Read the Book; You'll Know How it Ends

Candide.... I am glad to see you have so thoroughly researched this subject and put the time in to make a logical and powerful argument. I listen to theories and philosophies all the time that I disagree with. Rarely do I cry lunacy. I think there is an obvious disposition in your tone against religion. However, only a fool would assume that they have the world pinned. Please take the educated road and participate in dialogue, not arrogant condemnation. I find it intriguing that so many who claim intellectual prowess are so quick to dismiss anything they disagree with. If I have learned anything through my studies, it is how little I know, how much I have to learn, and that the disequilibrium caused by disagreement creates a drive to a deeper knowledge of subject matter.

I am not a believer. but I think it important to try to find out what early Christians believed.

Steven Carr, I presume you are a believer, but I must tell you that most of the New Testament is fiction, and to base your whole life on trumped up stories seems to me to be a little risky. I worry a lot about people who continually quote Bible verses and give the chapter and verse...seems kind of anal to me.

The Letter to the Hebrews was not written by Paul. As per Raymond Brown in his book, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 684, the author is unknown; later church attribution to Paul has been abandoned.

And Paul's prediction/description of the imminent Second Coming was a false prophecy.

E Favorite:

I appreciated your response. Thanks.

In response, I would simply reinforce the thought that the enlightenment mindset is biased toward a closed universe concept. Bible scholars can easily project this cultural mindset subconsciously as well as consciously on trying to interpret the scriptures which can lead us down the wrong paths.

You raise a great point about some biblical scholars who only look at the scriptures from a faith perspective, disregarding the historical time frame. I usually don't find them very helpful or insightful. A couple recently joined my church and he shared with me that one of the reasons he came back to the Christian faith after falling away for a period of time was because of attending a debate between Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. I'm not sure which direction he leans between those two scholars, but it's great that they helped him to think about his faith.

My only caution would be to not have a dualistic approach that the world of the enlightenment wants us to have in separating faith from history. My hunch is that most people have a radically different perspective of God from the Judeo/Christian God in which God is very active in the world.

Thanks for inviting me to share.

The Bishop of Durham writes 'or for the new world to be born from the womb of the old (Romans 8)'

This is a very accurate summary of that verse (verse 22)

But it will take at least 1300 pages to explain how a baby being born is a transformation of the mother.

To the readers in Rome, the metaphor would mean that the new world would replace the old world, just as one generation replaces the next.

But they did not have the benefit of the Bishop of Durham to explain that a baby being born is a superb metaphor for a transformation of the material of one being, rather than new material being created by God.

Oh, just to reinforce the idea that early Christians believed the world would be destroyed, Paul writes to the Corinthians telling them in 1 Corinthians 6 that God will destroy both stomach and food.

Eating is not a sinful activity, but resurrected beings will not eat , in the view of Paul.

Blue and white may claim that the earth will not be destroyed, but the Book of Hebrews says it will perish, and be changed in the way you change clothes.

Old clothes are thrown away and replaced by old clothes.

As for what happened to Jesus, let Paul explain that it does not matter that the earthly body is destroyed.

2 Corinthians 5

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling....

New clothes implies a change of clothing, replacing one set of garments with another, and discarding the old garments.

This is the same metaphor Hebrews uses.

The Gospels go out of the way to explain that Jesus had exactly the same body that he had before resurrection, complete with wounds, and made out of flesh and bones, which could be verified by a cursory examination.

The body was the same, but now the normal laws did not apply to that body. The wounds existed, but were not fatal for example.

The idea that God kept resurrected people alive is a common one in Judaism. Rabbis often quoted the text 'The LORD will renew their strength' to explain why resurrected bodies did not die or age.

Paul, of course, has a different conception. He claims that the heavenly body is made of a different material to an earthly body, just a fish is not made out the same stuff as the Moon.

Hello, Blue and White -- good to see you here. I hope you respond to my last post. I know I didn't ask you a question, but I would like to hear your take on what I had to say.

Thanks

Steven:

You make a good point. I've struggled with this type of language as well but here's my take on it for what it's worth.

The earth will not be destroyed - it will be renewed just as a Christians will be given a resurrected body in exchange for the old decaying body. This is where the NT writers have difficulty explaining what God's new creation will look like. Just like Mary did not recognize Jesus in the garden on Easter morning until he said her name. It's like we will have similar physical characteristics and yet we'll be different as well. It's both/and in a mysterious kind of way.

So when the author of Hebrews uses the language of perish, this is what he means. The decaying creation will be made new just like we will be made new.

The article goes wrong in the very first sentence!

'The New Testament teaches that the God who made the creation in the first place will remake it, not throw it away.'

Let us look at what the NT teaches.

Hebrews 1:10-12
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.

They will perish.

They will be thrown away in the same way that we thrown away old clothes when we get new clothes.

The old clothes are worn out and thrown away.

The New Testament uses pretty clear metaphors for what God will do to creation, but clarity of text is not one of NT Wright's stong points, as anybody who has read one of his books will know.

Stu,

Professor Crossan and Professor Wright have had debates about the physical Resurrection so there is nothing new I can add to the debate. For a recent review with commentaries by other NT scholars see the recent book edited by R.B. Stewart, The Resurrection of Jesus, John Dominic Crossan and NT Wright in Dialoge.

A somewhat related topic:

The influence of money on the develoment of Christianity should be of great interest to everyone. There is not much written on the subject. We do know that Paul apparently "greased" the entry of the Gentiles into the movement by the collection of money from the Gentiles for Jewish famine relief. Apparently the need for Gentile circumcision was quickly dropped after seeing so much money.

In the book, Stewart notes, "Reimarus (1774-1777) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Paul's end of the world/imminent second coming scenarios also greatly increased Gentile money contributions to the cause.

The Bishop was making a (good) point regarding the traditional "pie in the sky by and by" theology as being non-biblical. His comments are actually a useful way of reconciling traditional evangelism (believe now so you can go to Heaven) with social gospel (help your neighbor and ignore Heaven) mis-theologies. God created the world and "it was good." The fact that we have ratted it out is a temporary state, and the reconciliation has begun. If you don't believe there is a God who will judge you, then why not steal that money when no one is looking, etc.? Actually, Hitlerian thinking is right as far as it goes: if the strong survive when the weak die, and if this is how we "evolve" over time, then coddling the weak or inferior is slowing our "progress" down. Of course, it is always nice if you are the one who decides who is weak or inferior (i.e., Jews, Christians, etc.).

Concerned:

Yes, that summarizes Crossan's argument quite well. The problem is that there is ZERO evidence for it. You can discount the evidence of the gospel accounts if you want; but to give any credence at all to the Crossan speculation is to give credence to essentially nothing at all.

Wright goes to great length in his books ("Jesus and the Victory of God" and "The Resurrection of the Son of God") to build a case for a historical Jesus that looks very much like the gospel accounts. Why not try reading those books (it's only 1300 pages or so ;-)) and responding to his arguments if you're so certain that the gospels are fiction?

Dear Free Thinker,
Thank you for pointing these passages out. Those phrases that you highlighted actually come from the letters of Paul to various churches in the Roman empire. However, when he brings them up he is actually arguing against those points of view.

Regarding the passage on marriage, Paul writes, "Now as a concession, not a command, I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am" (1 Cor. 7:8). Paul's teaching on marriage here states that there are those who may wish to remain unmarried because they feel that such a life would allow them to serve the church to a greater capacity. However, this is a choice and not a command. Furthermore, Paul references other apostles who were married (see 1 Cor. 9:5), which demonstrates that married life was acceptable and even applauded in the early church community, even among the leadership.

In terms of not working and planning, I am not recalling the specific verses to which you are referring where people are commanded not to sow or plan, but I do recall several references to people not doing their work because of a belief that the end was coming soon. These are specifically rebuked at a couple of different points. For example, at the end of his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul writes, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you have received from us...For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living" (2 Thess. 3:6 & 10-12). It would seem that there were several people who were not working because of some belief that the end would come soon and reasoned, therefore, that it was pointless to work. However, Paul commands people to continue working and do their share. So here he is rebuking those who would fail to work because of some sort of misguided eschatology.

Likewise, in his second letter, Peter notes that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:8-9). Now Peter's teaching here is directed towards those who are mocking the followers of Christ because Christ has not returned, but the message is quiet clear. There was an early understanding within the new Christian community that the time of Christ's return was unknown and, as such, people should continue to live there lives with humility, hard work, truthfulness, love, and peace. So a teaching that stated that Christians should abandon their work because of the immanent return of Christ would have been unfounded within the community.

Finally, Christ himself emphasized "the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect. Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes" (Matt. 24:44-45). The teaching of Jesus was not that the time of his return would come immeadiately, but rather that it would be at a time that no one expected. It was not a time-dependent promise, so for the early church to believe otherwise would have been a gross misunderstanding on their part. Furthermore, such a position is not held among the writers of the New Testament documents.

So your questions are very valid ones and worth studying. Oftentimes this obsession with the "End Times", so to speak, comes from a misreading of many of these texts, so it is always a joy to look back at them and their related passages to understand them in their proper contexts. If you find the passages that you were referencing, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

I seem to remember someone in one of the new testament books (or maybe more than one)saying do not get married, do not sow the fields, do not plan (or something to that effect) because Jesus is coming back in their immediate time period and the world was going to be heaven on earth. Well, looks like it didn't happen... so what makes you think its going to happen later? I did not "interpret" this as so many "men of god" interpret the bible... I just read it and took it at its meaning.... that ship didn't sail so who's to say that anything else will come to pass?

Blue and White - thanks for your detailed response.

I didn't mean to ignore your earlier thoughts on the NT, it just seemed that you were asking me to defend or explicate a position I had not taken.

Regarding the rest of your post, as long as you believe in miracles and divine intervention, anything can happen. The Lord can inspire scripture writers, allow a virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, cause a star to wander across the sky, etc.

I said that there could have been a Jesus, but that it was not possible to prove or disprove him. That is my reason-based argument. I accept, as part of a reason-based argument, that, as you say, one can be led “…to believe that Jesus did in fact exist....” What I don’t accept, is the faith-based argument -- that he “…was who he claimed to be.” This is because I don’t believe in miracles or divine intervention. Scholars, (assuming they are not also Christian apologists) don’t attempt to analyze the likelihood of the miracles or divine intervention. It’s beyond their job description - just as civil war historians would decline (I assume) to posit on reasons that the Christian God, to whom both sides were praying, answered only the Northerners’ prayers for victory.

Scholarship has limits that faith doesn’t have. Faith is always open to the possibility of miracles. As to your question, "Do I really believe this faith of mine?" I’d say, as long as you believe in miracles, no problem.

E. Favorite,

Here is a copy of Professor JD Crossan's summary on the historical Jesus studies with respect to Easter weekend,~33 CE: (from Crossan's book, Who is Jesus?)

A summary based on contemporary historic Jesus studies of the events of Easter weekend.

"The best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. There were no high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And if Jewish police or Roman soldiers did not need to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

E Favorite:

I guess this is where message boards are often times not the best way to communicate. You began your previous post with:

"Hey Blue and White – YOU’RE the one who made the case for the NT fulfilling the prophesies of the OT!"

Yes and no. Yes - I did pose the question about how difficult it would be for the NT writers to tie the ministry of Jesus with the OT without a historical figure in Jesus.

But I also said (and here's the part I think you may have missed, or chose to ignore, or where you may have misunderstood me. In fact, I'll repost that portion of one of my previous posts here)

I posted: "Regarding OT prophesies, I think you're giving the NT writers way too much credit. For example, no one during the time of Jesus was ever imagining that the Messiah and the suffering servant image of Isaiah would one day be cojoined in redefining the role of Messiah. Historically speaking, those first followers of Jesus would have been totally shocked to discover this was the way God was at work (by having Jesus take on the weight of the world's sin and pain in a single event - the cross.) They only believed it because of the resurrection, and even then it didn't quite sink in.

I think the church has got it wrong when it attempts to make the story of the Gospel appear so simple that anybody could have easily figured this out if they would have known the Hebrew scriptures. Sure, those first disciples would later reflect on those OT prophesies following Jesus' resurrection and notice connections, but this was only in response to what they had witnessed first hand."

And to add some ephasis to this, I would also say that during the post-exilic period and into the time of the NT, there is NO EVIDENCE of anyone in Judaism even coming close to the way in which Jesus reinterpted the meaning of "Messiah."

Sure, one might make the case (which you are doing)that some 1st century Jews got together and put this whole reinterpretation of Messiah together and made up a character for it and gave him the name, "Jesus." All I'm saying is to not dismiss the very reasonable possibility that this reinterpretation was all rooted in a historical figure named Jesus and it was his followers who were left to figure out how this all fit together. To think that the NT writers did this in a vacuum leads me to believe that Jesus did in fact exist and was who he claimed to be.

As for when the scriptures were written, remember that this was an oral culture and stories of Jesus would have easily spread during his ministry with a lot of checks and balances along the way to make sure the story was being told correctly. However, I will grant you, that I am not an adherent of biblical inerrancy, but I do believe that God guided those NT writers to put their stories together in such a way that will tell the larger story of how God was fulfilling the covenant that was made with Abraham (Genesis 12 & 15) through the person of Jesus of Nazareth. OK - there you got me. I'm not just looking at this historically but also as a person of faith since I fell out of the cradle a Methodist.

And last but not least, I know the Enlightenment has taught us to look at ancient history with a biased perspective that the universe is mostly closed between humanity and God if not totally closed. But that doesn't mean that we need to automatically throw out stories of miracles, healings, the story of the virgin birth, etc. You very aptly pointed out that there are similar stories of virgin births, and people being called "Son of God", etc. That's helpful to remember and I would say that this point alone should not lead people to dimiss the historicity of Jesus.

And just to think that I didn't have to google even once. Seriously - I do appreciate the give and take of this thread. You force me to ask myself, "Do I really believe this faith of mine?"

Concerned - thank you - coming from you, it means a lot. For more on the subject, I'm in conversation with someone who seems to be a biblical scholar over on the Fredriksen "education" thread. I'm trying with his/her help to refine a statement from scholars to the general public that clearly and accurately represents knowledge about the historical Jesus.

Regarding your additional point, I don't doubt it, but I'm considering the possibility that "pew peasants" can take more reality than clergy give them credit for and that everyone would be better off with more honesty. Sounds Pollyanna-ish, I know, but at the very core, it's more Christian, too, isn't it?

E. Favorite,

An excellent summary!! I would add that the "pew peasants" (general public) are still not being given all the information because it would mean a flight to reality and a loss of monetary support and employment.

Hey Blue and White – YOU’RE the one who made the case for the NT fulfilling the prophesies of the OT!

Regarding Jesus – my feeling is that the jury is out on Jesus and will stay out. The trail is old and cold. Scholars and church leaders have been looking for centuries and haven’t found much. The evidence is nothing like what we think of as conclusive or convincing by modern 21 century standards (or even the 19th century). There are no existing records (birth, death) no contemporaneous mention outside the Bible, no archeological evidence (no first century city of Nazareth, no tomb). Maybe there was a rabbi named Jesus, who preached in first century Palestine, but we can’t really know. What we CAN know (if we accept scientific truths and consider ancient myths) is that this guy, Jesus, if he existed, was not born of a virgin under a special star, did not rise from the dead or ascend to heaven. Those things just don’t happen (unless you believe in miracles, of course). Also, we know that these supernatural characteristics of Jesus were not original to Jesus. There are precedents – other, more ancient Pagan Gods – Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus (Google and see) who were supposedly born of a virgin, or died on a cross, or rose from the death. (Mithras was even born on December 25th.) Many scholars, including Albert Schweitzer, feel the attributes of these earlier Gods were superimposed on the Jesus character to make him a God worthy of worship.

Many respected scholars think there probably was a “preacher Jesus” who was executed, but do not comment on the supernatural aspects of him. They will note that many people in those days thought he was the Son of God (decades after he died – the scriptures were written not during his ministry, but there are reliable 2nd century Roman records of persecuting Christians for their beliefs), but not that Jesus himself thought he was the Son of God. Of course, scholars don’t agree on everything – I’m giving you my overall assessment. But remember, they are scholars, not clergy – they are studying history, not proselytizing or preaching the word of God. Scholars develop theories and make analyses based on the evidence at hand. They do not draw conclusions based on church dogma or doctrine.

I knew nothing about this until the last years or so, when I became curious, after realizing everything I knew about Jesus and most of what I know about religion, I had learned in Sunday School, many years ago. The information is readily available in public libraries, bookstores and on the internet – of course you have to be discerning, because there’s all kinds of stuff out there. It’s quite surprising – shocking, especially that this could be known to scholars and clergy (mainline Protestant and Catholic) but not be passed on to the general public.

I’d be interested to hear back from you if you check this out on your own or with clergy.

Blue and White,
"Josephus is not reliable for information on Jesus. The verses in his Antiquities that speak of Jesus are felt to be interpolations by most reliable scholars. So what he has to say is not what he has to say, get it?"

Yes, you are quite correct and they also disagree on the varying degrees of those interpolations.

Again, why do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was not a historical figure? Just curious.

Blue and White,
Josephus is not reliable for information on Jesus. The verses in his Antiquities that speak of Jesus are felt to be interpolations by most reliable scholars. So what he has to say is not what he has to say, get it?

"B&W - You didn't comment on my explanation of how the NT could fulfill the prophesies of the OT without being factual. What do you think?"

E Favorite: Actually, I'm still interesting in hearing why you do not believe that Jesus was a historical figure with so much written about him not to mention by the historian, Josephus.

Regarding OT prophesies, I think you're giving the NT writers way too much credit. For example, no one during the time of Jesus was ever imagining that the Messiah and the suffering servant image of Isaiah would one day be cojoined in redefining the role of Messiah. Historically speaking, those first followers of Jesus would have been totally shocked to discover this was the way God was at work (by having Jesus take on the weight of the world's sin and pain in a single event - the cross.) They only believed it because of the resurrection, and even then it didn't quite sink in.

I think the church has got it wrong when it attempts to make the story of the Gospel appear so simple that anybody could have easily figured this out if they would have known the Hebrew scriptures. Sure, those first disciples would later reflect on those OT prophesies following Jesus' resurrection and notice connections, but this was only in response to what they had witnessed first hand.

Thanks for the discussion on this.

Blue and White --- why do I think writers of the NT existed? Because the NT exists! We don't know who wrote it, but we know it was written. We have very old (but not as old as Jesus) and very new copies of it. I can see one right now, sitting on a nearby bookcase.

Why not Jesus? because writers can write truth, fiction, myth, legend, history, fact, embellishment.

B&W - You didn't comment on my explanation of how the NT could fulfill the prophesies of the OT without being factual. What do you think?

Country Squire posts,

"Blue and White, you say 'Isn't it amazing that a small following of 1st century Jews were able to write the New Testament and tie it all together with the Hebrew scriptures? And to do so by using a non historical figure, Jesus?'

No , not amazing at all. In fact, using a fictional character is the easiest way to get everything fit together.

The writers of the NT just look at the OT prophesies and make up a story that fulfills them!"

At least you believe the writers of the NT existed! But why not Jesus? Interesting!

Blue and White, you say "Isn't it amazing that a small following of 1st century Jews were able to write the New Testament and tie it all together with the Hebrew scriptures? And to do so by using a non historical figure, Jesus?"

No , not amazing at all. In fact, using a fictional character is the easiest way to get everything fit together.

The writers of the NT just look at the OT prophesies and make up a story that fulfills them!

OK, but I think we should all thank the Duke of Elsewhere for his insightful, compelling, irenic, and thoughtful contributions to this Website discussion. He has been so forthright and honest with all those who disagree with him...such kindness, caring, sweetness, and openmindedness.
We salute you, oh Duke of Elsewhere, wherever you may be and whoever you are. You're a real jewel.
I am sure that we will all see the Duke in heaven as he lies on the bosom of Apollo and Diana.

The end.

Whoa, Duke of Elsewhere, still yapping like a little toy poodle...this time you'll get it straight...so to speak...if you know what that means...

(1) Tom Wright is totally screwed up on the resurrection. He believes the truth of fictional stories.
(2) The resurrection is a mytho-poetic story like most of the NT
(3) The world will come to an end when humankind decides to wage all out nuclear war, or---
when the sun explodes in about 3-4 billion years.
(4) And that's the truth, little Duke.
Case closed. Zeus has spoken, as well as Astarte,
Isis, Marduk, Ba'al, Ra, Thor, and the heavenly hosts----great party givers!
Adios.

Whoo ha!

Country Squire, you haven't a clue of which you speak.

Once again, wrestle with the force of Tom Wright's thinking on the resurrection.

Let's turn the table to the wise one, the Squire. Please answer the WP question - "Do you believe the world will come to an end? If so, where, when and what will it look like?"

How does the Squire answer?

The Duke of Elsewhere has asked. I have spoken.

Obviously a closet case, this Duke of Elsewhere, and a confused soul. Case closed.

Blue and White, in dealing with people who make claims like this you are in reality dealing with atheistic fundamentalists - kind of like Jerry Fallwell with a skeptics cap on. To present them with historical data would be to confuse them with facts.

And to you, Squire, your questions to me are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

"Adam is, and Jesus may well be, strictly mythological characters."

Statements like this force me to ask these questions:

Isn't it amazing that a small following of 1st century Jews were able to write the New Testament and tie it all together with the Hebrew scriptures? And to do so by using a non historical figure, Jesus?

I can understand why people would not accept Christianity because of personal bad experiences, judgmental church attitudes, a misreading of the biblical narrative of how the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament all tell God's salvation story, but are there really a lot of people out there who don't believe Jesus existed?

Dear Duke of Elsewhere:

You didn't answer my questions...such is the usual from the defenders of Christian orthodoxy...poor child.

You obviously have a brain, but don't really use it. Adam is, and Jesus may well be, strictly mythological characters. Glad you find it pleasing and comforting to think they are part of reality, but sweetie, guess again.

If you had Sam Harris' brain you'd probably be dangerous... but I will give you the benefit of the doubt...you still might be a nice person...but can't quite answer questions about what kind of nice person. Are you a closet case?
If so, don't waste your life in that space, come out, come out, wherever you are!

Oops. I meant to say "**can't** think outside..." in reference to S. Harris.

Pardon me.

(sigh) Here we go again, and again, and ag.....

Supporting a thesis? Again, did I hear you say supporting a thesis? I am not interested in maintaining nor promoting a Cartesian epistemology. Therefore, I have no "proofs" or "evidences".

The story is simple, Jesus is the reward of anticipation that the promises of the Old Testament held forth: In his life Jesus undid the downward spiral of human history that Adam has plunged us into and fulfilled the calling and work that Israel as a nation failed to do. In his death Jesus took upon himself the sin, in all its multi-complexities (both individual and corporate), of the world and then died, at the same time exhausting its power and exertion over the created order. In his resurrection he tramples down death, arises victoriously and constitutes the new creation, his resurrection being the first fruit of it.

Now, on to Sam Harris. He appears to me to be a very angry fundamentalist who can think outside of his own very narrowly construed world view. He make giant leaps of faith in his dogmatic claims. He is a slave to the enlightenment.

Finally, o' Squire of the Country, you simplistically use the word "religion" and tack on the silly remark that "without it perhaps the world would be a better place". Not only are you a poor theologian but your historical mind has gone to sleep as well. The religion-less project has been tried and found to be (literally) deadly in Europe over the last century. Oh where have thou been, Squire?

Once again, the Duke has spoken.

Duke of Elsewhere, you love to run your little fingers over the keys and write all kinds of spoiled little boy stuff, but the fact remains you cannot support your thesis about the so-called resurrection. Crossan isn't my hero, he's still a nominal Christian and his dialogue with Tom Wright does nothing to change my view. (You are a rather interesting person and sound like you are fun to be around, albeit dogmatic to the core, but I'd be willing to be you are a nice person after all. Where do you live? How old are you? Are you cute?)

Sam Harris is probably the most right-on person running their mouth today. He is a hero and a great bellweather of what is to come, surely.
Enough religion. Without it perhaps the world would be a better place.

Oh ha!

Once again the Country Squire has used ad hominem attacks to butress his position.

He writes of a "fundie brushoff". Well, the good bishop Tom Wright is anything but a fundamentalist and it seems that people of your ilk have still neglected to wrestle with the thesis put forth in his The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God.

And let's put to rest this lopsided usage of the word "fundamentalist". You seem to want to use this term in its popular parlance (i..e., angry, dogmatic, rufusal to discuss, ideologically driven). Well whoo ha! It looks like you are pretty much fitting this description to a tee.

Country Squire, here's what you do. #1 - Get a copy of The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan And N.T. Wright in Dialogue. Here you will find an exchange of ideas between a Christian scholar/bishop and re-interpreter of things Christian and historical.

#2 - Put down the fundamentalist Sam Harris book

#3 - Re-read #1.

I, the Duke of Elsehwere, have spoken.

Duke of Elsewhere's breezy dismissal of cogent and realistic comments by Country Squire is simply indicative of the usual fundie brushoff that occurs when they don't like something they hear. The resurrection is a myth, not a reality, and the sooner that Duke of Elsewhere and others of like mind realize that, the better.

To those who are wondering why Bishop Wright is spending time considering this question rather than giving his thoughts and attention to other areas, perhaps the most simple answer is because he was asked. He is giving the Christian understanding of the "end of the world" question as he sees it as a way of answering the questions posed by our moderator. So I am confused why everyone is so dumbfounded about why he is talking about this subject.

However, to go a little bit deeper, it is important to consider that the redemptive plan of God as presented in the Bible is not meant to be some sort of pie-in-the-sky daydream for Christians to lose themselves in, but rather is meant to illustrate what Bishop Wright has already articulated: God's plan for the redemption of the whole earth and everything in it. This vision is what motivates Christians to work for environmental restoration, social justice, peace, etc. Rather than defining themselves as in opposition to something (anti-war, anti-drugs, etc.) they are called to work for something greater. Christians understand that, through their relationship with Christ, they have been called to take part in this redemptive plan for the world and it is what motivates them to work for the greater good. Sadly, as the Bishop has mentioned, many have missed the call, but that does not change the purpose of the message. So whether you agree with it or not, please understand the proper context for his writing and focus your critiques towards more constructive areas of dialogue on this subject.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

Country Squire. Ad hominem attacks are one of the greatest forms of flattery.

To more serious matters: Let's see - Crossan, King, Ludemann, Armstrong - the common thread here is a denial of the resurrection. At best, they turn this around to be docetic non-physical resurrection or resurrection as vision. Non of these folks, I believe, has seriously wrestled with what Wright is saying. Perhaps Marcu Borg has participated in friendly dialogue but others come across as angry fundamentalists. (Yes, fundamentalism goes the other non-conservative or traditional way too). Wright, our commentator here, has debated Ludemann before. The outcome was not good ol' Gerd.

The Duke has spoken. Court is adjourned.

Some of the responses suggest that to focus on the end times would be to ignore pressing social issues that the church should be giving its full attention.

Focusing on the end times, at least as outlined by Dr. Wright, would help the church to focus on these pressing issues, not ignore them. When one believes that God cares about creation and wants to redeem it, how would anyone conclude that we should ignore issues facing our world today?

I agree with the comment that Dr. Wright's scholarship should not be seen as "cutting edge" since it is actually a return to historic and orthodox Christian theology anyway.

I believe that the Duke of Elsewhere belongs elsewhere since he doesn't know a "cutting edge" biblical scholar from a hole in the ground. There is little argument with the scholars who comprise the Fellows of the Westar Institute, home of the Jesus Seminar. This includes Crossan, Pagels, Karen King, Tom Sheehan, Gerd Ludemann, Marvin Meyer, Walter Wink, Karen Armstrong and many others. Guess again, Duke, and run along now and play on that little brain island of yours.

Robert Semes typed: "the Jesus Seminar scholars who are on the cutting edge of New Testament research and study".

Are you insane? Seriously. Saying the Jesus Seminar are cutting edge New Testament scholars is kind of like saying the Left Behind fiction books are classical literature.

Whoa!

If I had any red, gray, pink, or black marbles in my "cutting edge" bag of scholarship I would have the sense to vote you off the island!

Reverend Robert Semes writes "If the gospel stories are largely fictions, as Burton Mack argues, then the writings of Wright and others of his school are pretty much worthless."

I hope Reverend Semes will post more comments on these threads. However, one could even take a significantly less extreme position than Burton Mack and reach the same conclusion (although I believe Burton Mack is close to the truth).

Bishop Wright stated that "there are enough signposts pointing into the fog of the future for us to be sure...that this vision of the future is indeed true". The fact that Mr. Wright can reach a state of certainty so easily -- especially on the basis of Revelation -- says everything we need to know about his critical faculties.

The fact is, it is important to know the difference between mythology and science. This is not a value judgment, and acknowledging this distinction does not reduce the value of myths to inform and inspire.

First of all, Bishop Tom Wright of Durham has a long track record of what many assume is creditable biblical scholarship. His books are largely traditional/conservative evangelical Anglican in focus. His 2003 book, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" was the one I most well remember reading. It amounted to the basic orthodox biblical rendition of the so-called"resurrection" stories in the four New Testament gospels. There was, as I perceived it, little in the way of critical thinking or intellectual honesty in his presentation. It was the same old Sunday School approach to the fantasy stories of earliest Christianity. It was defensive, verbose and tedious, and despite my attempts to skip around in my reading of the various chapters, hoping that things would improve, I was not rewarded. This book is fine for a tangible example of conservative, almost fundamentalist, biblical studies, but little else in the beginning of the 21st century. To me, it is certainly not "cutting edge" scholarship.

Bishop Wright is the darling of the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church of England, and many throughout the Anglican Communion who like his traditionalist thinking. He does little for the more progressive and critical scholars in the U.S., particularly the Jesus Seminar scholars who are on the cutting edge of New Testament research and study. If the gospel stories are largely fictions, as Burton Mack argues, then the writings of Wright and others of his school are pretty much worthless. Better yet, look at Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King's new volume, "Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity."

Second, Bishop Wright appears to take the stories in the Book of Revelation (not Revelations, as some still write it)as based on some kind of reality. Unfortunately, this is not the case and these stories are pure apocalyptic literature, full of symbolism and myth. It is written in myth,a style that is the "language of the present tense," as English literary critic Northrup Frye taught me. None of the stories of the Book of Revelation are to be taken literally or even metaphorically. One needs to understand what apocalytpic really is to seeing any use in this or other such writings. The book itself was scarcely admitted to the NT canon, and for centuries was absent in some church's Scriptures.
It is basically fantasy and lacks any veracity. For Wright to imply that one could understand what would happen at the "end of the world" by reading the Book of Revelation is nonsense, except if perceived with the same understanding and mindset of the end of the world as portrayed in such film stories as "When Worlds Collide," "On the Beach," "Dr. Strangelove," or other fictions.

Instead of fretting over the "end of the world" scenarios, people ought to put their mental and physical energies into helping stop the environmental crisis and fix the bankrupt government they have in their country, especially in the U.S.

The book of Revelations is a LSD trip gone bad. It is totally opposite of the love in the gospels of Christ which makes me think it was added later. Like a biblical version of Karl Rove, it is used by the Church to scare and control its blind sheep.

Dear Candice,

I guess I am out of my mind because I believe every word. I walk by faith in the One who knows all things. Correct me if I am wrong but humankind has always had problems since we all chose to go our own way. I will look forward to the One who said He is coming back. My redemption is not found in a limited created human but in the living eternal God.

Pablo

Bgone,

I haven't read anything about bridges between universes in the Buddhist cosmology. But you can't rely on me. I'm not a scholar of Buddhism - just a person who's found its core concepts and ethics very appealing. B's cosmology is fascinating - I should do more reading.

Regards.

I tend not to pay attention to Anglican clerics, knowing how firmly floppy they always are.

I failed to mention, the ancient Egyptian theory of eternal life that seems to be in harmony at least with Buddhism can be reviewed at http://www.hoax-buster.org I expect Norrie and many others already know that.

Norrie Hoyt, "infinite number of universes" is one of the speculations of the ancient Egyptians too, I think.

The ancient Egyptians presumed the dead person to come back to life in a new universe. Actually, the coming back to life happened in the "underworld" where the dead were judged to be worthy before being allowed into the next world.

The ancient Egyptian underworld appears in Christian dogma as limbo, a place of waiting. Pharaoh was God, the one who had final decision power over who would be allowed into his "next" kingdom in the "next" universe.

The ancient Egyptian "first next universe" is heaven to the three great faiths. Buddhist are way ahead of the curve or all the way back to ancient Egypt, or the ancient Egyptians had it correct, there are multiple universes connected to each other by "nebol bridges."

Do Buddhists believe there are nebol bridges joining the infinite set of universes to each other?

NTW writes: has already happened in Jesus, and specifically in his death;

This proleptic reality is the stumbling block for many. The psalms give us the best insight into the nature of the covenant dialogue and the difficulty of the New Creation. E.g. 'your loving kindness is better than life itself' but 'rebuke me not in your wrath' and 'the waters are up to my neck'. NB - the dialogue is not specific to Christianity or Christians or Christendom. It is and has been a present reality to the covenant partner. Jesus is paradigmatic - and by his Gospel, explicitly opens the door to all. The NT writers, particularly the author of the letter to the Hebrews, read the Psalms as dialogue between the 'Father' and the 'Son' - showing that he/she understood that Jesus walked in this very human way. The 'Christian' specific understanding should not be to negate the Psalms as some do (whether by triumphalism or ignoring them), but to know that by the mercy seat where his death meets our life, we all can get on with the 'walk' implicit in the life of the Psalmist.

And the grand apocalypse of the Book of Revelation confirms - 'I make all things new' and 'It is done'. Tenses are just adequate to express the timeliness of the invitation.

What we know:

1. The Sun will burn out in 3-4 billion years so we have a time frame.

2. Asteroids continue to whiz by us daily.

3. One large hit and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptor or recreating our DNA.

Bottom line: the world will end sometime between now and 3-4 billion CE.

You're right: nobody knows, though science has some plausible ideas which will undoubtedly be refined as time passes.

As for metaphysics, I prefer the Buddhist speculation that there are an infinite number of universes that have always existed and always will, along with the idea that at the center of every being there is an eternal mindstream that will allow every being to attain enlightenment and Buddhahood.

The rather muddled Christian thinking about last things holds no appeal for me.

You state that "when will this new creation happen, and what will it look like? The answer to both is that we don't know." Why are you wasting time thinking about something you can't possibly know? Don't you think you could find something more constructive to do with your time?

The apocalyptic books of both Old and New Testament were written by lunatics. Anyone, Jewish or Christian, who takes them seriously is also a lunatic.