I've been reading through Mark recently, and for whatever reason the story where Jesus raises Jairus' daughter (Mark 5) has stood out to me each time through. Matthew Henry's commentary on a specific aspect of the miracle, Jesus' words to the girl, especially hit home:
What in your life is dead and has no hope of life outside of Christ? In that area are you fearing or believing? (Mark 5:36b)
It was customary with the Jews, when they gave physic to one that was sick, to say Arise from thy disease; meaning, We wish thou mayest arise: but to one that was dead, Christ said, Arise from the dead; meaning, I command that thou arise; nay there is more in it -- the dead have not power to arise, therefore power goes along with the word, to make it effectual...Christ works while he commands, and works by the command, and therefore may command what he pleaseth, even the dead to arise. Such is the gospel call to those that are by nature dead in tresspasses and sins, and can no more rise from that death by their own power, than this child could; and yet that word, Awake, and arise from the dead, is neither vain, nor in vain, when it follows immediately, Christ shall give thee light, Eph 5:14.
What in your life is dead and has no hope of life outside of Christ? In that area are you fearing or believing? (Mark 5:36b)
This passage is actually fairly interesting. In Mark 5:23, Jairus comes to Jesus and says, "My little daughter is dying." (I'm using the text from the New International Version here.) The same story appears in Luke 8:42, where Jairus also tells Jesus that his daughter is dying. We read the same story again in Matthew 9. Something interesting happens in verse 18, though. Instead of telling Jesus that his daughter is dying as he does in Mark and Luke, Jairus now tells Jesus that his daughter "has just died." So the Bible reports that at the moment that Jairus first spoke to Jesus about his daughter, she was both dead and dying.
ReplyDeleteThere's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that the Bible simply isn't a historically accurate account of anything. It's generally accepted, for example, that Mark, the earliest of the gospels, wasn't written until about forty to fifty years after the death of Jesus. And, of course, there's all the stuff in the Bible that's simply impossible or directly contradicted by scientific fact.
But the Bible itself contains enough contradictions to raise serious questions as to its accuracy and providence.
All you have to do is read it with an open mind.
I agree that the key in reading it is to have "an open mind."
ReplyDeleteAs for the specific differences between the accounts in Matt, Mark, and Luke, have you ever asked three of your friends who were at the same exact party or who saw the same exact car accident to describe what happened? Did all three ever tell the same exact story?
The most important part of the story is that, by the time Jesus arrived, the girl was dead. And that with a few spoken words he raised her to life.
I find it funny that you say Mark wasn't written "until" about 40 or 50 years after Jesus' death. In that time period, that was "hot off the presses"!
Have you read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel? I highly recommend it.
I deal with the issue of different people giving different accounts of the same thing all the time. I not only agree that it absolutely does happen, I would assert that it's impossible to keep that from happening. Your statement suggests that you believe that it's at least very likely that even people who saw the exact same thing will tell you slightly different versions of the event they all saw.
ReplyDeleteI therefore agree that one way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to suggest that Mark, Luke, and Matt each has a slightly different recollection about what happened. And, in fact, there are several other minor difference in their accounts--none of them rise to the level of being contradictory, though. But that supports the point I was originally trying to make: the Bible is fundamentally unreliable. The fact that Mark, Luke, and Matt each gives a different account because they're remembering the events differently--assuming they were there to begin with--doesn't work against my argument, it supports it. Your statement, as I understand it, is a concession that the Bible is nothing more than the work of imperfect human memory. And if that's all it is, then I see no reason to take its religious or theological assertions as anything more than the work of imperfect human creativity.
But your point helps my argument in a much more profound way. You and I seem to agree that people's memories can differ even a short time after an incident happened. I think we would also agree that these differences can grow over time and that, eventually, these differences can render an account unreliable. After all, Jairus's daughter was either dead or alive when he first spoke to Jesus.
So the people who saw Jairus talk to Jesus remember things differently, right off the bat. And they tell their different stories to different people. Who tell them to different people. Who then tell them to different people, all from memory. Until, finally, someone writes down the version of the story they heard some fifty years later. If we have reason to doubt the absolute accuracy of what a witness to a car accident has to tell us, then we have almost no reason to believe that what someone wrote down after the story's been passed on orally for half a century has any relationship at all to what actually happened. Assuming, of course, that the story was based in something true to begin with.
I have not read The Case for Christ, but I would be happy to do so, provided that you agree to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
I'm not conceding that at all. Peter (Mark's source for his Gospel) himself writes:
Delete"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,' we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 1 Peter 1:16-21 (ESV)
2 Timothy 3:16 is another great verse on this, stating that "All Scripture is God-breathed" i.e. inspired by God. God guided the process.
Ultimately, there's an element of faith in EVERY belief system and world view, even atheism or agnosticism. How can we trust that Julius Caesar actually did what he says he did? We don't have copies of his writings until CENTURIES later, and yet his accounts are credited as "fact." Same goes for Homer, Dante, Chaucer, and literally every other author from antiquity. Our entire picture of the ancient world is ultimately relient on faith, but of ALL those accounts the New Testament has the best historical reliability. I can have faith in that.
I'd happily read The God Delusion if it means you read The Case for Christ. We should figure out some method of accountability or communication outside of this blog though. My email is joshray88@gmail.com so feel free to contact me there.
sorry, that first reference is from SECOND Peter, not first peter.
DeleteI understand that it's Christian dogma that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. My point, though, is that there is at least one clear contradiction in the Bible. In your initial response, you didn't deny that there was a contradiction, you explained how it might have come about. As I see it, then, you have two options: either God intended the Bible to have contradictions or the Bible is not divinely inspired. I assume you would choose the former, in which case I think it's fair to ask for an explanation of why God would want a contradiction in his Word.
DeleteAs for whether any belief system requires faith, I think it would be pointless to respond to that without first defining faith. When I think of faith, I think of belief in something without evidence, and even belief in spite of evidence. Is that a reasonable definition?
I'm e-mailing you now about our mutual reading assignments.
By the way, there's something I should say: you have the absolute right to believe in whatever you want for whatever reason. My aim is not to deny you the right to free expression or freedom of thought. Or even to explicitly disrespect your belief. Rather, my aim is twofold: first, to understand why a seemingly intelligent person would choose to believe in God--something I find perplexing; and, second, to test the basis for my own beliefs. I suspect my beliefs will stand up to scrutiny, even if I'm unable to convince others. But I'll never know if I don't subject them to questioning by intelligent people.
Delete