makes the conclusion probable – but not certain – that God exists.
The Rationalist is credulous: he/she must start by believing experiences as they seem to be, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; otherwise he/she would never believe anything about the universe.
The former Master of Churchill College, Sir Hermann Bondi, FRS, a prominent Humanist, said: “In my acquaintance with scientists I find belief and non-belief.   I know sufficient numbers of scientists of each persuasion to be willing to make two statements as being stupid and palpably untrue prejudices viz. that a person, being a scientist, must accordingly be a believer in a revealed religion – or the opposite statement…..Some feel there must be an intelligence, an architect of all this grandeur, an architect that may be called God but without ascribing to this unknown entity any interest in our human affairs or in our prayers.   If I rightly understand it, this was Einstein’s view)”.
Lord Winston, Professor of Fertility Studies at London University, has stated that religious belief is genetic and has been so for 40,000 years.
It is interesting to note that Stalin, the foremost atheist in the world  from the Twenties to the Fifties prayed during the Battle of Moscow in WW2.   According to his bodyguard he went down to a small chapel in the basement of the Kremlin, knelt down, put his hand on a book of the gospels and prayed.
It is also interesting to note that Stalin’s successor, Georgi Malenkov, towards the end of his life became a member of the Orthodox Church although he, too, was for a time the foremost atheist in the world.
Since the demise of Communism  Gorbachev  and Putin have become members of the Orthodox Church
It is instructive to read that Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot were all atheists.  They had no Higher Power to whom they were answerable.   When confronted with this Professor Dawkins says that Stalin was as he was because of his Communism, not his atheism – little realising that atheism, according to Marx and Lenin, is an essential part of Communism!   Also, in Soviet Russia “scientific atheism” was a compulsory subject  in state universities for all careeers before 2001.
Christian Social Teaching

In Gen 1:28-9 God gives to human beings control of the earth so that it may supply their needs in abundance

The ideal state of Israel during the reign of Solomon is not just the abundance of the national wealth but the fact that “Judah and Israel lived in security , everyone under his own vine and under his own fig-tree” (1 Kings 4:25).

The Hebrew Bible takes the possession of private property for granted and is at pains to protect it (e.g. Ex 21:1-23:19, the Decalogue).

In the O.T.  there is a marked reluctance to any interference with private property, not least by enforced taxation (e.g. Prov 29:4)

The Wisdom literature contains a number of exhortations to work hard and warns that failure to do so will result in poverty (e.g. Prov 6:6-11, 10:4,   20:13) and the wealth that God destines for human beings is the reward for their own effort to acquire it” (Eccls 3:13).

There are limitations in the Bible on the individual’s freedom to use his wealth.   The sabbath year, the jubilee and other provisions in the O.T. outline the special  duty to relieve poverty but on the basis of individual rights to leasehold (from God) of land.   In the administration of law, however, no bias was to be given to rich or poor (Ex 23:2-3; Deut 1:17; Lev 19:15).

In the second section of the Book of the Covenant (Ex22:21-23:19) we find an appeal to conscience to help the poor and needy.

It is when the rich use their economic power to destroy the freedom and independence which is every Israelite’s heritage that they are attacked in the O.T., not simply for being rich (e.g. Jer 22:13-19.

When the prophets inveigh against the rich, it is not because of their wealth as such but because of their enjoyment of it while ignoring, or taking advantage of, others’ needs.

In parts of the O.T. we meet a conception of the poor which is religious and not restricted to social and economic poverty.   This appears, for example, in Zeph 3:12 and Ps.108(109):22.

In later  passages of the prophets post-exilic Judaism identified piety with poverty and lowliness.   Such passages mean that true religion is not simply identified with membership of the depressed economic class but more an attitude of spiritual outlook.(Is 29:19,61; Jer 20:13)

In the Dead Sea writings we find a developed sense of the piety of poverty, the devout poor.   In the pre-70 A.D. rabbinical writings poverty is often viewed as a curse.

(With acknowledgements to Professor J.R. Porter)

Jesus

There are two points which need to be made about Jesus in this context.

Jesus was not born as the poorest of the poor,   The only reason that he was born in a manger is that Joseph could not find accommodation for them in “a hotel”.  He could have afforded it otherwise he would not have asked.A carpenter was reasonably well up the economic scale in the ancient world.   The poorest of the poor would have been the long-term unemployed, including the beggars, and slaves.
Liberation Theology, although commendable in its struggle against economic exploitation of the poor in Latin-America, is determined to politicise the life and particularly the death of Jesus.
Insofar as Jesus was actually crucified by the occupying power in Palestine – the Romans – a political power may be said to have killed Him.   Jesus, however, did not see His death in political terms, but in theological terms.   At His arrest He protests that He is not leading a rebellion against the state.(Mt 26:55; Mk14:48; Lk 22:52)

Unlike Moses and Mohammed Jesus was not a legislator.   As Hans Kung has written:  “Jesus did not produce any programme for the renewal and transformation of political structures.   He did not raise in principle either the question of slavery or that of women, still less the universal emancipation of Man.   Nor did He outline any commercial, political or cultural ethics….”.   Furthermore, according  to Kung, the Christian message does not give any detailed information regarding the problem of a technical solution to the “riddle of the magic square: how full employment, economic growth, price stability and a favourable balance of payments can be simultaneously achieved”.

Jesus did not reject money: in the Sermon on the Mount, for example,He insisted on the practice of alms-giving and He paid taxes to an oppressive regime.   His band of followers had money (Judas was the treasurer).

There can be no doubt that He warned against the danger of riches (Mt 6:19-21,24; Lk 6:24; Mk10:30-31)

In His teaching to the masses He emphasised love of God and love of neighbour.   He even advocated love of enemies.   In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats He illustrated what will be expected of people at the individual judgement: how we have treated the most vulnerable members of society.   This is the keynote of Christian Social Teaching.

It is instructive that after the Ascension the Apostles established “Christian Communism”, as we learn from the early chapters of Acts.

In keeping with the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles we are obliged to hold in  our political leanings the poor (whether at home or abroad) ever before our eyes.   As some main-line churches put it: the bias to the poor.

Pacifism

In many parts of the O.T. and in some parts of the N.T. God is depicted as a God wrath.   Jesus is quoted, however, as saying “Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors”; “Do not resist one who who is evil.But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”.

Some of the early Christian writers (the Fathers) make the same point:Origen, Tertullian , for example.

Against the idea of Jesus the pacifist it has been argued that His words were not meant to be taken literally – they were couched (as were other parts of His teaching) in colourful, striking language, complete with Oriental exaggeration and “poetic licence”; that He was not laying down detailed guidance for every conceivable situation – He was not a legalist; that the examples He cited do not deal with a threat to life; that He did not tell us how to react if the injury is about to be inflicted on a third party; that His followers carried swords.

St Augustine pointed out that, when Jesus was struck on the cheek at His trial, instead of accepting it silently or turning the other cheek, He answered back.

The evidence from the early centuries of the Faith is ambiguous.   The first evidence of Christians joining the army dates from 173, when a number was recruited by Marcus Aurelius, near the Danube.   Christians were very unhappy about joining the army because, at least among the officer was compulsory to sacrifice to the Emperor.

With the conversion of Constantine opposition to military service was dropped, as the Church now formed the government.   By the year 410 the army had become a “closed shop” for Christians!

Eventually, the concept of the Just War emerged: a war must be declared by proper, supreme authority; the cause must be just; last resort; principle of proportion; reasonable chance of success and the right intention.

The nuclear threat has undermined some of the Just War points.

During the Second World War the Anglican Archbishop  of Canterbury, England stated: “Far better some years of ‘total war’ with the misery and waste and increasing bitterness of spirit than the riveting of that diabolical Nazi system upon more and more people”.

In 1983, before the collapse of Communism, Cardinal Hume of  Westminster, England arguing for the retention of the Bomb, said:  “The acceptance of deterrence on strict conditions and as a temporary expedient leading to progressive disarmament is emerging as the most widely accepted view of the Roman Catholic Church”

This article brings together the arguments expressed in many articles scattered around this website for trusting the New Testaameent.   Cross-references occur as the article proceeds.

The existence of God.

Before coming to the main thrust of this article it is necessary to establish the existence of God; otherwise this article loses its main thread.   The cross-reference is the article above this.   Add to this “the God gene”, which causes Humankind throughout history to  be religious

Manuscripts

In all there are about 8,000 manuscripts containing all or part of the NT.   In translating the NT decisions have to be made as to which documents to use.   There are inevitably discrepancies, which account for the differences between the various New Testaments on sale.   However, only some 1-2 % affect a major doctrine.   An example of this is the Johannine Comma: in 1 John 5:8 we read ‘There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three agree’; somewhere along the line in a few manuscripts the following words were added ‘and these are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit’.    The cross-reference is to the NT documents under Parables.

• 2 Tim 3:16 :”Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error…..” (New English Bible)How does this reference tie up with the above paragraph and with some of the points which follow?One might say that Shakespeare and Mozart were inspired by God (indeed, Mozart said as much) but it does not mean that everything they wrote is perfect.   Something has to be left for human insight.   Cross-reference is to Inspiration under Resurrection

• From time to time it is argued that several of those who projected the NT were so committed to belief in what they were preaching or writing that they gave their lives for the Gospel.   This only proves, of course, that they were sincere but not necessarily right.

• The theologies of the evangelistsThese may seem to conflict.   To take one instance:  Mark portrays the disciples as without understanding following Jesus’ walking on the water; Matthew has them worship Him as the Son of God.   Both tendencies are credible in light of the disciples’ mixture of faith and disbelief elsewhere and each fits into distinctive emphases of the gospels in which they appear.

• Events may appear in contradictory order in different gospels; a passage may be so abbreviated that it contradicts a fuller parallel; Sayings of Jesus may appear in different contexts; an unique event may be told twice in apparently contradictory ways; and names and numbers may appear to contradict each other.   One explanation of these apparent contradiction is that ancient writers often compress stories and use material as they think fit to suit the basic aim of their composition.

• It is possible – no more – that Mark may have been the companion of Peter; that Matthew is one of the apostles; and that John, too, is an apostle.   If so, three of the four evangelists are eye-witnesses.The cross-reference is to Jesus and the gospels under Resurrection
• Jesus is the best attested figure in the Ancient World.Apart from the thousands of manuscripts of the NT, a comparison with other figures from the Ancient World reveals that, whereas the time span from the composition to the earliest copy we have is 100-250 for the NT, the time-span for Caesar is 950 years and then only 10 copies; for Tacitus 1000 years (20); for Plato 1450 years (7); for Herodotus 1300 years (8); for Sophocles 1400 years (193); and for Aristotle 1400 years (49)The Jewish historian, Josephus, active in the 1st century AD, refers to Jesus and there are (unflattering) references to Him in the Talmud, dating from the early centuries of the Faith.

  There are many apocryphal gospels and epistles in the vey early  centuries of the Faith which vouch for the existence, status and teaching of Jesus.

• In the 20th century Jewish scholars have set out to reclaim Jesus for Judaism.   They concentrate on the gospels and have little time for the rest of the NT, seeing St. Paul as the creator of Christianity at variance with the Jesus of history, which they see as genuine.Such scholars as the following are representative of this movement:   Claude Montefiore, Joseph Klausner, Israel Abraham, Samuel Sandmel, David Flusser, Geza Vermes, and Pinchas Lapide etc..   Lapide even accepts the Resurrection but does not regard Jesus as the Messiah.
• Archaeology has proved the reliability of Acts which at one time was regarded as suspect.   Most of the ancient cities mentioned in Acts have been identified.   Acts mentions a riot in Ephesus and represents a civic assembly taking place in a theatre.   This latter point is confirmed by an inscription which speaks of silver statues of Artemis (Diana) to be placed in the theatre during a full session of the civic assembly.Acts also relates that a riot broke out in Jerusalem because Paul took a Gentiile into the Jewish temple.   Inscriptions have been found which read in Greek and Latin, “”No foreigner may enter within the barrier which surrounds the temple and enclosure.   Anyone who is caught doing so will be personally responsible for his ensuing death”.For some time in the 20th century there were doubts as to whether Jesus could have been crucified outside Jerusalem, as Caesarea was the place for crucifixions.   It emerged that sometimes abandoned quarries were used.   This was confirmed in the early Sixties when restoration work began in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre when it was discovered that 5 meters below the church there was a quarry.

  Several more examples can be given.

• About 1/3rd of Jesus’ teaching is given in the form of parables in the Synoptic Gospels.   Parables are used elsewhere in the Ancient World but to nowhere the  same extent of Jesus’.   The cross-reference is to Parables

• The healings performed by Jesus, again the most numerous in the Ancient World, are cross-referenced to Healings under Parables

• The non-healing miracles are cross-referenced to Miracles under Resurrection.

• The exorcisms by Jesus are cross-refernced to Exorcisms under Is There A God?

• The gospels

The  dominant hypothesis among NT scholars is that Mark is the first gospel, used independently by Matthew and Luke.   These latter also drew on a common source (consisting mainly of sayings rather than happenings) usually given the symbol Q – as well  as each  using sources of material distinctive to himself.   Behind these sources lies an oral tradition,   We can thus get back quite close to the life of Christ.

As to the trustworthiness of this method of communication, two points need to be made.   The first is that the semitic mind is very retentive.   Examples can be given to-day from the Middle East of people learning the Koran by heart.   The second is the Ancient World had its own form of short-hand.

The gospels were written partly because the expected Second Coming had not taken place, partly because the first-generation Christians were ageing or dying and it was thought necessary to put something in writing: preaching aids were needed.   We discover from both John’s gospel and Luke’s gospel that others had written gospels before them.

A possible authenticity test for the teaching of Jesus is: can the teaching be found in more than one gospel source?   This is a useful test as far as it goes, for,  if Mark and the document Q mentioned earlier give us a similar impression of the content of Jesus’ teaching, then it is reasonable to believe that it is an authentic impression.   The limitation is that teaching outside these  parameters is not authentic: e.g., the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son.   However, it is a useful tool as far as it goes.

Scholars suggest that much of the teaching given in the gospels is in the form of Aramaic poetry.

A point which suggests authenticity is that there are differences between the gospels and the rest of the NT which fiction-writers would have eliminated.   There is no real teaching on the Church itself in the gospels yet elsewhere in the NT this became an important issue.   Even baptism, which very soon became the rite of initiation into the Christian fellowship is sparsely mentioned in the gospels.   The question of Jews and non-Jews is not really dealt with in the gospels but it was important elsewhere.   The term “Son of Man” is the most widely used title for Jesus in the gospels but hardly appears anywhere else.   Likewise, the “Kingdom of God”, which was the heart of Jesus’ teaching, is hardly mentiooned in the rest of the NT.

• Veracity of the NT shown by:

1. The apostles not being portrayed in a favourable light

2. Clash between Paul and James on Justification being reported

3. The “dark side” of Jesus being reported: e.g., the cursing of the fig-tree and  the language used by Jesus towards His opponents.   The cross-reference is to The Hard Sayings of Jesus under Parables’

4. If the early Church had invented Jesus they would have made sure that the word “Christ” would have been consistently used.   In fact, in the gospels it is used as a title whereas in St. Paul’s writings it is used as a name.

• Jesus is the only figure among World Religion founders who forgives sins.   To His contemporaries this suggested divinity.

• It was not a subject for applause in the 1st century AD or in parts of the world to-day but Jesus not only liberated from sins, He also liberated from social injustice.   He was biased in favour of the poor, prostitutes and the hated quislings, the tax-gatherers.

• The Transfiguration

This sole vision involving  three of His apostles shows the divine breaking through into this life: a theophany.   It is so extraordinary that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to invent.

Other claimed visions in Catholicism – but not on this scale – include Marian apparitions at Banneux, Fatima, Guadalupe, La Salette, Lourdes, Mexico City, Pontmain…..There are many claimed cases of visions of  by the saints  of  the Catholic Church.    These, however, do not affect Revelation.   (See next article.)

• The Resurrection

This was not expected in the manner in which  it occurred.   There is nothing in the OT or the Jewish literature which followed it to lead one to expect the Empty Tomb, the Appearances in the Upper Room, the Appearance on the Lake of Galilee …..The cross-reference is to the article at the head of Resurrection.

• “Life after Life”   Experiences of those who have “died” for a few minutes on the operating table confirm what some parts of  the NT has to say about the after-life.   See Life after Life under Resurrection.

• To what extent is Jesus unique and unlikely to have been created by the early Church?    Here are some examples:

1. Jesus is portrayed as divine in parts of the NT, something which would have been unthinkable in a Jewish milieu.   If it were not true, it would have been blasphemous.   We read such passages as “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30-35); “Before Abraham was I am” (Jn8:58);  “His state was divine” Phil:2:5-6)…..

2. The forgiveness of sins, already mentioned.

3. Preaching the Kingdom of God, unique in Judaism and the Pagan world.  It is multi-faceted.

4. Within His milieu Jesus more than others associated with outcasts: e.g., lepers, prostitutes, quisling tax-gatheerers….

5. The only founding-father of World Religions to suffer martydom for the forgiveness of sins.

6. Healings and exorcisms took place within the Ancient World but to nothing like the extent as those performed by Jesus.   It is noticeable that, unlike other healers and exorcists, Jesus did not overtly pray when performing His miracles.

7. Many Jewish scholars draw attention to the uniqueness of the teaching of Jesus within Judaism.

8. The Resurrection.   It is sometimes said that the Ancient World was full of gods dying and rising again.   However, these are mythical stories and do not go into the detail of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection.

9. Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man, a reminder of the same name in the book of Daniel, with possible divine connections.

10. The Lord’s Supper.   This is original in degree, rather than principle.   It was established in the context of a Passover and , as St. Paul wrote: “Christ is our Passover”.   In the early Church it was celebrated in the context of an agape, a Christian love feast.   It has echoes of the Messianic Banquet, mentioned several times in the OT, the Dead Sea Sect, the rabbinic writings and apocryphal Jewish literature.   There are also accounts of divine communion in sacred meals in the Ancient World.   The Lord’s Supper is the only one still being celebrated.

11. The range of Jesus’ knowledge:  He knows He is going to be crucified;  He has telepathic powers; His knowledge and perception are detected by the people; He has foreknowledgee of the Fall of Jerusalem; He has foreknowledge of the Parousia…..The cross-refeerence is to the article that follows this: Jesus’ Knowledge

12. Impact.   Jesus is the leading figure  in history.    Three examples of appraisal of Jesus are:

• Napolean: “I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.   Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison”.

• HG Wells: “Judging a person’s greatness by historical standards,  Jesus stands first”.

• Jung:   “The coming of Christ itself evokes the spirit of anti-Christ; only when the full light shines in the darkness is the intensity of the darkness made manifest”.

• It is quite miraculous that a World Faith should have split into 38,000 sects and still be standing!

Conditions were just right for the birth of Christ:

• * In Jewish theology
  a)  Apocalyptic literature was in full swing with its prophetic message
  b)  Messianic expectations were in the air.   Professor Geza Vermes has listed several:
  1. The Messiah will be victor over the Gentiles, a saviour and restorer of Israel
  2. The Messiiah will appear in trappings of royalty
  3. The Messiah is associated with the image of the Priest-King
  4. The Messiah will be a Prophet-Messiah – another Moses but with an added Messianic dimension
  5. The Messiah will be slain as an unsuccessful commander-in-chief

  (c)   There was a feeling within Judaism that there was a new phase needed in its development

• Synagogues existed in many cities of the Roman Empire – awaiting the early Christian missionaries
• Within the Roman Empire buoyant trade was responsible for the development of an elobarate network of well built roads and a system of  shipping.   Bandits had been driven away from most of the overland routes and piracy had practically been brought to an end.   All was set for the expansion of the Gospel
• The Greeks had developed education.   It had influenced the Wisdom literature of the NT,   Most of the populace at the time of Christ could speak, read and write Greek; some could speak Latin as well.   The OT was already in Greek
• What of China and India?   These played no part in the early years of the Faith.

Then as now they are in the timeless mists of Hinduism/Buddhism/ natural religion
awaiting widespread evangelism.

Addendum:   The period in world history in which Jesus was born was enormously creative from a spiritual, moral and intellectual point of view.   Dr. John Hick has pointed out that Gautama (the founder of Buddhism), Mahavira (the founder of Jainism), Confucius, the great Hebrew points (especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, Pythagoras, Aristotle ….all lived in the period roughly from 800 BC to 200 AD.   From that point of view human progress had reached a stage  here civilisations were eager to take on board new spiritual and moral developments.

Dawkins shares the view of such writers on the theme of Darwinian
Ethics as Professor Anthony Flew.   Bertrand Russell demolished such
thinking more than 50 years ago.   He writes:
“The motive force of evolution, according to Darwin, is a kind of
biological economics in a world of free competition.   It was Malthus’s
doctrine of population, extended to the world of animals and plants,
that suggested to Darwin the struggle for existence and the survival
of the fittest as the source of evolution.

Darwin himself was a liberal but his theories had consequences in
some degree inimical to traditional liberalism.   The doctrine that all men
are born equal, and that the differences between adults are due wholly
to education, was incompatible with his emphasis on congenital dif-
ferences between members of the same species.

There is a further consequence of the theory of evolution, which is
independent of the particular mechanism suggested by Darwin.   If
men and animals have a common ancestry, and if men developed by
such slow stages that there were creatures which we should not know
whether to classify  as human or not, the question arises: at what stage
in evolution did men, or their semi-human ancestors, begin to be equal?
A resolute egalitarian who answers these questions in the affirmative
will find himself forced to regard apes as the equals of human
beings.   And why stop with apes?   I do not see how he is to resist an
argument in favour of Votes for Oysters.

An adherent of evolution should maintain that not only the doctrine
of the equality of all men, but also that of the rights of man, must
be condemned as unbiological, since it makes too emphatic a distinction
between men and other animals.

In fact, though Darwin himself was a Liberal, and though Nietzshe  never
mentions him except with contempt, Darwin’s “The Survival of the Fittest”
led, when thoroughly assimilated, to something much more like Nietzshe’s
philosophy than like Bentham’s”.

Synopsis:  It is frequently said that the God of wrath belongs in the
Old Testament and the God of love belongs in thee New.   How
true iss this?   Is it possible, in any case, for God at one and the
samee time to be a Godd of wrath and love?

In the Old Testament the thiings that make God angry include:
Mistreatment of widows and orphans; idolatry; ingratitude;
disobedience; rebellion; sexual immorality; breaking an oath;
occult involvement; pride; helping the wicked; mocking God’s
messengers; desecrating the sabbath; syncretism in religion….
Overall there will be a Day of Wrath.

In the NT wrath is mentioned in Jn 3:36; Rom 1:18, 2:5,2:8, 5:9,
9:22; Eph 2:3, Col 3:5; 1 Thess 1:10, 5:9….

There are also references in Revelation but, by its very nature,
apocalyptic literature is not literal history or reporting: it is
full of picturesque language, symbols etc..

The only use of “wrath” in Jesus’ reported speech occurs in
Lk 21:23 but this again is in the context of apocalyptic language.
The parallel passages in Mt and Mk do not use the word.

Fundamentalist preachers are prone to represent Jesus’ death
as God venting His wrath on the victim on the cross.   There
is nothing in Jesus’ speech or in the New Testament as a
whole to warrant this interpretation.

There are various metaphors in the NT covering Jesus’ death:
Love, sacrifice, ransom, justification, an example, death to sin,
death to the Law…..

Different gospels emphasise different aspects of Jesus’ death:
In Mt Jesus is crucified as a messianic pretender
In Mk Jesus’ death is a revelation ( the centurion at the cross)
In Lk Jesus’ death is a martyrdom
In Jn Jesus’ death is seen as exaltation.

The Johannine writings are full of love; for example,
The love of the Father for the disciples moves Him to adopt them
as His children.   Jesus loves His disciples to the extreme and
lays down His life for them.   The Father loves the Son.   God is
love.   When love is perfect, there is no longer room for fear: the
potential hostility which fear implies is annihilated in perfect
love, which unites totallly.

Synopsis:  C.S. Lewis posed the trilemma that Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic.   This article looks at the the case for against the third  proposition.

For:   Jesus at times hints at His divinity, at other times He is explicit. He believes in demons and talks to them.   If His aim is to persuade His contemporaries of Who He is, He goes about it in an irrational way, i.e., by antagonising them.   He believes in demons and talks to them.
He confuses fantasy and fact, e.g., when He said that to lust after a woman is the same as committing adultery with her.   He portrays His
“second coming” as Himself accompanied by angels on the clouds – a sign of megalomania.

Against:

• Jesus did not talk to Himself
• Many psychiatrists around the world believe Jesus was sane.
• Jung was most complimentary about Christ.
• Some psychiatrists believe that demons exist.
• “Adultery of the heart”:  it is only primitive Freudians who draw the inference that Jesus was mad.
• Divinity:  Jesus might well have been mad if it is not true that He is divine.   It depends on the scriptural evidence.
• Arguments: The cut-and-thrust of Semitic debate is quite different from Anglo-Saxon discussion.   In the former one thinks with one’s gut.   It is His opponents who heckle Him rather than vice versa.
• He was not violent to Himself or others.
• He does not hear voices (unless one counts the rare occasions on which a voice is heard from heaven – which others hear as well).
• There is no evidence of a multiple-personality.
• There is no question of Jesus not knowing right from wrong.
• “Clouds”:  This is apocalyptic language familiar to His hearers.
• H.G. Wells, an agonstic, said of Jesus; “For to take Him seriously was to enter upon a strange and alarming life, to abandon habits, to control instincts and impulses, to essay an incredible happiness….”.
• Goethe: “I esteem the gospels to be thoroughly genuine, for there shines forth from them the reflected splendour of a sublimity, proceeding from the person of Jesus Christ, and of as divine a kind as was ever manifested upon earth”.
• Rousseau: “If the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesuss Christ are those of a God”.
• J.S.Mill, the philosopher, sceptic and antagonist of Christianity, wrote: ”About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight in the very first rank of men of sublime genius…”
• William Lecky, a noted historian and dedicated opponent of organised Christianity wrote: “The simple record of Jesus’ three short years has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitations of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists”.
• Napoleon:  “Between Christ and whoever else in the world there is no possibleterm of comparison.   He is truly a being by himself”.
• NT scholars:  Many biblical scholars come to liberal or agnostic conclusions but none says that Jesus was mad.
• Jewish scholars:  Many Jewish scholars speak highly of Jesus’ teaching but none suggests that He was mad.

SYNOPSIS:  The exact meaning of the term “Son of Man” is one of the most
hotly disputed subjects in modern New Testament study.   It can
mean simply “Man” right through to a supernatural being.

• In the OT more often than not it means simply “Man”.   One or two of the OT prophets were addressed by God as “Son of Man”; this was a means of emphasising the difference between them and their Master.
• In the book of Daniel the term refers to a celestial being
• Some experts think that the same meaning is to be found in Jewish writings outside the OT, e.g., Enoch and 4 Esdras.
• In the NT the term is to found 70 times in the Synoptic Gospels; 12 times in John; and once  in the Acts of the Apostles.
• Jesus uses the term to refer to Himself as human over against God(Mk. 2:10, 28) or divine (Mk. 13:26; Lk. 22:69)
• At times Jesus uses the term with reference to His future coming on the clouds of heaven and to His exaltation at God’s right hand.   In theological terms Jesus is referring to apocalyptic-eschatology.
• Other uses Jesus makes of the term include superhuman powers to forgive sins and being “lord of the Sabbath”.
• More than any group of sayings using the term Jesus relates it to His coming passion and death.
• There is a hint of His Messiahship in the term, e.g., the sower, the seeker and saviour of the lost; the One with whom people must identify

• Scripture and Tradition form one sacred deposit of Faith.
• With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded.
• The clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition is that after Christ and the apostles who proclaimed  the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made,
• Christ was the fulfilment of the Old Testament and the absolute Teacher of Humanity.
• The apostles saw in Christ the coming of the the fullness of time  and regarded as their task the preservation, integral and unfalsified, of the heritage of Faith entrusted to them by Christ.
• However, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not in every case been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian Faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.   This is the role of Tradition, which is not seen as a static record but part of the living Faith.
• Tradition is distinct from Scripture, though closely connected to it.   Through Tradition in her doctrine, life and worship, the Church perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes
• The store set by Tradition has varied slightly from age to age, even in the Fathers.   Its primary significance was “authoritative handing-on”.
• In itself Scripture  is sufficient but because it is susceptible of such a vast variety of interpretations reference has to be made to Tradition.
• Most of the mainline Christian denominations embrace Tradition, even in a minimal form.   For example, the three creeds of Christendom are accepted, as are the doctrines of the divinity of Christ, the two natures of Christ and the Trinity.   Most mainline churches have their special Tradition, e.g., the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Augsburg Confession, the hymns and writings of the Wesleys etc..
• Are the teachings and practices of the Churches to-day in line with those of the NT Church?   As Shakespeare put it, “Ay, there’s the rub”.
• Throughout the Church’s history there have been many voices calling for a return to the primitive Church,   These reached a crescendo in the period up to and during the Reformation.   For example, Erasmus, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis Assisi, Luther, Calvin etc.all called for reform.   After the Reformation the Catholic Counter-Reformation called for reform
• The basics of the Faith remain in whatever century we look.