His earlier post to me combined these:
I have no plan to talk him out of the 1st issue.
I’m an American, but I’m not in any position to do anything about American evangelicalism.
As for his argument about compassion, I’ve said all that I need to say.
For example, Terry, this is one of the reasons why I said that his view seems very outdated on the subject
The creed we find in 1 Cor 15:3–5, as it has already been shown, did not really have time to “develop” in any meaningful sense, since it stands too close to the events themselves. Most modern scholars agree that its date falls within a range extending from a few months to, at most, two or three years after Jesus’ death.
But on the broader issue we were discussing (namely, the development of traditions) maybe Rob should consider the following:
“If, as I shall argue in this book, the period between the ‘historical’ Jesus and the Gospels was actually spanned, not by anonymous community transmission, but by the continuing presence and testimony of the eyewitnesses, who remained the authoritative sources of their traditions until their deaths, then the usual ways of thinking of oral tradition are not appropriate at all.”— Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 12.
“Our argument is rather that the continuity of the Gospels is with the testimony of the eyewitnesses, not via a long period of community transmission but through, in many cases, immediate access to the eyewitnesses or, in other cases, probably no more than one intermediary.”— Richard Bauckham, again from the same book, this time from page 136
“The fact that the form critics neglected the factor of living memory and treated the transmission of Gospel traditions as analogous to transmission over much longer periods accounts for the impression one often gets from reading modern Gospels scholarship that the period between the events and the Gospels was a very much longer one than it actually was. In fact, it was the period in which the eyewitnesses were still alive and available to tell their stories.”— Richard Bauckham, this time from “The Transmission of the Gospel Traditions,” in Actes du Congrès La Recherche du Jésus historique (2009), p. 383.
By contrast, Rob seems to hold a historical-critical view that is, as I said, badly outdated.
Let me quote Bultmann, for example, who was probably the most important scholar representing the early “mythical” view of the historical Jesus, this is what he said: “I do indeed think that we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist.”— Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner’s, 1958 19261926), p. 14.
Also, in the late nineteenth century, scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Abraham Loman, Rudolf Steck, and Willem C. van Manen rejected the authenticity of all the Pauline letters, including 1 Corinthians, arguing that their developed theology pointed to a period later than the mid-first century.
This kind of reductive view of the historicity of the Gospels and the New Testament is, in 2026, extremely outdated and is essentially no longer held by any serious contemporary scholar. I can understand why someone might still find it appealing, but modern historiography has, for all intents and purposes, moved beyond it.
The real problem is that those bridges imply either the negation or the relativization of Jesus, and I don’t think any Christian is willing to cross them. As for the rest, I look forward to your posts. As I said, I always appreciate them, even when I disagree. :))
P.s
All the best for your wife! Hope she recovers soon.
Thank you for your gracious reply. We agree to disagree. I would just point out something.
In the category of understanding that arises from lived experience. In this sphere, the encounter with reality is not primarily analytical but experiential. It involves the interior life—conscience, compassion, suffering, love, and the moments of awareness that people often describe as spiritual or mystical. In this domain, subjectivity cannot simply be excluded, because it is precisely through subjective experience that human beings become aware of meaning, value, and transcendence.
The current lived experience of most of the people in the world is that conscience, compassion and love are not something that your country is showing at present. The religious and influential are power-oriented and seem to be bent on Armageddon, creating suffering rather than reducing it. These influential religious personalities have put a man on a throne whose character was known to be as antithetical to Jesus as anyone, which makes me wonder whether it is the doctrine that has led to this.
Maybe it is time for moments of awareness that people often describe as spiritual or mystical, so that conscience, compassion and love can take over and reduce suffering and help heal the “least of us,” because, as the King says, “When you help them, you do it this to me.”
I agree with both viewpoints.
The core of the gospel is visible from the start of the Jesus-movement. In that sense, it has not developed to something else, although the theological jargon has changed. The earliest Christians did not speak using words like ‘Trinity’, ‘soteriology’ or ‘pneumatology’ but the core beliefs behind the various words appear to be the same.
The other side of the coin is that the liturgical side, organization of the church and the interpretation of some doctrinal issues have changed. You may see these developments as a move from general to more detailed formulations but an external observer, like an alien above earth, would record these changes as historical development of religious traditions.
If I compare the history of Christianity to what happened in the ancient Egypt before the Roman rule (3000 years of evolving religious beliefs and practices), the traditions within Christianity have not changed that much. If I compare the current situation to what the earliest writings about the Jesus-movement reveal, I would say that religious traditions have developed historically. How much - well, that is a matter of interpretation.
Your reply is intellectually serious and largely fair, but it also contains several framing choices that subtly shift the debate. You are correct that what I am saying resembles what scholars call religious perennialism. Thinkers such as Huxley, Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Huston Smith resonate with me.
We share the idea that mystical experience reveals a common transcendent reality while doctrines are culturally conditioned interpretations of that experience, but also in areas like divine unity, different traditions naming the same reality (Tao, Dharma, etc.), and the primacy of compassion and mystical awareness.
However, when you say that one must either accept or reject full perennialism, that is not actually true. My position is closer to something more nuanced, such as mystical pluralism, experiential theology or what philosophers sometimes call critical realism about religious experience.
Essentially, my focus is on the fact that human beings encounter a real transcendent dimension of reality and that encounter is interpreted through historical and cultural frameworks. We must accept that no single doctrinal system fully exhausts the reality being encountered. Therefore, I’m not saying that all traditions ultimately teach the same metaphysical doctrine, but that different traditions are attempts to articulate the same encounter, and they do not necessarily describe it in identical metaphysical terms.
Of course, I will agree that if someone adopts a full perennialist model, then every tradition would indeed need reinterpretation because they cannot all be literally true in the same doctrinal sense. Any integrative framework must therefore reinterpret something.
But then you go on to state that my position belongs somewhere else, which is a common rhetorical strategy in academic or moderated forums, but it doesn’t refute my argument, but redefines the scope of the conversation. However, I think you may be overlooking something.
As I have shown in various posts, my position actually fits quite well with a long Christian tradition of mystical theology, especially that of Meister Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa and Nicholas of Cusa. They all suggested that God transcends conceptual language, that doctrines are partial expressions of an infinite reality, and that direct awareness of God transforms the person ethically. So, I am not outside of Christianity. My position is one of its internal streams.
As I have discovered since following this path, the real disagreement is not about compassion or mysticism but about authority. For you, revelation defines truth, and experience must be interpreted through doctrine. For me, the experience of the divine reveals something real, and doctrines are attempts to interpret that encounter. We are approaching from opposite epistemological directions.
So, I understand the perennialist framework you are referring to, but I would not describe my position as claiming that all religions teach exactly the same doctrine. Rather, I am suggesting that human beings across cultures encounter a transcendent dimension of reality, and that different traditions attempt to interpret that encounter within their own historical and symbolic frameworks.
In that sense, the diversity of religious language may reflect different ways of articulating the same depth of human experience, rather than competing descriptions of entirely separate realities. After all, Nicholas of Cusa proposed that different religions might reflect partial understandings of the same divine truth, and Thomas Aquinas argued that truth discovered anywhere ultimately comes from God, so the idea that divine reality can be encountered beyond one cultural framework is not entirely foreign to Christianity.
It simply sits uneasily with the modern evangelical identity.
While your statement contains a legitimate insight, it also oversimplifies a very complex historical and linguistic process. When we consider the shift from Aramaic-speaking Judaism to the Greek-speaking world, a more nuanced picture emerges.
Indeed, the earliest followers of Jesus Christ did not employ later theological terminology. Words such as ‘Trinity’, ‘soteriology’ and ‘pneumatology’ emerged from later reflection, particularly within the Greek intellectual environment of the early Church. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity was not formally defined until centuries later at events such as the Council of Nicaea.
However, you overlook the profound shift in meaning that occurs when Semitic thought is expressed in Greek conceptual language. Jesus and his earliest followers spoke Aramaic, a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. The Gospels, however, were written in Greek. This is more than just translation; it involves a change in worldview and conceptual structure.
Semitic languages tend to express ideas through narrative, metaphor and relational and dynamic concepts. By contrast, Greek philosophical language tends to work through abstract categories, metaphysical definitions and logical distinctions. Because of these differences, translation inevitably reshapes meaning.
For instance, the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ in the Gospels, found in texts such as Mark and Luke, likely reflects the Aramaic concept of God’s active reign. When the phrase moved from Aramaic
malkuta (dynamic divine rule) → Greek basileia (realm or state)→ English “kingdom” → a territory ruled by a king. Therefore, a dynamic concept such as ‘God is acting now’ can become a static idea such as ‘a divine kingdom’.
Another example is the title ‘Son of Man’. In Aramaic (bar enash), this expression simply means ‘a human being’ or functions as an indirect self-reference. However, when translated into Greek as ‘huios tou anthrōpou’, it becomes a distinctive title, later interpreted by readers as referring to a specific messianic or cosmic figure.
The word ‘Abba’ also illustrates this issue perfectly, as it began as an intimate Aramaic expression of a relationship with God. However, when it was translated into Greek and incorporated into theology, it became part of a much more abstract doctrinal framework. This small linguistic shift reveals how the transition from Aramaic-speaking Judaism to the Greek intellectual world inevitably altered the understanding and expression of the message.
Due to these linguistic and cultural shifts, the assertion that the ‘core beliefs remained the same’ is partially accurate yet incomplete. There is probably continuity in themes such as God’s redemptive action, the significance of Jesus, the role of the Spirit, and the transformation of human life. However, there was also real development in how these ideas were understood.
For instance, when thinkers such as Paul began interpreting the significance of Jesus for Greek-speaking communities, they drew on concepts that were familiar in the Hellenistic world. Later, theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo further developed these ideas using the philosophical language inherited from Plato and Aristotle. This process involves more than just a change in vocabulary; it encompasses conceptual expansion and reinterpretation.
One way to phrase this idea with a sensitivity to history might be to say that the earliest followers of Jesus expressed their experience in the narrative and symbolic language of Aramaic-speaking Judaism. As the movement spread into the Greek-speaking world, these experiences were translated into new linguistic and philosophical categories. While many of the underlying themes remained consistent, the conceptual framework used to interpret them evolved significantly over time.
I agree that the shift from the Hebrew roots to the Greek-Roman cultural heritage was a critical period in the early history of Christianity. The leadership of Christianity shifted from Hebrews rooted in the Hebrew culture to pagan Christians with roots in the culture and philosophy of the Greek-Roman world. That may have changed viewpoints and interpretations of the original teachings and led to assimilating teachings coming from Greek philosophy into Christianity.
Some call this period the first major schism in the history of Christianity.
But did the teaching really change during the critical period? Minor alterations may have happened but I do not see evidence of a major change.
During the time of Jesus, many Hebrews could not understand Hebrew language. Aramaic may have been the main language used in the area where Jesus lived but Koine Greek was also understood and used by many. Koine Greek was the lingua franca of that time, using it was a bit like I write this in English although English is not my native language. The use of Koine Greek facilitated wider communication but did not change the mindset of the Hebrews using that language like I use English. When the gospels were written in Koine Greek, the mindset behind the text was still rooted in the Hebrew world.
Christianity is a Jesus-movement, firmly established on the teachings of Jesus (as mediated by the apostles he sent) and on a refined interpretation of the prophetic texts about the Messiah in the Hebrew bible. What Jesus teached is very fundamental to Christianity. However we want to interpret the messages of Christianity, if our interpretations do not agree with what Jesus teached, we are not followers of Jesus. That means accepting all the teachings of Jesus, also those that sound exclusive or where he identifies himself with God or with the prophetic texts that reveal the Messiah (Son of Man) as a divine character. Gospel of John tells that Jesus was full of grace and truth. We need both sides, in balance, to be followers of Jesus.
Hebrew mindset was rooted in what was practical and corporeal, although they also believed in the heavenly realm with heavenly creatures and the throne of God. The mystical elements appear to be mainly later additions adopted from the other religions and philosophies. The later Greek theologians, like Gregory of Nyssa, did not get their mystical elements from the Hebrew roots.
The weakness of experiental theology is that it leads to major disagreements about the transcendent. That happens because our experiences and our interpretations of these experiences are highly subjective. Although I appreciate the experiental side and think it is important, there needs to be a way to evaluate the conflicting claims based on the experiences. My understanding and belief is that the biblical scriptures can serve as a measure that is more reliable than the diverse claims that are based on our subjective experiences. Also I have experiences of the transcendent but I do not give to my experiences more weight than the subjective experiences deserve.
So, actually, as you yourself said: “The real disagreement is not about compassion or mysticism but about authority.”
On that point I agree with you: the real disagreement is about authority. You place primary authority in religious experience, while I place it in revelation interpreted through the historical claims of Christianity.
You appeal to Meister Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa, Nicholas of Cusa.
Summary: Meister Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa, and Nicholas of Cusa were all Christian mystics, but none of them denied the resurrection of Jesus. Their mystical theology operated within the framework of classical Christian doctrine rather than replacing it.
A question remains: how do we know that the mystical experiences reported in different traditions are encounters with the same transcendent reality rather than different interpretations of different experiences? Traditions describe very different ultimate realities: a personal creator God, an impersonal absolute, emptiness, divine unity, or many gods. If experience is primary, what allows us to conclude that these experiences refer to the same reality rather than different ones?
Personally, I believe that the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ is—as my youngest brother called it—“the litmus test”.
Knor has responded to your post, but I hate to miss an opportunity to say:
Rob, the linguistic point you raise is well known in New Testament scholarship. The early Jesus movement did move from an Aramaic-speaking Jewish environment into the Greek-speaking world, and later theology used philosophical vocabulary that the earliest disciples did not employ.
But that observation does not actually demonstrate that the underlying beliefs were substantially altered.
The earliest Christian sources we possess—Paul’s letters—were already written in Greek and yet contain extremely early formulations of belief. For example, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, which most historians date to within a few years of the crucifixion, already proclaims the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus. That material predates the later doctrinal language by centuries.
In other words, the terminology developed, but the claims themselves appear very early.
The same is true with many of the examples you mention. “Kingdom of God,” “Son of Man,” and “Abba” certainly carry Semitic nuance, but the Greek texts themselves already treat them as part of the distinctive message about Jesus rather than as concepts whose meaning radically shifted later.
So I would agree that theological vocabulary expanded as Christianity entered the Greek intellectual world. What is much harder to demonstrate is that the central claims about Jesus were created or fundamentally reinterpreted in that process rather than simply articulated more precisely over time.
There are also esoteric currents (especially modern reinterpretations of Gnostic themes ) that portray the afterlife, or the material cosmos itself, not as something based ultimately on love; but as a kind of spiritual control system administered by the Demiurge and his archons. In those views, human suffering, attachment, love, and emotional reactivity are sources of energy that keep the system functioning and the soul entangled within it and, from that perspective, inner detachment is seen as a way of becoming less readable, less usable, and therefore harder for the “system” to capture. In those views, the afterlife is seen as a proper processing machine devised by the demiurge and his archons to feed on it, there is no place for actual love and meaning, humans are basically seen as farm animals.
In other words, there is no end to the depths of error into which a person may fall if he places his trust in his own perceptions and experiences above Revelation. This is why the Bible urges us to test the spirits.
2 Cor 11:14: “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”
P.s: your post is tip top.
Perfect. Really.
There is a lesson there about the limits of “mystical experience.” The experience felt profound at the time, but in reality it was just a chemically induced confusion that could easily have led me into real trouble.
Looking back, it reminds me why Christianity has always insisted that personal experiences—even very powerful ones—must be tested rather than simply trusted. Experiences can be vivid and persuasive while still being mistaken. That is precisely why the New Testament repeatedly urges believers to “test the spirits” rather than assume that every powerful inner impulse comes from God.
Again: absolutely perfect. And thank you for your personal annedoct, extremely interesting.
There are brilliant people in any field from a whole range of belief systems. Frankly, I’m more concerned about the damage to faith done by the large number of stupid Christians on the internet spouting incredibly dumb ideas than I am about the damage done by a handful of brilliant atheists advancing scientific fields.
It’s not your job to prove that anyone else is wrong or convince anyone else you are right. It’s your job to be confident and at peace about what you believe and get out in the world and do something of value because of what you believe. “Defending the faith” is overrated. What counts according to the Bible is treating other people like they are Jesus and responding to real people’s needs with compassion, service, and advocacy.
One reason there are fewer Christians in scientific vocations is because a lot of churches and Christian parents actively discourage young people from pursuing careers in science, thinking science is somehow an enemy of God or a hostile place for Christians. The most intelligent Christian kids are often not being pushed toward STEM careers the way non-religious parents are pushing their most gifted kids. If people want to see more smart Christians in science, they need to encourage smart Christians to study science.
Likewise your insistence that the resurrection was a one time only direct message from God which counterfeits whatever anyone else believes means there can be no bridge of communication between you and the other person unless their beliefs mean a whole lot less to them than yours do to you.
Exclusivist religion is not the way to a better understanding between communities of people.
I remember a while ago seeing a post from a critic of Christianity saying that elements like the Trinity “aren’t actually in the Bible,” which Rob seems to have alluded to. Could someone explain this question in more depth, please?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
